Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 18:43:23 -0400 From: Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net> To: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> Cc: keramida@ceid.upatras.gr, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020910184323.14d0a796.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020910135549.W35938-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> References: <20020910152817.7ceb1917.yid@softhome.net> <20020910135549.W35938-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:00:40 -0700 (PDT) "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> wrote: > > > ROFL. You think Kantian ethics are objective? BTW, please > > > > Kantian ethics are objective, I don't happen to like a few of the > > conclusions it reaches, but they are objective, without placing a > > Kant's whole philosophy was infected with subjectivism. In what way? > > Funny, you being a Protestant, I thought you would like Kant. > > What, you think Kant was a Christian? No, but his point of view is very much old-school Protestant. Keep in mind that his parents were 18th century German Pietists. > What makes you think that? I like the fact that he started asking > the right kinds of questions, given his work on transcendental > arguments, but the problem with Kant is that he still started with > man as his starting point, which is the source of the subjectivism > in his philosophy. No, with Kant, man was his *ending* point, not his starting point. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020910184323.14d0a796.yid>