now conclude the posts on our beloved (?) Immanuel Kant with his work of 1788, otherwise known as Critique of Practical Reason .
What does the title with the text in question and especially with the argument that, with fear and worry, you are going to read?
After the usual image, I can answer you;)
In the last lesson we defined CRPR a reason for action . Film not obvious, but what is the taste of the metaphor. The term appears again
reason And this does mean that every departure must have the noumenal world as a beginning because, let's remember the CRP, we must always try to find something that is Universal and Necessary .
But Kant does not stop the noumenal world, or makes a criticism that goes exclusively to question the rules of our moral knowledge, we must not make a Critique of Pure Reason, Practical!
serves, therefore, something that is really practical or, to quote the philosopher of Königsberg, is not so much a moral metaphysics, as a moral linked to a thinking man, although finished. What does, however
the thinking man? The beautiful statue? No, of course ... The thinking man acts, moves and behaves in a certain way. The action then that philosophy is not so much to investigate the what action (the practical act in itself) but because the a person acts or intentions related to a single will. The
CRPR is thus a reason for the action of a person who is finished, or that there are limits, of boundaries: we think of mortality, as well as the instincts that make us not be so good, but to the world around us with whom you relate.
So what? Let's Hermits or bears, far from everything and everyone, and we remain as we are finished and then we will never ever be morally perfect?
.... No! The
morality, in fact, is closely connected (almost say the same thing) with the 'unconditioned , or with the possibility of being released from the bonds that bring us into trouble or so or absolute, tucking their sleeves, it is for us the task of de-conditioning . So we understand that it is not mere animals (with all due respect) but in most of them have the freedom , which for Kant is actually the first postulate of Life Ethics because it allows men to self-determination , occupying a place in society ethically priority. Obviously it is necessary that we all must be free and this can only be the case. Morality must therefore have a universal character and necessary.
Now, as if it were a game, try to reconstruct the period that I wrote from the end, or from the universal and necessary, while maintaining the original meaning and given the answer by writing it in the comments. Vale opinion as written!
Summing up, morality tells us how must act and we will suggest how we comportaci. Who wins? Vince
the relationship between reason (noumenal world) and sensitivity (phenomenal world), which won the duty, which is (coincidentally) become more and more equality with the will, with the goal of morality . The cocktail
Will & Duty generates two branches that have a subjective value, the other objective. Subjectivity is called Summary and is a little 'the motto of our day when we get up. Can apply only for us, certainly not for everyone.
The objective of this cocktail is found in so-called imperatives (etymologically: control) that instructed about how to behave a or with a hypothetical initial premise leading to the established order or absolutely.
imperatives may well be: hypothetical (expressed by the formula If ... then you : If you want to take a good mark then I study) or categorical (expressed by the formula Devi: Devi stamp the ticket on the bus).
not enough, however, a third example is represented by the imperatives of High (these, however, to the objective character) or formulations (sentences) that slowly lead the person with the ever present end of CRPR or moral autonomy. There are three
, a critic and by that extrapolated from the other two FMC and say this:
- Act so that the maxim of thy will can always rely on the same time as the principle of universal legislation
- Act so as to treat humanity, whether in your person and in that of any other, always as an end and never simply as a means
- The will, according to the maximum, can consider itself as simultaneously universal legislator
Not bad, eh? The first
shows us as all our actions must start from a maximum so our will (our thought) but this, to have objective value, should be placed as a universal law, like law applies to everyone. Do a little 'you what would happen if one thinks to do evil ... therefore, the most evil one might think, for Kant, not do it! The second
the revolution see the figure of humanity (and therefore of themselves) that goes from being just a means by which to achieve the goals, often dirty at the end of it, or the common good, the good humanity. The third
, synthesis of moral autonomy, shows us how we should be a strong identity between my maximum and that in me becomes universal law: there is no need for division or external entities. I have everything inside of me, freedom, duty and universal law: I have the moral autonomy. I myself became
legislator of morality.
as Kant has made another revolution: after that knowledge, with the 'I think I has also revolutionized the man putting the moral capacity autolegiferarsi in a universal and necessary.
If all this may seem utopian (and perhaps it is, but you do not say that around me said) always remember the value of education, or a ' art because it enables man to improve always, always, always ......