Status Updates From O podstawie moralnosci

Finished Chapter 9: On the Ethical Difference of the Character
[comments on no free will and its consequences wrt morality and ethics]

Part Four: On the Meta Physical Explanation of the Primal Ethical Phenomenon
Chapter 1: How This Appendix must be Understood

Listening to this as an audiobook. Schopenhauer is writing an essay to the Royal Society on the basis of morality, and starts with a critique of Kant’s categorical imperative, his argument claiming that this ethical framework is based on theological principles and assumptions. This is compelling and Nietzsche’s claim that ethics are invented after a moral claim is asserted may ring true here.

when I arrive to a competition in biggest love-hate parasocial relationship and my opponent is Schopenhauer (he's talking abt Kant)

CHAPTER VIII. THE PROOF NOW GIVEN CONFIRMED BY EXPERIENCE.
about Compassion, animals

Starting:
CHAPTER IX. ON THE ETHICAL DIFFERENCE OF CHARACTER.
p. 175

CHAPTER VIII.
THE PROOF NOW GIVEN CONFIRMED BY EXPERIENCE.
p. 157

Nic nie rozumiem ale buja

Schopy argues that it's clear that Kant's famous leading principle isn't CATEGORICAL, but is in reality a HYPOTHETICAL Imperative.

Simple intuition - the Imperative tacitly assumes the condition that the law isn't just established for what I DO, but what is done TO ME as well; so I am not just active, but passive as well: 'eventualiter'.

I cannot possibly wish for injustice - very Rawlsian!

Note 3/3:

Think of 'intuitive perception' as some sort of common-sense intellectual intuition. The understanding immediately applies the intellectual forms of the Categories to sensory data.

But do animals know causality a priori?

Note 2/3:
We come to have 'intuitive perception' by directly referring the senses' Impressions to their cause. This presents itself as an 'external object' under the appropriate mode of intuition, i.e. in space. This supposedly proves that the Law of Causality is known a priori - since experience itself is only possible thru the same Law (I don't necessarily see why).

Note 1/2:

Schopy now explains why causality is known a priori, which I don't understand.

Premise: The 'intuitive perception' of the external world. We use this premise cuz the senses are only capable of Impression - very distinct from 'intuitive perception'.

Impression is nothing but the 'material' of 'intuitive perception'.

The consensus came to be that Reason was the capacity to comprehend the 'Supersensuous', i.e. abstract ideas named Concepts.

Animals cannot comprehend Concepts. Hence the distinction between Reason and 'Understanding' - the latter is knowledge that animals also possess in varying degrees: direct consciousness of the law of causality.

Interesting - causality isn't an abstract concept. It's conditioned by experience.

Kant claimed that ethics must be synthetic a priori

Makes sense - the Categorical Imperative can be grasped a priori in the synthetic world we are trapped in (bound by Kant's categories).

But this is a problem - the synthetic world may not contain anything material OR empirical, whether in the external world or within consciousness!

How can laws of human action emerge from this nothingness? We await Kant's answer.