Kant see it?

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by JDMvW, Dec 3, 2020.

  1. Yes. I took the question to have elements of the tongue-in-cheek as well as a serious side that might generate discussion.
    I answered that early on by saying ...
    Then the discussion, as forum discussions so often do, took off from the OP and got into other, some more tightly and some more loosely related, things ...
     
  2. FWIW, the quote I repeated for Allen's benefit is actually a formulation of Kant's Categorical Imperative, the subject of the OP, which did not specifically formulate the Categorical Imperative it mentioned.
     
  3. In short, I'd say photography is better at illustrating the Categorical Imperative than being subject to it or abiding by it.
     
  4. As long as you both know that you did not introduce a new insightfull line of thought into this thread by discovering that Kant formulated a categorical imperative.
    ;-)
    And despite of, or thanks to, not keeping the measure, Allen, such a perfect self-reflection.
     
  5. I won't speak for Allen, I wouldn't dare. I discovered Kant's Imperative decades ago. I hadn't thought to apply it to photography. Since JDM did, cleverly so, I thought I'd participate in the thread and assumed many on PN had no idea what its actual formulation was, so felt it was worth quoting. But, as I said, I found a photo that I thought illustrated it even though I don't think photography is subject to it.
     
  6. And, while I appreciate your critique of my participation in the thread, I'd also like to hear any thoughts you might have on the Categorical Imperative and any relation it has to photography, the topic of the thread itself.
     
  7. You are a funny little fellow. Entertaining.

    You talk a lot about nothing Are you a Politician?

    Do you do do the photo thing? Love to see some of them, if you would be so kind. Just seeing a blob by your name at the moment.

    Is it Art?

    "I won't speak for Allen, I wouldn't dare" Sam.

    Wise man;)

    .
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2021
  8. "I'd also like to hear any thoughts you might have on the Categorical Imperative and any relation it has to photography, the topic of the thread itself" Sam.

    18th century philosophy very much based on religion concepts of the time. Other than real photographers use film, being a spiritual/soul process I fail to see a working connection.
     
  9. Kant, in many ways, dismantled much of the religious-based morality of the time and was seen by many of his contemporaries as well as the authorities as having secularized philosophical concepts of morality. There are arguments for and against just how "religious" Kant's philosophy was.

    That aside, I agree with you in failing to see a working connection between photography and Kant. As a philosopher and photographer, however, I was intrigued by JDM's OP and would continue to attempt to illustrate via photos some of the more important of Kant's ideas, even though I don't think there's a photographic categorical imperative or reasonable equivalent.
     
  10. In a ... er ... sense, there's some Kant in this [not the imperative part, however].

    shop-window-reflections-bruges-ww.jpg
     
  11. "As long as you both know that you did not introduce a new insightful line of thought into this thread by discovering that Kant formulated a categorical imperative "q.g

    Have you? Pray do tell?


    Enlighten me.
     
  12. "Does photography have any Categorical imperatives?" JD

    Words, somebody made up, so we can speak a thousand words of BS. Lets do a photo, that smacks your in face, Kant, would have loved it.
    BS folks...they don't do photography.

    Bit, gritty, for those folks on PN ;(who participate, in such things..

    Ready?
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2021

Share This Page