User talk:Dwrobertson

Your edit to Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals
Hi. You added this to the above article:

A challenge to the contemporary empirical morality as univerally espoused here

While Schopenhauer made significant contributions to popular philosophy, and he certainly bore his cross in his critique of Kant, who earned his popular philosophic criticisms, and thus, Schopenhauer provides no insight into the question of the moral imperative Kant raised but did not answer, unless in a reverse of Schopenhauer's hate-filled despondent thought processes. Simply put, neither man had it, Kant because he was an anti-Scholastic and Schopenhauer because he was among a long list of anti-Kants, and, thus again, what is required here to set the moral imperative of life is original thought on a par with Descartes, and even moreso, more important than Descartes, the cogito.

I will be frank. I have several times now attempted to edit the definitional Wikipedia statement of the moral imperative. Each time some immoral cyber-sleuth has removed my edit, at least once when I posted my email address whereby we could discuss and settle this matter. But, perhaps I am going about it the wrong way, or with the wrong attitude.

While I may have not yet developed the technique or patience required to get what it is I know is needed, inserted so that it stays put, I have burrowed down into this place exactly for that reason. I am requesting someone here who has made it one of their life's missions to keep Wikipedia up to date and worthwhile, to assist me here.

So then, again I assert, and I ask it be considered:

The moral imperative of life is to live a life that detracts not at all from the lives available to those who will follow us into this world.

That is human truth. That is philosophy, if not the arcane and barbarian philosophy practiced by immoral academics and the cyber slayers of truth and original thought.

So, let us together settle this matter. Someone explain to me why I cannot get the Wikipedia statement of the moral imperative corrected as it needs to be.

If it is a question of truth, then let's discuss it.

If it a question of the Wikipedia process, then someone help me out.

If it is a question of pride, then get over your immoral pride academic or otherwise.

It's about time the world finds out what the moral imperative of life is, wouldn't everyone here say so?

I'm sorry, but I think you've misunderstood what wikipedia is. WP is not a publisher of original thought, true or otherwise. It's an encyclopedia. Your claims above about the 'moral imperative of life', and about 'the arcane and barbarian philosophy practiced by immoral academics and the cyber slayers of truth and original thought' would be appropriate in a weblog or a personal webpage, but not here. If the above is a good example of what you've been adding to the encyclopedia, then it has been removed, not because whoever is doing it is immoral, but because he or she has a better idea of the nature of the project than you do. It's not a question of truth or pride, but a question of making verifiable reports of encyclopedic material. In the case of this particular article, it's a question of making such reports about the content of Kant's Groundwork, not about your views on that content. If you'd like to discuss that issue further, the appropriate place is the article's talk page, not the article itself. Yours, Sam Clark 16:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and the advice about what is going on here before I became just another dick, Sam. Anonymity unmasked it almost truth. We'd be closer to truth, should we be able to sit across the table from each other and look outselves in the eyes.

I'm new to Wiki, and probably not suited to it. I'd likely throw a plucked chicken into the conversation, or get up and walk out in the middle of a discussion intended to prove there is no free will.

I will, for your sake, assert here again, the moral imperative of life is, to live a life that detracts not at all from the experience others will have when they come into this world to replace us.

By this I mean, the singular moral imperative from which all other actions attributed moralness must spring. It is the fountainhead of morality, and, it springs seamlessly from the cogito.

If you can take yourself back to the cogito, you will see I am correct in my assertion.

As it is such, perhaps some day some other Sam Clark will see fit to include in the encyclopedia, when the academics are through mulling it over.

Best- Don Robertson donaldwrobertson@yahoo.com