8/4 \- you know i think it is reasonable to claim
"you cant be serious" [NPI] about being a
Kantian, but to claim that it is vague is
silly. an entire approach to ethics is named
after kant ... that's not my doing. it would
be more not less obscure to have said i am
a deontologist than to say kantian. --psb
\_ Kant's contributions to ethics are immense. So are
Christian contributions, but hardly anyone would answer
my question with "I am a Christian." You can be a
Kantian liberal, a Kantian conservative, or a Kantian
anything in between. Heck, I could be considered a
Kantian, too. Bringing up Kant in this context clarifies
nothing other than the fact that you have read Kant.
Good for you. So have I. -- ilyas
\_ A phrase like "I am a Catholic" would have more meaning
if more people who would claim to be really are. The
teachings of the Church is treated more like recommended
guidelines or maybe merely ideas for consideration. Many
Catholics I meet remind me so much of those apocryphal
vegetarians who eat chicken or fish. It's not clear the
teachings of Kant has been diluted as much as the teachings
of the Church or of the Popes, so "I am a Kantian" probably
is more meaningful than "I am a Catholic", let alone "I am
a Christian."
\_ You can view 'teachings of Kant' as a distillation of
Christian teachings by a very intelligent man (Kant was
deeply religious). (There is much more to Kant, of course).
I can tell by what little I know of Partha's life that
Partha is not a Christian, so certainly isn't a Kantian in
any sort of hardcore sense. The Kantian label clarifies
nothing for me. -- ilyas |