Like Robin, I've been laughing myself silly about your posts, Lawrence, you
really are on form. I "missed the good bits" too, as far as Western Civ.'s
transcendence of "barbaric greed" etc are concerned, but think that S.K. may
have been winking ironically there.
Erminia: you've got Kant on "essences" (essences are more mediaeval) all
wrong, I'm afraid, that's almost the opposite of what he said. There are the
transcendental categories and forms of sensibility, like space & time,
number, etc, but these are the preconditions of experience, not beyond it, &
not ideas. Kant did away with transcendent (note the difference from
transcendental) ideas beyond experience as a viable content of philosophical
reflection. The noumena (Dinge an sich) cannot be discovered by us, only
phenomena & the conditions for their apprehension. In ethics there are the
autonomous will, the categorical imperative & the necessity of treating
every single person as an end in herself, but no "pure ideas a priori". You
find out that lying is wrong by consulting the categorical imperative, which
itself is the necessary condition of a rational ethical standpoint.
Best
Martin
|