KANT’S ETHICS SUMMARY

In Kant's philosophy, Freedom is defined as a concept which is involved in the moral domain, at the question: what should I do?

In summary, Kant says that the moral law is only that I know myself as a free person. Kantian freedom is closely linked to the notion of autonomy, which means law itself: thus, freedom falls obedience to a law that I created myself. It is therefore respect its commitment to compliance with oneself.

Practical Reason and Freedom

Practical reason legislates (makes laws and requirements) of free beings, or more precisely the causality of free beings. Thus, practical reason is based on freedom, it is freedom.

Phenomena, in the Kantian thought, are subject to the law of natural causality: each event is the effect of another, and so on to infinity. Unlike the phenomenon of man, in the moral rule is free, ie, it has the power to self-start condition.

Kant ethics is mainly based on the concept of free will and autonomy.

Kant and the good will

Kant begins with the concept of “goodwill”. For the German philosopher, intelligence, courage, etc. are not absolutely good, because their value depends on the use made of it. It is the same for happiness: it is not a good in itself, since it can be a source of corruption that is not animated goodwill.

What is goodwill? This is not a commitment that reaches its goals is a desire whose intentions are pure. What a pure will? A will which obeys the concept of duty. Thus, goodwill is acting out of duty.

Kant distinguishes act according to duty and act out of duty. Thus, the merchant who loyally serves its clients act in accordance with duty, but his motives are those of interest, not duty. This type of action falls into one of legality, not morality. Morality refers to any action taken in seeking to fulfill its duty:

“An action done from duty derives its moral value, not the goal to be attained by it, but from the maxim by which it is decided”

Kant’s formalism in ethics is the idea that it is sufficient that applies a rule to be moral. This rule is universality: I universalize the maxim of my action?

So, I wonder if lying is moral, my question is: Can lying be made a universal value? The answer is clearly no, because the truth would lose all value, and then it would be useless to lie.

Kant and the imperatives

Kant wants to trace the origin a priori (not experience) the foundation of morality, because it may be that none has ever acted out in the world. Empiricism and morality are very poor household, one can not establish the second.

Hypothetical imperatives

Hypothetical imperatives represent an action as necessary to achieve a certain end. Their principle is: who wants the end justifies the means. For example: the imperatives of power, which prescribe the means necessary to get a result, are hypothetical. Like those of prudence. These requirements provide rules.

Categorical imperatives

For Kant, the categorical imperatives differ in that they pose an action as necessary and unconditional, irrespective of the end to reach. These requirements give laws, no matter the inclination of the subject.

So there is only one categorical imperative and its formula is as follows:

“Act only according to the maxim that you might want at the same time it becomes a universal law”

The formulas of the categorical imperative

1 / “Act as if the maxim of your action were to be erected by your will a universal law of nature”

For example, one can not attempt suicide and the act becomes a law of nature because it would destroy humanity. Suicide is thus immoral. Now, what immorality? It is regarded as an exception, agree privileges. And even when we act contrary to duty, we know where our duty. We do not respect in this case the moral law, but it remains for us respectable.

2 / “The subjective principle of desire is the motive, the principle objective is the motive of duty”

We desire things and we respect people, according to Kant. So, things have value to us as individuals have an absolute, not relative. The subject is an end in itself:

“Act in such a way that you treat humanity always as […] an end and never merely as means”

3 / These two options creates a third, establishing the man as the author of morality: “Morality is the idea of ​​the will of every rational being designed as will establishing a universal law”

The will is indeed independent, it gives itself its own law. We obey the moral law because we are giving ourselves the Act.

The moral law derives the dignity of the person. Because giving is its own law, the man not only has a price, that is to say a relative value, but a dignity that is to say an intrinsic value: “Autonomy is So the principle of the dignity of human nature and rational nature of all “.

LEVINAS: TOTALITY AND INFINITY SUMMARY

Ethics as first philosophy

Emmanuel Levinas is one of the greatest thinkers of the twentieth century , but the complexity of his thought, as well as Heidegger’s, prevents a real spread / democratization of his work. One of his most important works is Totality and Infinity: An essay on exteriority. In the latter, Levinas, according to a phenomenological method, describes how subjectivity arises from the idea of ​​infinity, and how infinite is a product of the relationship of self to another.

