Comments on: In Defense of Kant http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:42:59 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Spoon http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/comment-page-1/#comment-221271 Spoon Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:43:57 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/#comment-221271 @ 19: You're right, he played both Rod and Princeton in the original cast of Avenue Q. @ 19: You’re right, he played both Rod and Princeton in the original cast of Avenue Q.

]]> By: Western Dave http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/comment-page-1/#comment-221240 Western Dave Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:21:21 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/#comment-221240 Technically, they are Sprites not muppets and the show is not Sesame Street (PBS) but Johnny and the Sprites (Disney). Personally, I'm going with whoever Yo Gabba Gabba ends up supporting. Technically, they are Sprites not muppets and the show is not Sesame Street (PBS) but Johnny and the Sprites (Disney). Personally, I’m going with whoever Yo Gabba Gabba ends up supporting.

]]> By: An attack ad, a musical and a bit of philosophy « Entertaining Research http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/comment-page-1/#comment-221193 An attack ad, a musical and a bit of philosophy « Entertaining Research Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:11:25 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/#comment-221193 [...] attack ad, a musical and a bit of philosophy For and against Kant at Crooked Timber; via Delong and Abi, repsectively. Abi’s post also ties it [...] [...] attack ad, a musical and a bit of philosophy For and against Kant at Crooked Timber; via Delong and Abi, repsectively. Abi’s post also ties it [...]

]]> By: mcd http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/comment-page-1/#comment-221088 mcd Mon, 10 Dec 2007 02:41:09 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/#comment-221088 Voting for Kant is imperative! Voting for Kant is imperative!

]]> By: JP Stormcrow http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/comment-page-1/#comment-221087 JP Stormcrow Mon, 10 Dec 2007 01:48:23 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/#comment-221087 Everyone's ignoring the essential question in this race: Is Kant "man" enough to waterboard John Ashcroft live right on the stage at the next YouTube debate? Everyone’s ignoring the essential question in this race: Is Kant “man” enough to waterboard John Ashcroft live right on the stage at the next YouTube debate?

]]> By: the mountain http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/comment-page-1/#comment-221081 the mountain Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:12:48 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/#comment-221081 @14 Perhaps they are championing Parfit's approach. ;) @14

Perhaps they are championing Parfit’s approach. ;)

]]> By: noen http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/comment-page-1/#comment-221080 noen Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:38:37 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/#comment-221080 This is all in good fun of curse, but the song is really just a way to keep the little twerps from fighting all the time. You introduce the idea that instead of bashing Johnny over the head and taking the toy away from him by force you have the option of negotiating with him for an exchange. It saves on the yelling and screaming. Now if we can just get our politicians up to the emotional level of a 4 year old we'd be getting somewhere. This is all in good fun of curse, but the song is really just a way to keep the little twerps from fighting all the time. You introduce the idea that instead of bashing Johnny over the head and taking the toy away from him by force you have the option of negotiating with him for an exchange. It saves on the yelling and screaming.

Now if we can just get our politicians up to the emotional level of a 4 year old we’d be getting somewhere.

]]> By: Jon H http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/comment-page-1/#comment-221077 Jon H Sun, 09 Dec 2007 20:33:05 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/#comment-221077 <i>If Kant were gay, That'd be okay...</i> If I'm not mistaken, the guy singing was in the original Broadway cast of Avenue Q. If Kant were gay,
That’d be okay…

If I’m not mistaken, the guy singing was in the original Broadway cast of Avenue Q.

]]> By: jacob http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/comment-page-1/#comment-221075 jacob Sun, 09 Dec 2007 18:07:26 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/#comment-221075 <i>Hegel for President!</i> Look, you can throw away your vote if you choose, but remember, a vote for Hegel counts as a vote for Nietzsche. Don't waste your vote on a protest candidate. Hegel for President!

Look, you can throw away your vote if you choose, but remember, a vote for Hegel counts as a vote for Nietzsche. Don’t waste your vote on a protest candidate.

]]> By: The Culture Wars Invade Philosophy « Philosophy On The Mesa http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/comment-page-1/#comment-221074 The Culture Wars Invade Philosophy « Philosophy On The Mesa Sun, 09 Dec 2007 17:25:12 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/#comment-221074 [...]  Update: Kant’s campaign advisors respond. [...] [...]  Update: Kant’s campaign advisors respond. [...]

