Or duty may have had some influence in the rise of Nazi Germany/
Fascism.
On Sep 2, 6:34 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thousands of scholars have spent millions of hours arguing about the
> meaning (single and combined) and consequences of the central terms
> which Kant used to define his philosophy, and "duty" is one. It's not
> uncomplicated, in many cases, for us to grok his late 18th. Century
> Königsberg/Prussia world from our 21st. Century, globalised, complex,
> multi-centred (fragmented?) viewpoint. A few comments:
>
> One of Kant's basic axioms is that the human person is a rational
> being, he/she is defined according to this characteristic. Despite his
> radical break with previous philosophical paradigms, Kant is still
> deeply influenced by their basic concepts. As such, there follows
> immediately a second axiom, to wit, that the “purpose” of this
> rational being is to express, to realise his/her rationality.
> Following this path is the way to “happiness.” Compliance with one's
> true nature brings happiness in a way that wealth, for example, being
> only a means to something else, cannot. It is, essentially, setting
> the will on the expression of one’s rational nature (even if we, as
> humans, can only experience and discourse over it – mostly - within
> our phenomenological horizons [I don't want to get into a discussion
> on Kant's approach to the transcendental and God here]).
>
> In this context, we need a tool to help us discern between will and
> desire. This is where duty (germ. Pflicht) comes in. Duty expresses
> the correlation of the decisions and actions we take with that which
> reason tells us is the right way to judge or act. Sometimes desire may
> also lead in this direction, sometimes it may lead in another. Duty,
> in the sense in which I have defined it, is a reliable guide.
>
> In this context, I believe that Kant’s choice of concept is partially,
> at least, socio-culturally defined. Kant’s background was that of
> sincerely professed simple Protestant pietism, lived out in a Prussian
> society which, following the lead of Frederick the Great, had as one
> of its positive ideals that of the dedicated, dutiful, incorruptible
> public servant. So the image of “duty” was familiar and comfortable to
> him. Had his biography had a French background, he might have taken
> the meme “right” instead and still reached the same ultimate position.
>
> Because that’s where Kant really wants to get to, and the concepts
> above are only tools to help him to get there. Working with the memes
> of “reason”, “happiness” and “duty” he can formulate the categorical
> imperative as the basis for morality. "Act only according to that
> maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a
> universal law."* Or, in this context, perhaps the third formulation of
> the same shows most clearly the central position he wants to present
> "Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his
> maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends."*
>
> (*The quotations are from the “Groundwork of the Metaphysic of
> Morals”)
>
> Francis
>
> On 2 Sep., 01:23, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Kant admits that happiness is something very difficult to define. He
> > states: "The concept of happiness is such an indeterminate concept
> > that, although every human being wishes to attain this, he could still
> > never say determinately and consistently with himself what he really
> > wishes and wills."
>
> > However in the Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant suggests
> > that attaining happiness is not just a want but a duty. He states: "To
> > assure one's own happiness is a duty (at least indirectly); for the
> > discontent with one's state, in a press of cares and amidst
> > unsatisfied wants, might easily become a great temptation to the
> > transgression of duty."
>
> > I'm thinking that not recognizing this duty leaves one vulnerable to
> > the dissatisfying results of false pursuits of happiness. Like Kant's
> > example of a wealthy person who thinks there is happiness in wealth
> > but then realizes it has no real value due to the anxiety in attaining
> > and keeping it.
>
> > Kant indicates that all men regardless have an innate sense to find
> > happiness, referred to as inclination. The dilemma being that much of
> > the time one's happiness results in the unhappiness of someone else
> > therefore concluding that everyone could not possibly be happy at the
> > same time. Even in the Eudemonist sense there are no guarantees or
> > there is a great reliability on the individual's ability to achieve
> > happiness.
>
> > I see a direct conflict between desires, happiness and morality
> > because much of the pursuit of happiness creates an abandonment of
> > morality and desire fails to promote happiness, perhaps temporarily or
> > at least at the achievement level.
>
> > Aside from morality issues the end road for me is the question of the
> > duty to assure happiness. Is there individual duty to assure
> > happiness and if there is would each individual happiness lead to the
> > ultimate happiness of society. I've always said, "If you want to be
> > happy make the people around you happy". Make the world around you
> > happy and you will be living in a happy world.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