His project, ultimately, is to ask the primacy of the other so to ask entity unconditional and based on the epiphany of the face. Others and me is me responsible for him. The infinite is another who meets me. In other words, the infinite is the starting point of morality, its foundation. This infinity is irreducible to knowledge, any knowledge of the principles. Levinas rejects any moral intellectualism. However, Levinas admits that man is not naturally moral, it must be awaken to ethics: it is the desire of others.

Thus, Levinas makes ethics, respect for others, the first philosophy. It is therefore a reversal of the ontological approach to the subject.

But the ultimate goal of the project is that lévinassien a radical transcendence, of God.

Levinas : from the same to the other

Levinas argues that ontology enacts a relationship with another being that reduces to the same. Instead, Levinas adopts an approach that does not reduce the other to the same, but considers the separation between himself and the other as inherent in the relationship with Being.

According to Levinas, the externality is how the individual transcends finite into the infinite. The externality is a relationship in which the self is separate from the other. The externality is a relationship where the being of self and other can not be aggregated or fused to infinity, because they are completely separated.

Intersubjectivity is the product of interiority. The Interiority is a subjective report in which a being refers to itself. Subjectivity allows itself to be considered as separate from the other. The externality is a state of being in which the self can not be merged into a whole.

The home must be separated from each other in order to have the idea of ​​infinity. The idea of ​​the infinite is in itself a form of transcendence in relation to the Other. This is the idea of ​​the infinite in me that saves me solipsism and open myself to the externality.

The other is absolutely other than the Self. The Other is other than oneself. The Other is infinitely transcendent reality.

The idea of ​​infinity requires the separation of the Same and the Other. This separation is a drop in the same and the other from the whole.

Levinas distinguishes between the idea of ​​totality and the idea of ​​infinity. The idea of ​​trying to integrate all the different and the same in all, while the idea of ​​infinity maintains separation between the other and the same. According to Levinas, the idea is all theoretical, while the idea of ​​infinity is moral.

The importance of face

Face of the Other is how the Other reveals itself. The face of the Other is the exteriority of his being. Face to face is an ethical relationship, and calls the freedom of self responsibility. Levinas explains that the face of the Other talking to yourself. Language begins with the presence of the face with the expression. Language is a system of interaction in which meaning is derived from the face of the Other. The Other is the signifier, which manifests itself in language by the production of signs, which offer objective reality or thematize the world. But the Other itself can not be thematized. The theming is a form of objectification: the Other is irreducible gold, definitely subject, infinitely other.

Face, this absolutely other, is not a negation of the self. The presence of the Other does not contradict the freedom of self. I can kill the other, but his face reminds me of my responsibility.

Conclusion of the summary on Totality and Infinity:

Totality and Infinity is a profound and challenging work. Levinas expresses a interesting perspective on the problem of modern alienation in that it explains how the separation can be understood as a fundamental condition of being.

MAN IS A POLITICAL ANIMAL - MEANING OF ARISTOTLE ‘S IDEA

 The man is a political animal is a phrase often heard in public debates, without quoting the source of this fundamental position of political philosophy. It was Aristotle who, in Politics, the first called the man “Zoon politikon.”

Man is a thinking animal

The man is in the scheme of nature as “thinking animal.” The spirit which distinguishes man as a rational being is “incapable of being destroyed” It is a special part of the psyche (soul), which in turn is the force that animates the body. The soul is the body “trained”, and contrary to the spirit of Plato, does not have a separate existence from the body. Thus, it does not survive the death of the body. However, the soul has both currency and potential. The soul is also effective, that is to say, the formal cause and final body. In other words, the soul has a purpose, and carries with it the means to achieve this end.

Man is a political animal: Explanation

Man is a “political animal.” In this Aristotle means that man lives in a more “polis”. Man becomes man among others, living in a society governed by laws and customs. The man develops his potential and realize its natural end in a social context. This is the “good life.” This is not an easy life, but a life of virtue is reflected in the highest good (eudaimonia), often translated as happiness.

The good life

Aristotle’s ethics is a study of choice in action: how man should live to live better? For Aristotle, everything is social individual. Certain virtues such as courage and generosity, which he describes as “practical” virtues, because they relate to the social nature of man. The truly balanced individual also continues the “theory” of qualities that are related to man as a rational being. For Aristotle, the ultimate happiness lies in the pursuit of wisdom for his own good, as asserted in the Nicomachean Ethics.

