Dear Mr.Bonevac, First I wanted to thank you for the reply,I really didn't expect one! :) And second,in response to your question,the sound is better than the ones before.thanks again.:) Looking forward to watching your lectures,I wish there were more people like you doing this...sharing their knowledge for free for everyone. I really appreciate what you are doing.

@PhiloofAlexandria

5 жыл бұрын

Thanks! I'll continue working on it. When I talked to a specialist in audio they wanted to sell me a mic system for $700; the setup I bought was $30! Using its recorded output directly didn't seem to work well, so I played around with the file in Garageband to improve it. I hope I'll get better at it over the next few weeks!

Kant would say steal from anyone is wrong, and redistribution of wealth can only be done through legal means.

Thanks for the lectures!

idk if anyone will see this but i am a confused school student in want of some help, so far i mostly understand Kant's theory but i am stuck, i don't understand what kant's reason for the categorical imperative is. I understand that mathematical backgrounds want objectivity but beyond that i am confused as to -why Kant thinks that something has to be able to be willingly universalizable for it to be a valid moral maxim-, that is my first question, why not the hypothetical? (That is not to say that there aren't benefits to objective understanding its more asking what was kants argument/reason) And the other area that i am confused with is the idea of the maxim specificity that was brought up in this lecture, how do we determine what a maxim is? I don't understand how the maxim can be judged or even defined (as with the robin hood example) outside the situation it is in don't maxims exist in the situations that define them, how else do we define them and judge them if the context determines them? -How did Kant suggest we determine the maxim we put forward in any given situation, especially from an unbiased/ absolute perspective outside of our own perception/subjectivity?- Sorry for the long comment, any ideas would be greatly appreciated ahaha

@Emily-tb5dd

3 жыл бұрын

aha- idk why it crossed out half of my comment, here it is again idk if anyone will see this but i am a confused school student in want of some help, so far i mostly understand Kant's theory but i am stuck, i don't understand what kant's reason for the categorical imperative is. I understand that mathematical backgrounds want objectivity but beyond that i am confused as to why Kant thinks that something has to be able to be willingly universalizable for it to be a valid moral maxim, that is my first question, why not the hypothetical? (That is not to say that there aren't benefits to objective understanding its more asking what was kants argument/reason) And the other area that i am confused with is the idea of the maxim specificity that was brought up in this lecture, how do we determine what a maxim is? I don't understand how the maxim can be judged or even defined (as with the robin hood example) outside the situation it is in don't maxims exist in the situations that define them, how else do we define them and judge them if the context determines them? How did Kant suggest we determine the maxim we put forward in any given situation, especially from an unbiased/ absolute perspective outside of our own perception/subjectivity? Sorry for the long comment, any ideas would be greatly appreciated ahaha

@dododododododod

2 жыл бұрын

hey Emily. i have read a little bit of kant so I might try to help you with it. even though I am a freshman too. lol,,,, so consider maxim as a policy of your action or basically intention for the timebeing. but also remember there is a subtle difference bw maxim and intention but that's atleast on our intellectual level, dismissal.

@dododododododod

2 жыл бұрын

@@Emily-tb5dd I hope you know the basic Kant's philosophy of not treating humanity as means but an end in itself. however, categorical imperative (we hich includes principal of universality) is a seive,a test, a decision procedure to check our maxims. depending on the result, it classify the maxims into permissible, forbidden and obligatory maxims. i think i have shared all that I could so hope it helps

Don't do to others what you don't want to be done to yourself. Isn't this the golden rule?

@therobin980

4 жыл бұрын

It's often falsely equated with the golden rule, but it is actually not. The reason not to do something, according to Kant, is not because you wouldn't want it done to yourself. English is not my native language, so i don't think i can explain why that is in english but if you look closer at how the categorical imperative works, you will see that it is quite different from the golden rule

@YamiAi

4 жыл бұрын

Kant's formula is different because, by the golden rule one may wish pain ongo oneself and so onto others, but by universalizing impartially one must take into account that others do not desire necessarily what one desires, and so by respecting them as ends in themselves one does not deprive them of autonomy by imposing pain on them.

@dododododododod

2 жыл бұрын

no certainly it isn't, what atleast kant meant. kant, to be talking in modern terms, was all about consent. it does not imply that you two want similar things, rather that all the entities involved consent to each other and are not decieved in any sense.