Welcome to the symposium. Today we're joined by Harry and we're going to finish our discussion on Kant's ethics.

Part one was really interesting. I really enjoyed it.

Quite difficult and as you mentioned quite dry but I feel like I've got a better

understanding of why Kant was writing about what he was writing in the first place.

So we'll see if we can continue that elaboration on.

Yeah, this is essentially the major problem with several figures like Kant and others because the major question is why should I read a book that is 700 pages or why should I read multiple books that span thousands of pages with people

using the oscocratic language why are they doing what they're doing all these are

questions that unless answered we're going to have trouble

understanding any philosopher. So I think that it is important to approach each topic from the right angle and show the kinds of problems that each thinker was addressing. That is why I think that although the first

part you could say was a bit dry, it was necessary and we have a good idea now of why Kant was thinking that it was important to write books like these.

So we said that he was active during the Enlightenment.

Some people have said that he was the pinnacle of the Enlightenment.

Others think that he represents the initial break from the Enlightenment.

I side more with a former side, but both sides are respectable.

He thought that there was a challenge with integrating simultaneously with integrating morality in a picture of the

universe that was broadly Newtonian.

He thought that the mechanistic universe leaves no room for morality and he wanted to make room for morality and as we said before

He takes himself to be dealing with a rational part of ethics.

He wants to find the supreme principle of morality

and give a rational grounding of ethics in order to solve several issues such as the problem that Hume mentioned and Hume immortalized in his discussion of the is and

ought gap and also he thought that unless we have a way of systematizing our knowledge, whether in thinking, in understanding, in descriptive stuff, natural stuff, or moral stuff, our understanding is going to be corrupted,

and especially in the moral case, our morals will be corrupted.

...