The duty of being true to one’s self

Friday, August 10, 2018.
Which means that, for Kant, a certain minimal level of intelligence is required to be someone capable of producing actions with moral worth — since, a person must be capable of thinking up a universal maxim of some sort under which her being true to herself would be considered a duty. (Perhaps my own maxim that what is worse ought never to rule over what is better.)

Advertisements

For the sake of Duty

Monday, August 6, 2018.
So far so good, but I think that the action is still not one that was performed out of “duty”, even if it was performed for the sake of the good will. For the action to be “dutiful”, there is one more step that’s required.
In order for the action to be considered done “for the sake of duty”, the person must realize that if she does not act, then the “good will” would remain niggardly endowed. Only when this thought compels the person into action can the action be considered one performed “for the sake of duty” rather than being motivated directly for the sake of realizing some particular goodness.

A Theoretical Sandwich

Friday, July 27, 2018.
Q: What do philosophers have when they get hungry?
A: A TB and J sandwich. (ie, a “theoretical” sandwich)

The mother who is merely the soil in a pot

Tuesday, July 24, 2018.
It turns out that she had been only pretending to be dead.

Tending to the affairs of that good man, Plato

Monday, July 23, 2018.
Admittedly, I myself am not moved by the “gloriousness” or “nobleness” of Plato’s vision itself, though I am moved by him. More properly, I think that I am moved by his love for Socrates—and that always seems to move me. But from that original movement, I am moved to attempt to realize and defend all of the beautiful things which Plato believed — such as his belief that the gods do not neglect the affairs of a good man, even after he dies. And I believe that Plato was himself a good man. And so, I am compelled by the gods, insofar as they are in me and work through me, to tend to the affairs of that good man, Plato — just as he tended to the affairs of the good man Socrates.

A morality of self-love

Sunday, July 22, 2018.
I will jump right to the conclusion of such a system of morality, and at the risk of sounding quite cheesy or perhaps cliché, I will say that briefly put, it all amounts to a morality of self-love. And, I would emphasize “love” here. To some Kantians, Eros gets no respect; it’s always either Gaia or Erebos or Zeus. But what about Eros? (And even Tartaros?)

Freedom from the Past

Saturday, July 21, 2018.
But the idea of freedom from natural necessity (and from past experience) is a mere hypothesis —for which we can never have proof. And yet, even without proof, we hold onto the belief that freedom is at least possible because the idea of “freedom from natural necessity” is what ultimately enables the mind to be a metaphysical cause of a physical world.

Pure Imagination

Friday, July 20, 2018.
That said, I think that I can understand Ayer’s motivation for wanting to eliminate what he calls “spooky metaphysics” (ie, figments of the imagination). And I think that the way to do this is by acknowledging that the law of non-contradiction is just as heterogenous to the processes of the mind as are the laws that govern “nature”. Once we do that, we can see that the mind is indeed it’s own thing as well, distinct from “nature” and also distinct from “mathematical rules”. And then, perhaps we can allow the mind some occasion to be as free as it wants to be. After all, it is phenomenal.

“Imagination is more important than Knowledge.”

Thursday, July 19, 2018.
One other thing worth noting before I continue is in regards to what it is that a person was presupposed as possessing when Kant permitted the person to be given the benefit of that doubt. Recall from the beginning of paragraph 6 that a human being is said to possess a mind that has “independence of reason from merely subjectively determining causes” (underline added). And I think that this capability of the mind is really just very simply, “having an imagination”. It’s not really anything quite more than that. What’s more, it’s obvious, I think, that we all do possess it — even if we each use it in varying degrees.

Traverse the infinite in a single bound

Wednesday, July 18, 2018.
Another way — the way of “an intelligence endowed with a will” (ie, a mind with agency) — is to start at the top of the pyramid, and to “spread” (trickle?) downwards. That is, the person is to start by immediately being self-actualized (or, perhaps, by being presumed to be so) — and then to “create” morals and laws, political structures, social etiquettes, “person-images” even (eg, “businesswoman”) — and then ever more downwards to “create” policies and services that serve and protect human life, and finally affecting physical matter in their conception and design with the effect of producing all manner of beautiful and good material objects (eg, buildings, chairs, but I hesitate to include living beings in the category of “material objects”). But what’s to be noted is where the content of the “morals” likely comes in on Kant’s order of things. After all, the whole point of the groundwork was to lay a foundation for a system of morals.

