You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Reason and Emotion: The Children of Desire - Part III
Really like this, a great analysis, and your memes are so on point. I am really attracted to Kant's thinking, but have not yet had the courage to read any of his works directly.
Still, the categorical imperative is damn interesting, and I agree that skepticism was/is a danger to morality.
I'll admit, I've never read unadulterated Kant (more than a few pages at a time). But I'm definitely no Kantian (though his categories, and how/what the brain is able to perceive must therefore affect what we perceive, and/or filter the world, is a significant achievement).
And actually, I think I missed your last point: I definitely do NOT agree that skepticism is a danger to morality. :) (Part of the confusion here may be that I'm trying to detail the historical background, laying the foundation for what I actually think. Still coming.)
Nice! I'll look forward to hearing your argument for skepticism then!
Part of this may turn on how you define skepticism. There is a philosophical school of thought that just plain refuses to believe anything. That's not the kind of skepticism I'm talking about. Skepticism, for me, is the refusal to believe anything on faith - or at least an attempt to bring the faith quotient way the hell down.
Said another way, skepticism should not be a stance, but a tool to discover truth. That being said, truth is not possible without skepticism; and morality is not possible without truth.