CONFESSION OF A CHILD OF THE CENTURY – MUSSET

Confession of a Child of the Century is the only novel written by Alfred de Musset, a french romantic.

This novel tells the tumultuous story of Musset and Sand, who had a stormy passion and devastating. Sand later deliver his own version of their relationship in Him and Her.

Beyond the biopic aspect, through the hopes, disappointments, morbid jealousy, fits of violence of this confession is a book with a thesis on the romantic, considered the disease of the century, causing the loss of the generation. This generation was born on the decline of the empire built by Napoleon and saw the decline as his own. Desperate, the lost generation can no longer consolidate in religion, destroyed by the Enlightenment. It, therefore, has neither the seductions of Napoleonic glory nor the promises of salvation:

“The principle of death went down coldly and without shaking from head to belly. Instead of having the enthusiasm of the evil we had the dedication of the property, instead of despair, insensitivity ”

Confession is also a novel about youth, the age of illusions and fatal despair related to life skills. According to De Musset’s youth was marked by the refusal of the past, uncertain future and disgust of this. Musset has a very dark vision of human nature, unhappy and wicked purpose in nature:

“The habits of students and artists, these customs so free, so beautiful, so full of youth, felt the effects of universal change. Men, separating women, had whispered a word that hurts to death: the contempt they had thrown themselves into the wine and courtesans. Students and artists threw themselves also, love was treated as the glory and religion was an illusion old“

Socratic Wisdom

Socratic wisdom refers to Socrates' understanding of the limits of his knowledge in that he only knows that which he knows and makes no assumption of knowing anything more or less. Although never directly penned by Socrates' as a theory or treatise, our understanding of his philosophies as they relate to wisdom derives from Plato's writings on the subject. In works like "Apology," Plato describes the life and trials Socrates that influence our understanding of the truest element of "Socratic wisdom:" We are only as wise as our awareness of our ignorance.

The True Meaning of Socrates' Famous Quote

Although attributed to Socrates, the now famous "I know that I know nothing" really refers to an interpretation of Plato's account of Socrates' life, though is never directly stated. In fact, Socrates often highly asserts his intelligence in Plato's work, even going so far as to say he would die for it. Still, the sentiment of the phrase echoes some of Socrates' most famous quotes on wisdom.

For instance, Socrates' once said: "I do not think that I know what I do not know." In the context of this quote, Socrates is explaining that he does not claim to possess the knowledge of artisans or scholars on subjects he has not studied, that he bears no false pretense to understanding those. In another quote on the same topic of expertise, Socrates once said, "I know very well that I possess no knowledge worth speaking of" on the topic of building a home.

What's actually true of Socrates is that he has said quite the opposite of "I know that I know nothing." His routine discussion of intellect and understanding hinges upon his own intelligence. In fact, he does not fear death because he says "to fear death is to think that we know what we do not," and he is absent of this delusion of understanding what death could mean without ever seeing it.

Socrates, the Wisest Human

In "Apology," Plato describes Socrates at his trial in 399 B.C.E. where Socrates tells the court how his friend Chaerephon asked the Delphic Oracle if anyone was wiser than himself. The oracle's answer — that no human was wiser than Socrates — left him bewildered, so he embarked on a quest to find someone wiser than himself in order to prove the oracle wrong.

What Socrates found, though, was that although many people had particular skills and areas of expertise, they all tended to think they were wise about other matters too — such as what policies the government should pursue — when they clearly were not. He concluded that the oracle was right in a certain limited sense: he, Socrates, was wiser than others in this one respect: that he was aware of his own ignorance.

This awareness goes by two names that seem virtually opposed to one another: "Socratic ignorance" and "Socratic wisdom." But there is no real contradiction here. Socratic wisdom is a sort of humility: it simply means being aware of how little one really knows; how uncertain one's beliefs are; and how likely it is that many of them may turn out to be mistaken. In the "Apology," Socrates doesn't deny that true wisdom — a real insight into the nature of reality — is possible; but he seems to think it is enjoyed only by the gods, not by human beings.

What exactly did Nietzsche and Foucault mean when they declared: "There are no facts, only interpretations"?

