You forgot to add "according to Kant" to the headline. Important to flag, because those who don't accept Kant's rarefied take on ethics (which is just about everyone) will find this rather unconvincing.
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
New conversation -
-
-
This is not the right way to approach sexual desire. News flash: we have been down this road before, philosopher dude: Augustine, Cappadocian fathers, various ancient pagan thinkers. (Sorry sex is so bad and objectifying for you, Phil. Get some help.) Aeon: up your game? SRSLY?
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
New conversation -
-
-
its almost like we've had 300 years of philosophical development since kant but...............sure just ignore that. this is a ridiculously unprofessional article. shame on
@aeonmag for publishing this glorified reading response for a philosophy 101 classThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
*yawn*
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Aeon should fire all of its millennial writers.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Kant assumes that one's body is not part of who one is as a person. This is a highly contestable premiss. Bear in mind that he defined marriage as the legal permission to use each others' 'sexual organs' (Kant's words) as this would somehow minimize objectification...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@thewastedworld you seeing this shit, mate? -
Damned Kantians at it again!
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.