Ayn Rand ought not to be included. Marx is arguable, he was a political theorist, not a philosopher as such. — Wayfarer
I was going to leave her out, but I needed at least one philosopher. — Garrett Travers
Immanuel Kant — Garrett Travers
So, one of the key Kantian doctrines, synthetic apriority, had been largely formulated with the example of Euclidean geometry in mind that Kant used. But unfortunately, Kant's ideas were prior to the awareness that there could be what is non-Euclidean geometry: that is, hyperbolic, spherical and the many other we know from our contemporary perspective thanks to the discoveries of Gauss and Schweikart. So the perceived synthetic status of geometry is deflated to analytic status based on axioms and definition, and indeed the sides of a triangle really didn't have to add up to 180 degrees or whatever other purported synthetic facts we knew apriori. These were not in virtue of innate connection of predicate concepts but definition, reducing Kant's project to analytic apriority. — Kuro
Karl Marx — 180 Proof
Immanuel Kant — 180 Proof
Ayn Rand — 180 Proof
Michel Foucault — 180 Proof
So then, what you'll have to do is describe how someone would concluded such a fact, moreso than simply stating as much. Which is to say, explain how your Gauss and Schweikart discoverd the complex nature of non-euclidean geometry without reference to any principles theretofore established by which to do so? — Garrett Travers
I'm a little confused by the nature of your request here. Axioms and first principles are first principles for a reason, namely that they're not a "conclusion," a sort of proposition entailed by some prior set of propositions. — Kuro
Capitalism is the only system known to be conducive to the human's life, and is the only moral system. — Garrett Travers
Do you really think Kant didn’t know about spherical geometry? And didn’t take care to qualify his postulates accordingly? — Mww
1. Laissez-faire market forces reflect some set of human desires.
2. Said set of human desires includes immoral desires.
3. Laissez-faire market forces in part reflect immoral desires. — ZzzoneiroCosm
So.....while it is true non-Euclidean geometry falsifies some Euclidean axioms, it is not true non-Euclidean geometry falsifies Kantian synthetic a priori judgements. Or, I must say, a more complete demonstration that it does, would be appreciated. — Mww
What are we defining as immoral? — Garrett Travers
That's the question.
To my view, desires that reflect an exorbitant greed ought to be considered immoral. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Exorbitant greed isn't something that falls within laissez-faire. — Garrett Travers
What is there to restrain it? — ZzzoneiroCosm
And immoral market forces would be entirely subject to the moral response of the rest of society. — Garrett Travers
The creation of government agencies to redistribute wealth is "the moral response of the rest of society." — ZzzoneiroCosm
Robbing someone of their wealth does not create wealth, nor does it help the people to whom it is distributed. — Garrett Travers
I want to remind you that we're talking about wealth-accumulation motivated by immoral desires. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Redistribution of wealth accumulated immorally is hardly robbery. You might even call it justice. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Wealth accumulated immorally would imply violations of human rights. — Garrett Travers
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.