]]> By: alex404 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/comment-page-1/#comment-221071 alex404 Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:04:41 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/#comment-221071 Some have already noticed that the host is defending a claim that rules have a certain social consistency element to them. From this I personally drew a Wittgensteinian moral. While the host's talk appeared to reify rules, which is obviously problematic, his insistence on the intelligibility of rules is a little more flexible. I found that one could interpret the host not as saying that rules are decided to exist for a reason, but that the constitution and possibility of rules lies in their social intelligibility. If this is correct, then we're not dealing with rules as some sort of mental construct, but as acceptable social practices. If so, then we fall happily into the paradox of rule following, which I suspect these mutant teletubbies would have found quite enjoyable. Some have already noticed that the host is defending a claim that rules have a certain social consistency element to them. From this I personally drew a Wittgensteinian moral. While the host’s talk appeared to reify rules, which is obviously problematic, his insistence on the intelligibility of rules is a little more flexible.

I found that one could interpret the host not as saying that rules are decided to exist for a reason, but that the constitution and possibility of rules lies in their social intelligibility. If this is correct, then we’re not dealing with rules as some sort of mental construct, but as acceptable social practices. If so, then we fall happily into the paradox of rule following, which I suspect these mutant teletubbies would have found quite enjoyable.

]]> By: ben saunders http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/comment-page-1/#comment-221070 ben saunders Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:59:15 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/#comment-221070 I suppose the problem is that what it is for the rules to 'make sense' is under-defined. Then again, that seems perfectly acceptable in this context - first introduce children to the idea that rules shouldn't be arbitrary (moo) and then no doubt they can argue about the exactly which rules are justified and why next week. My point was only that the utilitarian maximizing standard was not presupposed. One might argue that would justify rules to everyone (a la Harsanyi), but one could also show more respect for the separateness of persons. (I can't be bothered to re-watch the video, but beleive there was some emphasis on acceptability to others) I suppose the problem is that what it is for the rules to ‘make sense’ is under-defined. Then again, that seems perfectly acceptable in this context – first introduce children to the idea that rules shouldn’t be arbitrary (moo) and then no doubt they can argue about the exactly which rules are justified and why next week.

My point was only that the utilitarian maximizing standard was not presupposed. One might argue that would justify rules to everyone (a la Harsanyi), but one could also show more respect for the separateness of persons. (I can’t be bothered to re-watch the video, but beleive there was some emphasis on acceptability to others)

]]> By: engels http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/comment-page-1/#comment-221068 engels Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:45:12 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/#comment-221068 I think that the significance of the 'good of all of us' clause may have been over-emphasised in some of the preceding discussion. It is perhaps worth noting that it only occurs in the first chorus and in the second it is replaced by the more ambiguous--some might say evasive--'I know just what you mean!' Due weight ought to be given to the lead-in and the verses. Before the music starts the presenter briefly sketches his position as 'the rules have to make sense', which seems strongly suggestive of a rational consistency standard. In addition, in a later verse the muppets sing: <blockquote>Though you might think a rule is best for you</blockquote> <blockquote>A rule should work for all the others too</blockquote> which appears to gesture towards Kantian universalizability. So perhaps Sesame Street's interpreters will have to face up to the fact that there is more than one 'fundamental principle of morality' expressed in the song and these principles can not be regarded as logically equivalent. I think that the significance of the ‘good of all of us’ clause may have been over-emphasised in some of the preceding discussion. It is perhaps worth noting that it only occurs in the first chorus and in the second it is replaced by the more ambiguous—some might say evasive—’I know just what you mean!’

Due weight ought to be given to the lead-in and the verses. Before the music starts the presenter briefly sketches his position as ‘the rules have to make sense’, which seems strongly suggestive of a rational consistency standard. In addition, in a later verse the muppets sing:

Though you might think a rule is best for you

A rule should work for all the others too

which appears to gesture towards Kantian universalizability.

So perhaps Sesame Street’s interpreters will have to face up to the fact that there is more than one ‘fundamental principle of morality’ expressed in the song and these principles can not be regarded as logically equivalent.

]]> By: elbujo http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/comment-page-1/#comment-221063 elbujo Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:51:54 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/#comment-221063 The point that should not be made up willy-nilly strikes right at the heart of the indeterminacy in the universal law test. Hegel for President! The point that should not be made up willy-nilly strikes right at the heart of the indeterminacy in the universal law test.

Hegel for President!

]]> By: Pablo http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/comment-page-1/#comment-221060 Pablo Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:03:16 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/09/in-defense-of-kant/#comment-221060 Agree, Ben. Or it seems contractualist in the sense of Scanlon (and perhaps also Rawls, and Habermas). Agree, Ben. Or it seems contractualist in the sense of Scanlon (and perhaps also Rawls, and Habermas).

]]>