51–60 of 113 posts
That brought to mind this examination of Taylor Swift's Shake it Off: https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/taylor-swift-a-socratic-...
It is a pretty obvious humor device so I assume the ideas are independent. And the Socratic dialog framing adds another layer of humor since this is closer to a juxtaposition, lampooning both Swift's vapidity and Plato's writing style.
Surprised this article didn't explain the categorical imperative before appealing to it. Here's my interpretation of it, although some would say that (4) is a utilitarian interpretation(even though it's globally utilitarian) and therefore it is not truly categorical. (1) We all know that doing what's best for oneself does not count as doing something "good" or "right". Even the worst psychopath or monster will do wha…
> Kant goes one level further. He says, basically: "before you do something, ask yourself: if everyone else in the world did what you're about to do as a matter of course, will it make the world better or worse? If it makes the world worse, then don't do it". This is not the Categorical Imperative. What you're describing is more like Rule Utilitarianism. Kantian ethics is deontological, not consequentialist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find you can almost always replace “but” with “and” in situations like those and end up more heard by the other side. I understand the urge to feel heard AND whenever we bring something that may contrast we risk the disagreement connotation that “but” carries to trigger the recipient’s defensive reaction (even if unconsciously)
First rule of relationships: adhere to the first rule of improv!
[stub for offtopicness]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Kant goes one level further. He says, basically: "before you do something, ask yourself: if everyone else in the world did what you're about to do as a matter of course, will it make the world better or worse? If it makes the world worse, then don't do it". This is not the Categorical Imperative. What you're describing is more like Rule Utilitarianism. Kantian ethics is deontological, not consequentialist.
Hence my qualification at the start. My problem with deontological ethics is that the justification of it abruptly hits an impenetrable wall, i.e. the rule or the duty, unless you appeal to some benefit or prevention of harm to rational beings. Even in the Metaphysics of Morals, the whole concept of duty would be arbitrary if not in reference to rational beings. But happy to be corrected.
In what sense? There's a sense in which there's no moral law without rational agents, but Kant himself is explicit about the "good will" being entirely independent of intended or obtained ends. In other words, no rational agent needs to benefit (or be harmed) in Kant's system for individuals to be morally blameworthy or praiseworthy.
(See GMS 4:394 for the "jewel" analogy, which is most popularly cited as evidence for Kant's position on this.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find you can almost always replace “but” with “and” in situations like those and end up more heard by the other side. I understand the urge to feel heard AND whenever we bring something that may contrast we risk the disagreement connotation that “but” carries to trigger the recipient’s defensive reaction (even if unconsciously)
First rule of relationships: adhere to the first rule of improv!
They asked me if I thought it would be a fun team-building exercise to bring in their improv coach and do a class with a bunch of VPs and directors. I said no.
I understand the concept but sometimes people can be overzealous about their passions.
EDIT: I understand the concept and sometimes people can be overzealous about their passions.
Otherwise, it is a very good and thought-provoking article.
Song also proves Bieber is a dualist "cause I'm missing more than just your body" What else does she have that he misses?
Bieber in this case refers to body as in "corps", the subject's collective professional or military associations. He laments the loss of power he enjoyed stemming from the subject's erstwhile allegiance.