[lit-ideas] Re: The Immanuel
- From: Judy Evans <judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:47:21 +0100
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:
