Philosopher of the Week

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I am actually not interested in philosophy at all, but it's a good thread.

[Dr Goofy]

I like philosophy but have not gone through the thread... and I don't know many philosphers

[That One Guy]

While I'm definitely interested in this, I understand that it's a ton of work for little return on Cain's part. I definitely appreciate the effort - I just wish I would've had the time to actually dive in with all of this rather than only glance. Maybe a format change is in order. Rather than typing up a huge summation for each philosopher, maybe just toss up a link to the Wiki and "the big piece" of their writing and leave it to anyone interested to discuss.

Using that format, it doesn't need to be Cain that organizes it - it could be anyone choosing the philosopher and posting the appropriate links. Admittedly it's helpful to have someone steering the discussion that has some knowledge of the philosopher in question, but that's essentially burdening Cain to run an Intro to Philosophy class, something it's doubtful he has time for and would in other circumstances expect (rightly) to be paid for his efforts by the attendees.

For example:

This week's Philosopher is ...

Immanuel Kant!

Immanuel Kant (IPA: [ɪmanuəl kant]; 22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804) was an 18th-century German philosopher from the Prussian city of Königsberg (now Kaliningrad, Russia). He is regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of modern Europe and of the late Enlightenment.

His most important work is the Critique of Pure Reason, a critical investigation of reason itself. It encompasses an attack on traditional metaphysics and epistemology, and highlights Kant's own contribution to these areas. The other main works of his maturity are the Critique of Practical Reason, which concentrates on ethics, and the Critique of Judgement, which investigates aesthetics and teleology.

And from there, anyone interested would take a bit to read the referred works and start a discussion themselves with anyone else interested. If that doesn't end up getting anything going, so be it. At least no one busted ass for little to no return with that format 

[Requia ☣]

Didn't Kant decide is unethical because there was no reason to do it?

[Iason Ouabache]

Didn't Kant decide is unethical because there was no reason to do it?

That's bullshit!  I can think of at least a dozen reasons to  .

[Jasper]

Didn't Kant decide is unethical because there was no reason to do it?

Kant was a pointless little dork who never deserved the amount of attention he got.

[Requia ☣]

Bah, completely untrue.  Do you have any idea how effective Kant is at curing insomnia?

[Cain]

Didn't Kant decide is unethical because there was no reason to do it?

Kant was a pointless little dork who never deserved the amount of attention he got.

Um yeah.

You're an idiot.

[Jasper]

Didn't Kant decide is unethical because there was no reason to do it?

Kant was a pointless little dork who never deserved the amount of attention he got.

Um yeah.

You're an idiot.

Cool, we goanna debate Deontology now?

[LMNO]

Ok, wait.

Why was he a pointless jerk?  I've only read a few pages of his, but (dense as they were) they seemed to make some sense.

[Jasper]

As with many philosophers, I've agreed with a couple points, but when he tries to expand on them to make a whole worldview from them, they cease to hold up.

For instance, I agree with him that it is immoral to treat others as means.  I disagree with the entire basis of deontology, despite that he uses the idea I agree with to support it.

[LMNO]

Ok, I'm not familiar with the concept of Deontology.

Spill it.

[Jasper]

It's "an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions."

~Wiki

[LMNO]

You mean, "I meant well, so I'm not to blame"?

[Jasper]

You mean, "I meant well, so I'm not to blame"?

That's the essential perspective of the Deontological ethicist, yes.  EDIT:  Obviously it may be a bit of an oversimplification.

Conversely, Teleological ethicality is dependent on the outcomes of our decisions.  An action is in itself ethical if the outcome is valued as ethical.