Pure gold 😙👌. I think the joke here is that some philosophers pursue objective morality, when it does not exist. Also, as twilight (nor anypony) can not prove it, the only argument she can do is to appeal to authority, which is enough intimidation to shut her friends’ mouths.
Also, to continue the discussion, I have to add that our understanding teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of our concepts. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, it is not at all certain that our judgements are a representation of our Pontian judgements; by means of the discipline of natural reason, the Antinomies exclude the possibility of, on the contrary, the noumena. By virtue of human reason, our faculties are the clue to the discovery of, in particular, our ampliative judgements, yet time has lying before it the pure employment of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions.
PS. Any resemblance here to random philosophy generator is purely coincidental, and it is totally not the cause for my sudden expression of sophisticated intellect.
@Just Wayne
I believe her point is that the ideal of pure reason and objective morality is the key to truth, even as this relates to the necessity of objects in space and time and matters of personal disagreement. Therefore, Pontian philosophy tells us that the categories are the mere results of the power of a blind but indispensable function of the soul. Since none of the categories are ampliative, the objects in space and time constitute the whole content of the transcendental aesthetic. In the case of the discipline of natural reason, the employment of natural causes is a representation of the, ittedly and perhaps necessarily, contradictory rules of the Ideal which may be referred to as Truth. It is obvious that the architectonic of practical reason can thereby determine in its totality truth, and indeed even objective morality, because our faculties have nothing to do with necessity, but with our a priori concepts, thus constituting the whole content of the things in themselves.
(clears throat, puts on a Stetson hat, chaws on a twig, and puts on a Foghorn Leghorn accent) That is …
Well, partner, she’s sayin’ that truth ain’t about meetin’ in the middle. It’s like huntin’ fer catfish in a dry pond—ain’t no compromise gonna get ya a fish. She’s got a book of fancy words to show y’all that the only real truth and morality come from high-falutin’ thinkin’, not from arguin’ over whose moonshine cider is best.
The ‘what’ is immaterial. That it resulted in a fight instead of a serene discussion in Ponitonian dialectic, engaging with the depths of objective truth, only underscores the need for everyone to carry a philosophy textbook at all times.
Edited
Oh, thanks! That clarifies a lot! 😝
I believe her point is that the ideal of pure reason and objective morality is the key to truth, even as this relates to the necessity of objects in space and time and matters of personal disagreement. Therefore, Pontian philosophy tells us that the categories are the mere results of the power of a blind but indispensable function of the soul. Since none of the categories are ampliative, the objects in space and time constitute the whole content of the transcendental aesthetic. In the case of the discipline of natural reason, the employment of natural causes is a representation of the, ittedly and perhaps necessarily, contradictory rules of the Ideal which may be referred to as Truth. It is obvious that the architectonic of practical reason can thereby determine in its totality truth, and indeed even objective morality, because our faculties have nothing to do with necessity, but with our a priori concepts, thus constituting the whole content of the things in themselves.
moonshinecider is best.Edited