Other people will be able, from the logic of that already in we used
, to arrive at the same reasonings that we arrive . Thus, when Immanuel Kant says that we do not have to make to the others what we do not want that in them they make we, we have to admit that this reasoning, as all the reasonings who we have, also Immanuel Kant, and commented for he himself, for the first time, they had had an origin, being impossible to admit that
let us have some
type of
reasoning that has had origin in the metaphysics of the language, or either, it had a first feeling that it originated in Kant this reasoning. Taking reasons possible and eliminating improbable, what in it takes to believe them that Kant will have direction, when developing all its
moral theory, is the fact of that proper it has coexisted much time, in its infancy with the
PAIN of the
property absence. For this, and so that let us can arrive at its original reasoning, we have to admit that the moral of Kant is in the distrust to harm another person, who came to take some litigant behavior against it and that the loss of property came to take , or either, when I arrive a feeling of pain of a person passing for any difficulty that either, is for the fact of imagining me in the place of it , and if I obtain to imagine me in the place of it is for being feeling, or trying to feel, the PAIN that it eventually feels, in its ABSENCE OF PROPERTY, or physical deficiency or mental any of them. To feel such luck of misfortune in my life is for admitting, basicly, the loss of property, without what it does not have what to speak in projection or sensitivity. Thus being he is forcible to admit that the moral of Kant, who I placed on purpose in the heading of this abstract with jocose direction, is the moral of all we, or either, in the distrust of the PROPERTY ABSENCE who let us can have in this life; thus being also, alone it will be able to feel this type of feeling who already has lived, in some part of the life, a financial loss that has taken it to have such type of behavior. I must remember, however, that the type of life that a person only leads is possible of being taken if advised by other people to have it . Thus, when we see some boy of street, in the street to ask for almses, in lighthouses, it is for somebody to be fomenting the idea for that child of whom to ask for almses, to be a beggar, is good! This reasoning is defective, and dangerous for the person. We cannot to reward what we find defective, only for pity that let us have of such and which person, under the risk submit it in an error of reasoning. Thus, the street child goes to tend to ask for almses until they stop of it giving them; thing that, when to happen, it does not go to understand why of they had stopped of giving almses to it, when before it they gave them. And it goes to possibly rebel itself with whom she does not understand, against the proper society. PAIN is something that leads the ignorants exactly to look for a place to the sun, therefore is of if admitting that all let us pass for it, at least one time in the life. Repeating Eckhardt Master: "PAIN is the animal that more quickly in leads them to the fullness" and "the virtue is the overcoming of all our sins, therefore the sanctity already was one day"! I make this critical to the moral of Immanuel Kant therefore I know, of beforehand, that she goes to be difficult that somebody comes to read Kant, stops later being able to criticize it or not, for whom she is more easy to read in an abstract. This commentary is originariamente of Arthur Schopenhauer and can be read in entire text in the Critical one to the Kantiana Philosophy, the you also does not go to have access, for not reading it, therefore I placed the name of together it to mine, when denouncing this type of reasoning. It signs - Magnus Amaral Campos - doctor duly enrolled in the C.R.E.M.E.S.P. (São Paulo, Brasil) under number 36.185
More summaries about the MORAL , BY KANT