Domesticator

Misnomer - Kant was a dualist.

"Kantian Atheism" would roughly describe modern liberalism.

Devilnaut

That's quite ironic, because that's exactly the sort of stance that the OP was advocating, to which you replied:

And:

Are you truly suggesting that selflessness and caring about others' well being breeds intolerance?

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

Keith Russell

Devilnut:

That's exactly what I'm suggesting.

Keith.

Devilnaut

So you believe that the reason that the Taliban is extremely intolerant of those with other religious beliefs is because they care so much about their fellow man?


Forgive me but


I am not seeing the connection at all. In fact I'd suggest that exactly the opposite of what you say is true: it is those who only care for themselves and their own well-being that tend to become intolerant of others' points of view.

Edit to add:

I think I see where you're coming from, and if I'm not mistaken you're suggesting that when people care about people other than themselves, they seek to change those peoples' worldviews because they think that others would be better off believing what they believe. However, I don't think that selflessness itself or caring about others is at all to blame in this situation. Instead, it is this trait combined with extreme egoism, and such actions belie the fact that the individual in question actually does not truly care about others; he considers himself to be the final authority on what is right.

And I believe that takes us back to the point of the OP.

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

Kantian

I have already posted this before, in the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=001163&p=" target="_blank">Rants, Raving, Preaching, Etc.</a> forum. Make of it what you will.

For a god of theism, according to the standards of Kantianism he would have to be self-aware, and by being self-aware, God would be capable of applying concepts, forming judgments, and possess a mind. By having the property of a mind, there must be objects that are external to a being that is capable of becoming aware of them and establish relations with it. Since there are no objects external to an omnipresent God, God lacks a mind.

A theist requires a personal god with its own mind.
Therefore Kant is no theist.

God as a metaphysical concept was illegitimate, for Kant, and the only grounds for the concept was a moral one. After the Critique, God was no longer the metaphysical foundation for existence (like Plato, Parmenides, Aquinas, Berkeley, Descartes, or Locke's substratum).

~transcendentalist~

Rousseau_CHN

There is another Kantian in this room. Should you find any of my statement about Kant inaccurate, please forgive my stupidity.

Anyway, I was posting this to talk about another of Kant's idea: univesality.

Devilnaut wants the world to leave him alone. All these caring, he believes is what drives the Talibans act like, well, Talibans.

You could see it that way, or you could see that the Taliban to wants the world to leave them alone.

The conservative Moslem world too wants the world to leave them alone.

Evil, and I am not saying Devilnaut is evil, wants the world to mind their own business.

You want a better world. You want a rational world. You want all this, then you have to go out and make other peoples business, your business.

The Taliban was able to spread their idiocy because good people stayed away from them.

I am already blabbering...I'll stop here and say that: "the only thing needed for evil to succeed is for good man to mind their own business."

Sorry, I can't stop, I'll add another Dickens then I'll stop:

" ``Business!'' cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. ``Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!'' Merry Christmas: Believer and non-Believer alike.

Secular Pinoy

Here's a more refined version of your argument: <a href="http://www.philoonline.com/library/mccormick_3_1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.philoonline.com/library/mccormick_3_1.htm</a>, not that your argument is unrefined though.

Rousseau_CHN, nice to have you on board, pakasaya lang ikaw at sana maisipan mong magtagal pa rito!

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: Secular Pinoy ]</p>

Devilnaut

Gah, get your names right! You're referring to Keith Russel I believe.

Beoran

The problem I have with this is that what is right often depends on the situation. I think that in some (rare) situations it's better to tell an outright lie than to tell the truth.

Rousseau_CHN

Sorry, about that Devilnaut...I'd be much careful the next time