By Rolf Bazuin

The problem he was referring to is metaphysical in nature. In essence, what he meant was that we have never seen objective reality for what it truly is, rather, we only know our experience of what we think is objective reality. There is really no way to tell how strong the correlation is between what we perceive and what is perceived, because we would have to bypass our own subjective experience, and that's impossible as our subjective experience is the only way for us to know the reality that surrounds us. So, what comes out of this, is that what we typically refer to as objectively true, is in fact a convention about truth.

Probably the best example of differentiating in this manner is the fundamental axiom of psychology: the construction of one's own reality. We know that the brain has a very limited capacity to process data; for instance, the retina has about a 127 million optic receptors, yet the image sent through the optic nerve is equivalent to about 1 million 'data units'. Also, the retina is scanned about 15,000 times per second, yet only 24 frames per second can fool our brain into believing that we are looking at a motion picture. As can be seen, the nervous system has to discard about 99.999999% of visual data even before it gets to the primary visual cortex. All this data will never even be presented to your brain. From these facts alone, it must be argued that what we perceive must have an extremely low correlation to what there actually is. All in all, the chances of us overlooking some bigger picture are extremely high.

So, what this amounts to is that there are no facts, just interpretations. Inside our head, we have all kinds of 'perfect' Ideas in the form of logical concepts. But they are just that: logical concepts. And as is argued above, proving these concepts to be objectively true is completely impossible, due to the fact that it is doubtful that we're experiencing objective reality for what it truly is. Therefore, as far as mankind is concerned, we must accept that what we think of as objective reality, is nothing more than our interpretation of it - from our viewpoint, there are no facts, only our interpretations of what we believe to be facts.

HENRY DAVID THOREAU PHILOSOPHY SUMMARY

If you want to know more about Thoreau’s thinking, maybe it’s simply a matter of treading his footsteps, in the nature closest to his home, the one that will seem most familiar to us, so we perhaps we would have an idea that would be closer to his philosophy, bathed in visual, auditory and tactile sensations. Thus, to sniff and touch the grass of this or that meadow, to be moved by the zephyr caressing the wheat and thrills the branches of the trees in an intoxicating musicality, one would try, despite the ridiculous pastiche, to approach what Thoreau was: a simple man, a scholar who gave up teaching to devote himself to a life of geometer, well anchored in his native land. A loafer of everyday life that takes us on his philosophical walks, at the height of man, at the height of a Thoreau fascinated by the here and now.

Here are some themes important to Thoreau, which constitute the relief of his reflection, especially in his Journal, which traces 24 years of his life since his 20 years. The diary began in 1837 when he resigned from his teaching post and began his new philosophical life at Concord under Ralph Waldo Emerson, becoming his disciple. This diary extends to the end of his life, almost, since it will keep it updated until 1861. Beyond his prodigious talent to describe the nature he walks during his walks (descriptions of animals, but also shrubs, flowers and other elements of the flora), there are also more transcendent or even “transcendental” elements.

SIMPLICITY

He regularly criticizes a society based on work and money. It aspires more simplicity, simplicity that would focus on real wealth inherent in man and essential and not speculative and cumbersome. “They think I’m lazy. I think they work for money, “I’m convinced that men are not busy, that’s not the way to spend a day. ” He refers, moreover, to minimalism in his way of life, even poverty that leads him to enjoy more fully the few objects he has. According to him, poverty is the instrument of freedom because it keeps us from dependence on objects, money and therefore the system based on work. Beyond a sustained criticism of the mode of operation of society, he advances to desire something else for man: he emits, as a forerunner, the wish of a society liberated from the yoke of labour.

“A spacious margin of leisure is as beautiful in a man’s life as in a book. Hasty work, spoiled work, and it is not less true in life than in the domestic economy. Keep the pace, watch the hours of the universe, not the trains. What are seventy years lived in haste and approximation, in comparison with those moments of divine leisure where your life coincides with that of the universe? “

SENSUALISM

Thoreau reproaches the intellectuals for living cut off from their emotions and sensations, cut off from their deep nature, which deprives them of the joy of living simply. “I believe these prose writers, with their choice of laws and sayings, do not know how happy a man can be. He fears this tendency for himself in these terms: “I fear that over the years my knowledge will become more specialized and scientific; that in exchange for views as wide as the expanse of the sky, I am not limited to the field of the microscope”. He repeatedly evokes a complementary use of our different bits of intelligence:

“The body, the senses, must conspire with the mind. Thoreau believes experience as the foundation of our knowledge: “I am not interested in simple phenomena, even the explosion of a planet, as long as they have not passed through the experience of a human being. “

According to Thoreau, knowledge is acquired without the need for the intermediary of the educational institution. Let’s remember here that he gave up teaching early and only occasionally gave lectures, a vain exercise according to him. He dreams of a world where children, instead of going to school, go to the forest to discover nature and pick blueberries. His posture is reminiscent of that of Ivan Illich, criticizing the school institution in the 1970s: “We are all schoolmasters, and our school is the universe”.

