A certain (in)famous poster here has been known to make references to Kant's philosophical quotations.

This might serve as a warning. Russian man shot in quarrel over Kant’s philosophy

Attacker now faces ten years incarceration to contemplate the ethics of his actions

Even though he used an air gun and rubber bullets.
The victim was hospitalised with non-life threatening injuries.

"Agreeing to disagree" only works when both parties agree to keep their opinions to themselves. If either one of them are an activist that wishes to influence policy, it's too important to let it go.

Here is a copy and paste from wiki.

He stated:


It always remains a scandal of philosophy and universal human reason that the existence of things outside us ... should have to be assumed merely on faith, and that if it occurs to anyone to doubt it, we should be unable to answer him with a satisfactory proof.[3]

Now why would anyone of faith quote Kant? To me Kant is saying faith cant answer the question.

---

[/quote]

Old James

"Kant" wrote:

It always remains a scandal of philosophy and universal human reason that the existence of things outside us ... should have to be assumed merely on faith, and that if it occurs to anyone to doubt it, we should be unable to answer him with a satisfactory proof.

Now why would anyone of faith quote Kant? To me Kant is saying faith cant answer the question.

Actually, it seems to me that Kant is saying one of the biggest problems for philosophy is that things "outside us" (presumably he is referring to spiritualism) must be taken on faith alone. Anyone who doubts it seems to think that no one is able to answer with satisfactory proof. In other words, Kant believes the doubter already has his mind made up and no amount of proof will convince them.

In that same Wikipedia article, it says about Kant's belief on God:

"Kant" wrote:

Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his Critique of Practical Reason. As an idea of pure reason, "we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner ... the object of this idea", but adds that the idea of God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality as the "ideal of the supreme good". The foundation of this connection is an intelligible moral world, and "is necessary from the practical point of view"; compare Voltaire: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." In the Jäsche Logic (1800) he wrote "One cannot provide objective reality for any theoretical idea, or prove it, except for the idea of freedom, because this is the condition of the moral law, whose reality is an axiom. The reality of the idea of God can only be proved by means of this idea, and hence only with a practical purpose, i.e., to act as though (als ob) there is a God, and hence only for this purpose" (9:93, trans. J. Michael Young, Lectures on Logic, p. 590–91).
Along with this 'idea' on reason and God, Kant places thought over religion and nature[citation needed], i.e. the idea of religion being natural or naturalistic. Kant saw reason as natural, and as some part of Christianity is based on reason and morality, as Kant points out this is major in the scriptures, it is inevitable that Christianity is 'natural'. However, it is not 'naturalistic' in the sense that the religion does include supernatural or transcendent belief. Aside from this, a key point is that Kant saw that the Bible should be seen as a source of natural morality no matter whether there is/was any truth behind the supernatural factor, meaning that it is not necessary to know whether the supernatural part of Christianity has any truth to abide by and use the core Christian moral code.
Kant articulates in Book Four some of his strongest criticisms of the organization and practices of religious organizations that encourage what he sees as a religion of counterfeit service to God. Among the major targets of his criticism are external ritual, superstition and a hierarchical church order. He sees all of these as efforts to make oneself pleasing to God in ways other than conscientious adherence to the principle of moral rightness in the choice of one's actions. The severity of Kant's criticisms on these matters, along with his rejection of the possibility of theoretical proofs for the existence of God and his philosophical re-interpretation of some basic Christian doctrines, have provided the basis for interpretations that see Kant as thoroughly hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular (e.g., Walsh 1967).Nevertheless, other interpreters consider that Kant was trying to mark off a defensible rational core of Christian belief. Kant sees in Jesus Christ the affirmation of a "pure moral disposition of the heart" that "can make man well-pleasing to God".

It's understandable why a believer would want to quote Kant, though in my opinion there's far too much wrong with Kant's positions and statements to ever find myself agreeing with him on matters of God.

It just seems to me that all these philosophers throughout the ages have caused nothing but trouble. When you encourage people that can't cope with it to think outside the box, then the problems start. Most of them simply have an over active mind and that's it. Have any of them solved any of the worlds problems, cured cancer, brought peace?

Great point.

---

[/quote]

Old James

It just seems to me that all these philosophers throughout the ages have caused nothing but trouble. When you encourage people that can't cope with it to think outside the box, then the problems start. Most of them simply have an over active mind and that's it. Have any of them solved any of the worlds problems, cured cancer, brought peace?

Great point.

+1 The only thing they actually did was causing quite some confusion to people who can't think outside the box, which is the majority. On the other hand they brought a lot of insights to people with a tendency to be more 'open minded'...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

We must not forget that what we call science, Physics and Chemistry, was called Natural Philosophy until late into the 19th Century.

"Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" (The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy) (1687) is the title of the work covering the laws of motion and the "Treatise on Natural Philosophy" (1867) defines modern Physics.

In those days Biology in the UK was studied as Natural Theology.

