<:SquidDab:459545666725609493>

Kant believes that there is an "objective" reality called the noumenal

HOWEVER

https://archive.fo/AfVxc#selection-1032.26-1032.27 @everyone ***ATTENTION***

we know

we can only experience the "subjective" plane of reality

called the phenomological

@[ϟϟ-Ostf] Kurt Daluegette what is that chief

this gave birth to many modern and latter contemporary epistemologies

@JogaFlame Antifa and SJW's are going to raid several discord servers soon

?warn @[ϟϟ-Ostf] Kurt Daluegette trying and failing to ping everyone

<:dynoSuccess:314691591484866560> ***ϟϟ <HalfDeadSkeletor> ϟϟ#1298 has been warned.***

Again?

no man

<:Monkas:459545654029713408>

@[ϟϟ-Ostf] Kurt Daluegette we know idiot

if they comin in here

Kant wanted to marry Rationalism and Empiricism

what we doin

I look forward to skullfucking Antifa bugmen. I'll think of @Deleted User while doing so.

because his argument for ETHICS is one based on RATIONAL perimeters

it's an AXIOMATIC argument

@JogaFlame staff are aware of the situation chill

oh ok

AND ALSO deontological one

@JogaFlame pretend to be a tankie server

@Leaf Supremacist they'll never notice

it creates a UNIVERSAL AXIOM of morality

Kant doesn't claim this as objective

knowledge of morality is not a priori

WHICH would lead us down a whole 'nother rabbithole

but try to grasp these basics first.

Alright but why is the dichotomy between objective and subjective morality incorrect?

because morality is metaphysics

no serious philosopher makes claims for objective morality

he might appeal to G-d as the foundation for his deontological system

but the system is still metaphysics built on scripture (which has been done many times during the Scholastic period)

Yeah but that doesn't explain why there isn't a dichotomy between the subjective and objective bases of morality.

There absolutely is.