Lea Ypi: Kant on Revolution

[@Achrononmaster]

@20:25 did Kant figure in order for existing collective rule of law to be in existence there had to have been a modification in the past? Hence a revolution of whatever variety? So he seemed like a bit of nerd. On metaphysics and ethics he is good, but still too nerdy. although, as Cutrone (if I recall) once said, "one of the good guys".

[@alexanderfuchs8742]

he figured that unilateral action, imposing ones own sovereignty (rule) at the expense of someone else's, making an exception for oneself, etc. is an expression of the very essence of injustice that one is trying to overcome ... therefore you get just resistance to any kind of justice-system imposed by unjust means ... (the same way you can't "change" another person without them acting out against your attempted imposition in ways you can't anticipate) ... the whole theory of change is more of a "lead by example and hope for the best" kind of thing

[@averywoods1329]

what about Kant's idea on reality not being created for us, that what we feel, or see, is just a figment of our imagination which we have created. How can he believe in morality and justice, if his idea of reality illudes to the fact that war, reforms, and revolutions would not be real. it would be something imagined. which would explain why he believed that starting revolutions based on grievances is frowned upon. For example, the Boston tea party would be wrong in his ideology, correct? If i am wrong, or i misunderstood, please correct and explain, but this was my idea of his thought process.

[@Sami-yh5nh]

Did she seriously say that European colonialism was driven by good intentions?

[@jackquinnes]

If she did she must have made "subtle" fun of Immanuel Kant's good intentions. Otherwise, she is severely deranged, probably due to being exposed to Kant's abstract, ahistorical and impractical analysis of morality.

[@ebog4841]

Baby's first time outside of leftist academia?

[@FernandoNagib]

No. I think she clearly meant that Kant rejected that as an argument while most of his contemporaries accepted the good intentions as moral and legal ground for conquest

[@MegaJolaus]

@@ebog4841 Lea Ypi is a socialist.

[@alexanderfuchs8742]

@@ebog4841 "But, if you do not [convert to catholicism], and maliciously make delay in it, I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter into your country, and shall make war against you in all ways and manners that we can, and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and of their Highnesses; we shall take you and your wives and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of them as their Highnesses may command; and we shall take away your goods, and shall do you all the mischief and damage that we can, as to vassals who do not obey, and refuse to receive their lord, and resist and contradict him; and we protest that the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this are your fault, and not that of their Highnesses, or ours, nor of these cavaliers who come with us." ... but yea I guess trying to salvage the souls of savages counts as having good intentions fair point