Message 01787 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT01363 Message: 29/59 L9 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: SpamAssassin and OHA (was: [ox-en] SpamAssassin (was: OHA/ODA in English))

On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 20:44, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote:

On Samstag 13 Dezember 2003 01:29, Stefan Merten wrote:

When I
re-read that categorical imperative today I wonder why we need
a *common* law. I mean this is exactly the way to create some
kind of super structure - e.g. a state. Is that really
necessary? If so, why?


I think you are missing the point. The reason why one should 
follow Kant's categorical imperative is IMHO not to actually 
create a common law, but to self check ones own behaviour, and 
to care about equal rights.


Kant would agree with Stefan on disagreeing rather than he would agree
with you. Kant is really looking for a way to reconcile the
common/general and the individual/particular interest - right after he
just has grasped that the invention of the individual (which was pretty
new then!) poses a problem for the common - which is his unique
achievement, btw. How you recontextualise that is of course your choice,
the question remains why quoting him then?

thomas Be

_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/
Thread: oxenT01363 Message: 29/59 L9 [In index]
Message 01787 [Homepage] [Navigation]