PHILOSOPHY OF ACTION

Thoreau calls for action and encourages men to work for their well-being first and to use their energy in the implementation of their thought: “What I started reading, I must finish it in acting. For him, there is no “little work”: “But let the lame man shake his leg and trace his race to that of the fastest man. So he will do what is in his power to do. The prestige of a gesture is measured by the way one appreciates it, hence the importance of cultivating one’s interiority in order to have one’s own scales: “Great thoughts sanctify any task. The fact of thinking in oneself is not enough, it is about acting, on this ground fertilized by the thought: “For me, the moment has come to sow. For too long I stayed fallow. ”

GOD

Thoreau regularly criticizes the clerical institution and revokes the existence of a God as he conceives it, he is not free from spirituality, and readily believes in the existence of divine powers linked to the elements of nature. . Belief in God is for him an obstacle to the free disposition of himself and his spirit, he articulates his atheism with an exhortation to enjoy the present moment, here and now: “We must not postpone anything. Take the opportunity by the hair. Now or never! It is necessary to live in the present, to launch oneself on each wave, to find one’s eternity in each moment. The idiots remain confined to the island of their possibilities and look towards another land. But there is no other land; there is no other life than this one or one like it. ”

In his Journal, we see some contours of his thought on certain political subjects such as the condemnation of slavery, his rejection of institutions (clerical, political, intellectual and cultural, scientific), his interest in Indians ( culture, history, relationship to nature) and finally, and above all!, its visceral struggle for the protection of animals and nature (condemnation of the fur trade and preservation of forests, in particular).

It is obvious that I have tried to extract the essence from the Thoreau’s works in order to deliver here some elements which, far from being exhaustive, make it possible to briefly expose a thought which he has not stopped writing and rewriting over the seasons of his life, but with undeniable consistency both in themes and in his approach to the world.

How to Think Like a Roman Emperor

We received an email from St. Martin's Press, offering Psychology Tweets an advanced copy of:

How to Think Like a Roman Emperor: The Stoic Philosophy of Marcus Aurelius by Donald J Robertson

Being editors of @PhilosophyTweet we thought we would review it here:

How to Think Like a Roman Emperor: The Stoic Philosophy of Marcus Aurelius is an excellent book for both those interested in adding to their Stoic library and those who are curious about the stoic life. The editors of Philosophytweet have been looking at the parallels of Taoism, Cognitive Psychology, and the Stoics so we were pleased to obtain this book when it arrived. The book places us in the mind of a Stoic philosopher who is a leader and general in the highest political position of Rome facing adversity trying to live up to his ideals in a time of continuous war.

The book is timely in that we live in a world of disruption and fragmentation.  The Stoic philosophy has always placed focus on doing the things you can control versus the things outside of your control. Composure and living in accord with nature, being humble and even tempered are the most effective ways to deal with the viscitudes of existence.

There is a comparison of Marcus Aurelius and his rival, Avidius Cassius, leadership styles and their influence on the Roman Legions and how Marcus Aurelius adheres to his Stoic ideals.

Robertson teaches us about eudaimonia that Stoic joy is an  active experience and that resilience comes from entering the “inner citadel, living as though on a mountaintop” regardless of your situation.

Stoic Moderation as a goal is also touched upon, Robertson writes, “Some philosophers, as we’ve seen, claim that the mere act of exercising moderation could become more gratifying itself than indulging in bad habits."

We at @philosophytweet are impressed how Robertson parallels history, philosophy, and psychology in an entertaining way.  We learn Stoic philosophy through a journey with Marcus Aurelius in a momentous moment in Roman history. - @PhilosophyTweet Editors


How to Think Like a Roman Emperor: The Stoic Philosophy of Marcus Aurelius by Donald J Robertson

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07D2C5NNV/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_awdb_t1_x_A.uFDbP67Y8ZG