...but I'm also of the opinion that my understanding of such arguments is teleological in that I believe that weapons would not exist if man did not desire their creation and use to a certain end. Our ability to reason outside of this box, to understand why we take pleasure in certain things and not in others, to think about the causes we take up as our own and put into effect, constitute a form of judgment that one must morally account for within the soul. When we take pleasure in seeing clay pigeons blasted apart, or bullets put onto target, we can only do so with the knowledge that this pleasure taking only occurs within the context of wide misuse of such objects, not as tools of construction, but as weapons of destruction. When we commit ourselves to taking pleasure in such pursuits, we are naturally abandoning others as not of importance. These basic choices pervade our society and it is up to our reasoning ability to judge which is beautiful to our own soul and why we take pleasure in them rather than in other pursuits at that particular moment in time.
He states:
"It always remains a scandal of philosophy and universal human reason that the existence of things outside us ... should have to be assumed merely on faith, and that if it occurs to anyone to doubt it, we should be unable to answer him with a satisfactory proof."[3]
Kant proposed a ‘Copernican Revolution’ in reverse, saying that:
"Up to now it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to the objects; but ... let us once try whether we do not get farther with the problems of metaphysics by assuming that the objects must conform to our cognition."[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanual_Kant
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read