So when we discus early science we are in fact discussing philosophy or theology.

So when we discuss early science we are in fact discussing philosophy or theology.

The fact that early western civilization "scientists" viewed their work as philosophy or theology held them (and therefore western civilization) back for centuries. Just look at the drivel that Aristotle wrote, claiming it was science. After reading that, why would anyone trust his pronouncements on ANY subject? The man was obviously just playing with words, and had no interest in the relation of the words to reality.

My main question to Kant or Aristotle or any of their kind is "show me the data". They can't. Therefore they serve no purpose.

---

My main question to Kant or Aristotle or any of their kind is "show me the data". They can't. Therefore they serve no purpose.

They do serve a great purpose for Humanities (Studia Humanitatis) according to me!

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

My main question to Kant or Aristotle or any of their kind is "show me the data". They can't. Therefore they serve no purpose.

They do serve a great purpose for Humanities (Studia Humanitatis) according to me!

Earlier you +1'd a comment basically asking the same thing that Bill asked. Now you argue that philosophers have served a great purpose for the humanities. Methinks you misunderstood the first comment you +1'd.

My main question to Kant or Aristotle or any of their kind is "show me the data". They can't. Therefore they serve no purpose.

They do serve a great purpose for Humanities (Studia Humanitatis) according to me!

Earlier you +1'd a comment basically asking the same thing that Bill asked. Now you argue that philosophers have served a great purpose for the humanities. Methinks you misunderstood the first comment you +1'd.

Yes, but what I also commented was this:

On the other hand they brought a lot of insights to people with a tendency to be more 'open minded'...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

My main question to Kant or Aristotle or any of their kind is "show me the data". They can't. Therefore they serve no purpose.

They do serve a great purpose for Humanities (Studia Humanitatis) according to me!

Earlier you +1'd a comment basically asking the same thing that Bill asked. Now you argue that philosophers have served a great purpose for the humanities. Methinks you misunderstood the first comment you +1'd.

Yes, but what I also commented was this:

On the other hand they brought a lot of insights to people with a tendency to be more 'open minded'...

That was your own comment. No one else made any comment supportive of that. Were you +1'ing your own comment?

Chris' original comment was:

It just seems to me that all these philosophers throughout the ages have caused nothing but trouble. When you encourage people that can't cope with it to think outside the box, then the problems start. Most of them simply have an over active mind and that's it. Have any of them solved any of the worlds problems, cured cancer, brought peace?

Now Chris can clarify what he meant, but I believe he was saying that philosophers are blowhards that can't think outside the box with an overactive mind, and further stated they have not solved any of the world's problems, essentially calling them useless.

I don't think this is what you meant to +1 as it seems counter to your views.

My main question to Kant or Aristotle or any of their kind is "show me the data". They can't. Therefore they serve no purpose.

They do serve a great purpose for Humanities (Studia Humanitatis) according to me!

Earlier you +1'd a comment basically asking the same thing that Bill asked. Now you argue that philosophers have served a great purpose for the humanities. Methinks you misunderstood the first comment you +1'd.

Yes, but what I also commented was this:

On the other hand they brought a lot of insights to people with a tendency to be more 'open minded'...

That was your own comment. No one else made any comment supportive of that. Were you +1'ing your own comment?

No ,I +1'd the fact that they indeed didn't solve any of the Worlds problems.
What comment of my own did I + 1'd then? I didn't leave any comment before that?

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

My main question to Kant or Aristotle or any of their kind is "show me the data". They can't. Therefore they serve no purpose.

They do serve a great purpose for Humanities (Studia Humanitatis) according to me!

Earlier you +1'd a comment basically asking the same thing that Bill asked. Now you argue that philosophers have served a great purpose for the humanities. Methinks you misunderstood the first comment you +1'd.

Yes, but what I also commented was this:

On the other hand they brought a lot of insights to people with a tendency to be more 'open minded'...

That was your own comment. No one else made any comment supportive of that. Were you +1'ing your own comment?

No ,I +1'd the fact that they indeed didn't solve any great Worlds problems.
What comment of my own did I + 1'd then? I didn't leave any comment before that?

Ah, ok. That part was unclear to me. Thank you for explaining.

My main question to Kant or Aristotle or any of their kind is "show me the data". They can't. Therefore they serve no purpose.

They do serve a great purpose for Humanities (Studia Humanitatis) according to me!

Earlier you +1'd a comment basically asking the same thing that Bill asked. Now you argue that philosophers have served a great purpose for the humanities. Methinks you misunderstood the first comment you +1'd.

Yes, but what I also commented was this:

On the other hand they brought a lot of insights to people with a tendency to be more 'open minded'...

That was your own comment. No one else made any comment supportive of that. Were you +1'ing your own comment?

No ,I +1'd the fact that they indeed didn't solve any great Worlds problems.
What comment of my own did I + 1'd then? I didn't leave any comment before that?

Ah, ok. That part was unclear to me. Thank you for explaining.

NP:)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures