RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:...not normally my style in truth

all original comment normally, nothing left out/edited

well I dont normally use 15 words, when one would do, old boy

“Would it not therefore be wiser in moral concerns to acquiesce in the judgement of common reason, or at most only to call in philosophy for the purpose of rendering the system of morals more complete and intelligible, and its rules more convenient for use (especially for disputation), but not so as to draw off the common understanding from its happy simplicity, or to bring it by means of philosophy into a new path of inquiry and instruction?”

(To which I'd suggest the only proper response to to label the speaker a kant)

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
all original comment normally, nothing left out/edited

well I dont normally use 15 words, when one would do, old boy

“Would it not therefore be wiser in moral concerns to acquiesce in the judgement of common reason, or at most only to call in philosophy for the purpose of rendering the system of morals more complete and intelligible, and its rules more convenient for use (especially for disputation), but not so as to draw off the common understanding from its happy simplicity, or to bring it by means of philosophy into a new path of inquiry and instruction?”

(To which I'd suggest the only proper response to to label the speaker a kant)

You learned from a master!