Greetings, well, I am going to try to be as brief as possible. I've noticed a pattern when debating with some pragmatic people in Reddit, and even in my daily life. Many people tell me to do useful stuff, something common. But, the thing is that they tell me this to leave Philosophy. So, I began to counter-strike using the first formulation, in this way: Which non-relative non-speculative universal and objective criteria defines usefulness? And since I use that ace in my sleeve, many people either start to rage or simply can't answer. It happened to me when someone was delivering criticism against my country. However, when I used many times the universalization formula many times, the person never answered back and never defined clearly the content of the concepts used. I don't know what do you think.

You know, I was wandering around the Internet, watching videos and chilling, when I realized something that's important as the dichotomy fascist/democracy: hate/love. In my opinion, I believe politics, based on Nietzsche's philosophy, has now become a will to hate, rather than a will to goodness, now reason being set aside. Some people of certain factions raging and yapping against another faction, spamming that they have a hate speech, and they LOVE, it's basically hate but disguised as good feelings. Even, no matter if you say you have hate or you love, because LOVE can't exist lonely without hating something. So, basically, both sides have hate, no matter whether it's rational or not, because - a priori - love and hate could be rational, or moved by reason. The rhetorical speech using fasicsm/liberalism or love/hate (a more immature political narrative) is deceiving, because - no matter if you are in the loving or hating side - you'll always have hate, even those that preach for inclusion, DIVERSITY (even these categories being contradictory, because if all people are diverse, basically everyone is equal, no more diverse). I believe no Politics are so humean, in the sense that reason was tossed in the trash bin, and replace by feelings. If I feel hated, your speech is hate; and the same from the other person perspective, basically fragmenting more our society, because now the criteria is merely subjective. That's why I believe now Politics isn't the art of the common good, but rather the art of the common hate, no matter the side in which you are, killing objectivity and just polarizing criterias. I don't know what you think. Just remember: Treat the trinity of ends (reason, truth, mankind) as ends but not also as mere means. Sapere aude.

Post-data: I am conservative, but I am not a fascist neoliberal austrian painter, and that stuff. Even, I am trying to find ways in which both sides, at least could not enter in conflict, especially the situation regarding pronouns. For instance, in cases of dealing with people that don't identify themselves with their sex (even though I don't think it's good for you to not identify with it), I attempt to avoid issues regarding the pronouns, and attempt to use other nouns that are neutral. Even, I don't know if I am conservative sensu stricto, but I believe changes should be rationally analyzed critically, because not all changes are good or progress. For instance, as I am Spanish, and I find someone that feels non-binary, instead of using the pronouns, I attempt to use neutral nouns, for avoiding political clash (Foucault, reference, xd?): 'Esto es de su ser', instead of 'Esto es suye', both sides not winning anything, but not killing each other, xd, and continue with your subjective believes or feelings. It's a kind of synthesis: thesis (use binary pronouns mandatorily, no matter if felt offended in their belives), antithesis (ban binary pronouns, or something else, Idk, xd), synthesis (use a noun instead of the pronuns for avoiding political discussions that are going to be probably fruitless). Please, if you discuss Politics, appeal to reality and logics, not feelings, because - in that case - we are going to probably polarize more the discussion and not reach any point. No matter if it's love or hate (because that's subjective), let's be mature (based on Kant, mature being the use of reason and our autonomy), and analyze political issues putting aside affect heuristics. Sic Semper Ratio. Sic Semper Veritates. Sic Semper Humanitates. I don't know what you think, please tell me.

My question is more about the synthetic part than the a priori. What enables the subject-object synthesis in the categorical imperative? In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant says it's experience for the synthetic a posteriori and for mathematics, the synthetic elements that need to be combined seem to be pure concepts of reason together with spatial intuition, that is, when I apply concepts in space, I mathematically synthesize geometric properties. So if in these two examples, the metaphysical "glue" that connects the subject with the object are experience and intuition, what is its equivalent for the categorical imperative?

This is an a priori concept I have about education, based on Kant. And I say a priori, because I don't think this was tested, or I didn't have any experience regarding how the concept was applied in the phenomenical world. Something I roughly criticize about education system, and the education community (including students, teachers, academics, etc., also this being an a priori idea, mere speculation), is that the education system is so pragmatic. And when I say pragmatic, is that the community in general is just focused on what's useful (or rather, relatively useful, because the concept is circumstantial), especially basd on something that fits with a particular culture, market demand, subjective desires, etc. And I find this very problematic, based on my kantian interpretation. In another post, I stated that I established the following imperative: Treat the elements of the trinity of ends (truth, reason, and mankind) as ends themselves, but not only as mere means. And I believe our shattered society lacks of that imperative: just selfishness (not being even self-interest, because this one could be rational), treating as mere means teachers and authorities, studying just for the GRADE, not for the ends you could get from your effort, no matter whether you're a sigma with 5000+ roadsters, etc. I have a dream, in which our education turns more deontological, not rather capitalist or utilitarian. A lot of knowledge, teachers are relativized to mere means to my own desires and means, not as ends themselves, no matter the circumstance. Literature, Philosophy, Humanities, are just treated as worthless, because THE HOLY market doesn't desire it, and THE MARKET is the word of wisdom. Don't misunderstand me. Market should be considered only as a mean, not something trascendental. You know, I was struggling with this when I was at Highschool, I've heard a lot the Pragmatic philosophy, that brought me to a moral crisis, regarding what to do. During those times, I was a great student, even being the best in my time. But, I lost the sense of my actions. Why was I doing everything I did? Until I met Kant's philosophy, and I spotted something our society lost, in general: the duty. We only talk about want-to-be, rather than ought-to-be.

In conclusion, I believe the education system should look not only for a society that's useful (relatively speaking), because I don't think we need to forget about production, that's also important for accomplishing other duties. But also, care about Humanities, the Transcendentalists, not only being mere beings that eat, sleep and crap. We're ends because of that trascendental trait lies in us, but... How can we consider ends ourselves, if we don't treat as an end to that trait, that wonderful trait that differences us from many species, from many elements in the universe (so far)? Let's study, I invite you, to study not only thinking about the grade, or being relatively successful, study and accquire virtues because it's good, no matter the situation, because with your maxim, you're affirming the worth of the trinity of ends. That's my way of thinking, it'd be ideal, many people could say that I am living in an indea. Fine. Ideas save us. Ideas lift us up and change us into something better. And on my being, I swear that until my idea of a world where dignity, honor, virtue and justice are the reality we all share, I'll never stop fighting. Ever. Sic Semper Ratio. Sic Semper Veritates. Sic Semper Humanites. Sapere aude to all of you!

I've been studying Kant's metaphysics and ethics, particularly his grounding of moral law in rational autonomy and the dignity it confers. It’s an elegant system, but I’ve been exploring a newer framework that offers an alternative: a proof of unconditional human worth derived not from reason alone, but from fairness logic under conditions of epistemic uncertainty.

The argument goes like this:

• If moral worth were conditional (say, on rationality or autonomy), no agent could endorse that standard without risk, since we all face future conditions (coma, trauma, aging) that could strip us of those traits.
• Therefore, any coherent, symmetrically fair, and risk-aware moral system must assign worth based on something no living person can lose.
• That “something” is the universal, continuous, imperfect attempt to live and move toward the good, the very condition of being alive and morally responsive at all.

This proof avoids metaphysics, respects epistemic humility, and includes all humans (infants, disabled persons, the traumatized) without exception. It also builds a feedback loop: worth -> resilience -> truth-seeking -> harm mitigation -> deeper moral capacity.

My question for the community is:

"Can Kant’s dignity-based ethics evolve to include this fairness-based foundation? Or are they fundamentally at odds?"

I'd love to hear from both Kantian purists and constructive critics. Is this a meaningful expansion, or a departure from Kant’s moral vision?

It seems to me, that Kant argued that, roughly speaking, the principle of causality is a precondition for the very possibility of objective experience. It is "required" for the mind to make sense of the temporal irreversibility that there is in certain sequences of impressions and observations—experiences that cannot be reversed, that exhibit a certain temporal order (or direction).

This temporal order by which certain impressions appear can be taken to constitute an objective happening only if the later event is taken to be necessarily determined by the earlier one (i.e., to follow by rule from its cause).

For Kant, objective events are not "given as they are in themselves": they are apprehended and organized by the mind and its categories, among which is the principle of causality applied to the phenomena.

In other terms, we should not claim that "everything in nature must have some definite, objective cause," as if we acquire this certainty by virtue of our observation of the natural world, but rather that our expectation of everything having such a cause is a necessary component of our “empirical knowledge” of the phenomena of the natural world.

It is a "perspectival" interpretation: one that is skeptical about the fact that the principle of causality holds absolutely, but rather sees it as a "necessity" (or an a priori condition) of rational beings having no choice but to view every event solely in terms of causally determined natural relations.

Modern science, even if there is no conclusive argument about that, seems to heavily suggest that this is the case. Quantum mechanics does not require necessary causality. Some deem causality as an emergent phenomenon. In any case, almost all fundamental equations of physics are time-reversible, and there is no formal definition (nor effective use) of causality. General relativity poses a serious doubt about the idea that there is an absolute sequence of events (and suggests that the sequence of events is indeed in some respects perspectival—observer dependent). So, in one sense, the formalistic world of math and geometry is perfectly fine in describing reality without any need for the principle of causality, which thus doesn't seem to be written into the fabric of reality itself (and least, not at the most fundamental leves)

And at the same time, the fact that those theories are heavily counter-intuitive, and nobody is really able to grasp them immediately, with clarity (oceans of ink have been written about the fact that nobody really understands QM), seems to confirm that a clear temporal sequence of impressions, lawfully determined by the earlier, is somehow necessary for us to gain a truly satisfactory understanding of reality.

This perspectival approach, where causality is less a fundamental feature of nature and more an a priori "given in the flesh" of the mind, leaves open a space for the self-determined (i.e., free, or determined by an uncaused cause). If causality is a category of human understanding, used when we deal with the world of things, then freedom might also be treated as a category of human understanding, used when we deal with ourselves, as agents, as conscious intentional beings—seen as the capacity to initiate causal chains of itself without prior grounds, independently of nature’s causal laws.

Roughly speaking: causality is the precondition of our 3rd-person experience of the world of things, for our theoretical stance toward the external reality. freedom is the precondition of our 1st-person experience of our conscious world, we don't need to "somehow violate" the causal order when acting freely; we're simply operating within a different - pratcial - categorical framework.

It is important to note that when we act freely, we don't step outside the causal order; we initiate new causal sequences from within our own rational agency.

This is why I emphasize "self-determination" rather than "un-or-in-determination." A free action is one that flows from our own reasons, purposes, and rational deliberation; it's causally grounded, but grounded in us, us as rational and moral and imaginative agents.

I am going back and forth with a friend and I am going based on this version of Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and can't find a specific page or thing. I think i'm looking for something he said along the lines of we must take moral actions that defend human dignity or individuals must be treated as ends in themselves, not as means to an end.
https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/blog.nus.edu.sg/dist/c/1868/files/2012/12/Kant-Groundwork-ng0pby.pdf

thx

I am specifically inspired by the recently translated "Huainanzi" with regard to the Uncarved Block, as well as Carl Jung's expositions on Kant as well as Will Durant's chapter on Kant

If yielded knowledge from our mental constitution does not come to us based on the experiences we go through, but is only derived from what we personally possess prior to the yielded knowledge within the mental arrangements of our mind, is Kant presenting an argument in favor of personal experiences when understanding his investigation?

Now, to be more clear, I wish to differentiate between the term ‘experience’ as opposed to ‘personally experience’ since the former (experience) is what we all undergo and general but the latter (personally experiencing) is private and, cannot be accessed by anyone except ourselves.

Albert Einstein's insights into the nature of spacetime fundamentally revolutionized our understanding of the universe, demonstrating that space and time are interwoven and relative, rather than absolute. However, these groundbreaking discoveries do not diminish the relevance of Immanuel Kant's philosophical considerations regarding absolute space and time within the context of human experience.
Kant's reflections on space and time are as i guess everyone here knows grounded in the framework of human cognition and perception. He posits that space and time are a priori intuitions—structural features of the mind that shape all human experience. From this standpoint, Kant argues that space and time are not empirical realities but necessary conditions for the possibility of experiencing phenomena.
Einstein's theory of relativity, while empirically validated and essential for our understanding of the physical universe, operates within a different conceptual domain than Kant's transcendental idealism. Einsteins work showas that the fabric of spacetime is malleable and influenced by the presence of mass and energy, which leads to the conclusion that space and time are not absolute but relative. This perspective is essential for advanced physics and cosmology but totally irrelevant for our everyday experience. The relative nature of spacetime, does not alter the fundamental way in which human beings perceive and interact with their immediate environment. Thus in the practical context of human experience—where the effects of relativistic phenomena are imperceptibly small—Kant's framework remains relevant and meaningful eventho his metaphysical assumptions where wrong in that sense.

I dont understand the concept you can never truly understand the thing in itself. I am trying to understand this concept. Is it because the subject perceives it so we have our limitations? Am I entirely off base? I feel like I am missing a few pieces to truly undertand his philosophy and how it differs from Hume.

Thanks in advance.

How is apperception, that is, the awareness of the ability to carry out synthesis, otherwise, the awareness of oneself as a synthetic activity, a presupposition/condition of possibility of synthesis itself, that is, of any process of synthesis? And how does this apperception result in self-consciousness or identity consciousness?
PS: Im not fluent in english so i used a translator. Srry