The demiurgos

Tuesday, July 17, 2018.
[39] 🍜
Essentially, I think she is Nietzsche’s “ascetic”, the one who doesn’t really care very much about how things turn out. The Stoic, therefore, poses a very real danger to the Kantian, I think. Nietzsche must have killed the “God” so that the little ones can move forward uninhibited…
Just imagine, a confused and uncaring god.

To be loved, to be considered a friend

Monday, July 16, 2018.
Of course, I must always return to reflect upon the etymology of a word. The English word “freedom” itself has Anglo-Saxon roots. “Free” means: beloved, friend, love. So, according to the presumed original way of usage, to be “free” is to be “loved”, and to be considered a “friend”.

Predetermined, but not Necessarily Predictable?

Sunday, July 15, 2018.
But, supposing that it were in fact true that no such contradiction between natural necessity and freedom exists, but that natural necessity has proof of its existence while freedom does not, then the conclusion would be: That whatever does happen is, in a sense, whatever that was supposed to happen (ie, things are still pre-determined) — even if whatever does happen next could not have been predicted by looking to past experience (maybe it’s sort of like being unable to predict what the next digit of pi is going to be just by looking at what came before). Put more simply, there just is no detectable pattern.

The form of “the Good”

Saturday, July 14, 2018.
I suppose there’s a third option… that Kant is having a joke with himself. That is, he gets to some logical conclusion based on the Stoics and the Aristotelians, and concludes that there is no true “morality” (at least, not in the traditional Christian/Catholic sense of that word) –and that basically, humanity has been taken for a ride by the philosophers. The joke (to himself) is that, as a philosopher, he can himself see the flaws of the philosophical arguments, but that nobody else seems to. And so, he unpacks it for anyone who cares to follow his analysis.

The “stuff” itself (ie, nameless-material)

Friday, July 13, 2018 😈
Well, needless to say, this sort of thing is quite obviously not what Plato had in mind when he was speaking of “things in themselves”. What Plato was thinking of when he spoke of such things was the nameless-matter, that “stoff” (in lieu of Aristotle’s “substance”) all around us which cannot be called anything yet or even given any name yet, since even as a concept it is still insufficiently formed in the mind (by the mind’s filtering process). So, the “thing-in-itself” is not the idea itself, but rather the nameless-material-stuff which is itself the “real” whatever-it-is that ends up being the representation/idea in our minds.

The incorrigibility of the Mind

Thursday, July 12, 2018.
What the mind does when it filters and processes everything (especially about intangible things) is “incorrigible”; its rule is absolute –for better or for worse.
Still, if something either empirically verifiable or mathematically verifiable, then we can get to some agreement with one another about what the world is. But I don’t think that empirical verification is somehow less constant or less truthful than mathematical verification, so Kant is wrong to think that. After all, Hesiod has told us that Gaia (material) and Erebos (the “non” of “non-contradiction”) are ontologically intertwined, and at the same “level” (Chaos). It is Zeus (mind) who is descended from Gaia’s line. And finally, the “pseudo-logoi” (false-reasoning) comes from the line rooted in Erebos, while Athena (strategy) comes from the line rooted in Gaia. If he took the poets seriously, then he’d have known this.

The reason for my suicide (and lots of other things that I do)

Wednesday, July 11, 2018 🌩
For now, here is the maxim that I would will as a universal law of nature and as well for all rational beings, if I were a Kantian-sovereign: I will as a universal law of nature that what is better shall never be ruled or guided by what is worse.

To whom do I belong?

Tuesday, July 10, 2018 🦀
So, who is it that jumped in and saved me from drowning? Incompetent Harvard graduates who profit from designing faulty political systems in which an inferior person is permitted to rule over a superior person? Perhaps it is was a Catholic Filipina? Or, corrupt Europeans who used religion as an excuse for personal gain and world conquest? Or, was it greedy religious figures who were unwilling to release their hold over the ignorant masses? Or maybe a self-serving emperor who wanted to stabilize his rule? Or, how about Catholicism itself —that twisted misinterpretation borne from the minds of arrogant men? Or maybe those visionary “reformed” Jews, who, for the sake of political expedience and not for genuinely brotherly love, forged an alliance with people who otherwise disgust them? Who was it that jumped in and saved me from drowning when I made it quite clear that I did not want it? Who still dares to sleep in peace at night, at my continued expense? Who is responsible for my happiness and welfare? To whom do I belong? And, who should I condemn? My self?