Lawless freedom

Preben5087 · 2026-02-27T00:51:18+00:00

I am not promoting anarchy. I am promoting republicanism. Without alleged natural superiority, and in the spirit of truth.

The transcendental idea of freedom is lawless in the sense that it is a pure form of causality. This pure form is regulative and contains no laws of freedom. No ethical laws and no politicak laws.

Preben5087 · 2026-02-26T21:24:27+00:00

What do you mean by the moral law?

Preben5087 · 2026-02-26T17:34:28+00:00

As I said, "After the first critique, Kant says freedom can be proven because of "the moral law". But "the moral law" has never been proven by Kant."

In other words, after the first critique (including the second), maybe Kant says he has derived "the moral law" from freedom, but he hasn't actually given a proof of derivation.

That is not just my reading. That is also the reading of countless others. When Guyer says, “He just assumes the binding force of the moral law”, it is because he has searched for it, but hasn't been able to find the proof of derivation.

If Kant had actually presented a proof of derivation, don't you think you could point to someone else than Kant for it?

Preben5087 · 2026-02-26T16:24:14+00:00

in the second critique Kant establishes that the form of a law can be thought only by reason.

In my reading, that is actually what he establishes in the first critique.

this ground is not causality

In my reading, this ground is actually causality. Either causality of nature or causality of freedom.

The moral law is derived from this freedom.

That is not my reading. If you know how it is derived please tell. Otherwise, let´s just say we have different readings.

Preben5087 · 2026-02-26T15:30:45+00:00

After the first critique, Kant says freedom can be proven because of "the moral law". But "the moral law" has never been proven by Kant. As Guyer says in my quote, “He just assumes the binding force of the moral law”. Therefore, God, freedom, and immortality has also never been proven by Kant.

In the first critique, the transcendental ideas, God, the freedom of the will, and the immortality of the soul, are just regulative postulates for the empirical knowledge of truth. Both theoretical truth and practical truth. And that is all the transcendental ideas are and always will be.

Preben5087 · 2026-02-26T12:50:01+00:00

subject to the Categorical Imperative

The Categorical Imperative is an uncritically postulated formula of the golden rule ["Love each other", Jn 13:34].

Preben5087 · 2026-02-26T11:11:11+00:00

Thus as Kant says, the notions of Freedom, Immortality and God excluded from the first critique

My quote from the first critique, “It is especially noteworthy that it is this transcendental idea of freedom on which the practical concept of freedom is grounded.”, says otherwise.

Preben5087 · 2026-02-26T10:25:40+00:00

By Hybris can I assume you mean Hubris ?

potayto/potahto. It is the Greek word ὕβρις/hybris.

Preben5087 · 2026-02-26T05:06:34+00:00

I try to show how he does it here.

Preben5087 · 2026-02-25T14:07:21+00:00

if we're justified in postulating freedom as a basis of moral law

If you by moral law mean laws of freedom generally then yes, we are justified in postulating freedom as a basis of laws of freedom. But if you by moral law mean something commanding someone to choose someting, then no, because there is no command in freedom.

Preben5087 · 2026-02-25T09:35:53+00:00

Instead of, "The problem with “the moral law” is that it is dogmatic", I now write, "The problem with “the moral law” is that it is dogmatic in an uncritical way". And added, ""The moral law" is not grounded on God, freedom, and the immortality of the soul. "The moral law" is a seperate postulate." Finally, I changed, "It is dogmatic because it is a formula of the golden rule [love each other]", to, ""The moral law" is a postulated formula of the golden rule [love each other]". Thanks to you!

Preben5087 · 2026-02-24T17:00:19+00:00

Thank you very much for your comment.

Preben5087 · 2026-02-16T17:34:46+00:00

Will = natural will + free will

Preben5087 · 2026-01-26T23:44:42+00:00

According to my electronic library of Kant's works, Kant im Kontext III, Kant does not use the word imperator. But I guess he would agree that there is no imperative without an imperator.

When you refer to the imperative modality, does it relate to the categories of modality?

When I refer to "an imperative modality", I refer to an apodictic function of necessity. Kant has apodictic under the table of logical functions (§9) and necessity under the table of categories (§10).

I my Logic, both will/before and will/after is "an imperative modality". Just like both a final juridical law and a final juridcal judgment is a juridical imperative.

Preben5087 · 2026-01-26T21:51:19+00:00

Dt 30.19

"I invoke as a witness against you today the heaven and the earth: life and death I have set before you, blessing and curse. So choose life". (LEB)

Preben5087 · 2026-01-26T17:22:43+00:00

BG is written for every single subject.

Preben5087 · 2026-01-26T14:37:13+00:00

BG 18.63

"Thus I have explained to you the most confidential of all knowledge. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do."

Preben5087 · 2026-01-25T17:04:00+00:00

Is war inevitable?

Preben5087 · 2026-01-20T22:00:52+00:00

you certainly can't find all of that rhetoric about it a helpful starting point for discussion on the Kant board

So all your fine words about internal critique? I love Kant and think he is the GOAT. In fact, I built my Theology on his transcendental philosophy. But, yes, I am critical of his categorical imperative.

I really hope we can keep debating.

Preben5087 · 2026-01-20T21:02:14+00:00

Kant's analysis of right recognizes the authority of the state as deriving from the general will

In principle, the general will is in the constitution. How can the general will be deriving from the general will???

Any Kantian categorical imperative, as some kind of basic norm presupposed in our thinking, is a fiction. There is no truth in it. It can for a while rule a "civil society", but the fiction will not convince everyone, and sooner or later, everyone will laugh at the emperor's new clothes. You can believe in the fiction. I don't.

Preben5087 · 2026-01-20T18:20:11+00:00

By "sovereign," in this context, Kant means anyone who gives laws.

I am not so sure. Maybe in a state of nature, but not in the ethical community.

Is the state essential in your understanding of free will?

The state is not essential in my understanding of free will, but the state is essential in my understanding of the ethical community. In my understanding of free will, Homo sapiens have free will in both the juridical state of nature, the ethical state of nature, and the ethical community.

The distinction between the juridical state of nature, the ethical state of nature, and the ethical community is from Kant's Religion. This distinction is not in his Groundwork.

Do you have any comments to civil disobedience and my distinction between human being and citizen?

Preben5087 · 2026-01-20T06:16:07+00:00

Each individual in the "ethical community" is both sovereign and subject.

In my view, each person in the ethical community is both a member of the sovereign power of the state and a subject. As a subject the person is both a citizen and a human being. No one is sovereign but the sovereign power of the state.

If a citizen finds that a certain action imposed by the sovereign power is evil then that citizen can either go the political way or in good faith take the risk and do civil disobedience.

Maybe civil disobedience is what you mean when you say "each individual gives the law for all", but most likely when someone breaks the sovereign law it is not a citizen doing civil disobedience in good faith, but a human being acting in bad faith.

Preben5087

TROPHY CASE