[lit-ideas] Re: The Immanuel

I recommend, Erin, the Maximes of the Duc de la Rochefoucauld.  A good
read!

-- 
 Judy Evans, Cardiff, UK   
mailto:judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx




Tuesday, September 28, 2004, 4:00:51 PM, Erin Holder wrote:

EH> I actually have to get some work done today, so after this I'll have to step
EH> away for awhile.  But...

>> Well, no. It is my impression that maxims _are_ hypothetical imperatives

EH> Well, no?  Are you sure?  I really thought there were

EH> 1) Maxims
EH> 2) Hypothetical imperatives
EH> 3) Categorical imperatives

EH> Maxims, I thought, were practical precepts that assume purposes or
EH> particular ends.  Imperatives, I thought were practical laws and that
EH> practical laws do _not_ assume purposes or particular ends, that they are
EH> followed out of adherence to the law in and of itself.  I thought that this
EH> is how maxims and imperatives differ.  Kant says it himself in the Remark on
EH> Definition I (at 5:20 in my books) - "Thus maxims are indeed principles but
EH> _not imperatives_".  The difference I thought then between maxims and
EH> hypothetical imperatives was this:



------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: