Kant - Blog Posts

“In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so” - Immanuel Kant

I LOVE SAFEWORD USE IN NONSEXUAL SITUATIONS I LOVE THAT KANT HAD A WAY OF TELLING BISON THAT HE WAS CLOSE TO CROSSING A LINE I LOVE THAT THE SAFEWORD WAS ACTUALLY USED IN THE STORY I LOVE THAT BISON SAW THE SINCERITY OF KANT'S PLEA AND LEFT I LOVE THAT KANT WAS HONEST ENOUGH TO COMMUNICATE THAT BISON COULD DO A LOT OF SHIT TO HIM BUT THERE WAS STILL A LIMIT I LOVE IT I LOVE IT I LOVE IT

It takes Kant less than five seconds, between a groggy Bison pushing him back down onto the bed and his skull nearly smacking against the headboard, for him to realize that he’s well and truly fucked. In a horrifying instant, all of his bravado, what little there was, is gone, leaving nothing behind but the hollow cavern in his chest where terror can take root. --- Or, a different take on the Kant/Bison scene from the end of episode three, sans the drugging, featuring: introspection, more angst than you can imagine, a sprinkle of trauma and (mostly) responsible, caring Bison.

---

A fic for this lovely fandom! Please, come indulge my traumatized Kant brain worms :)

presentation i made for a ppt night with some friends,, please laugh

A Question of Morality

Do we do things because they are the moral things to do or do we do them to achieve certain ends? I faced this question in a debate I had with my church's youth group's sort of leader. It was of course a peaceful debate--diplomatically ignoring my views eventually--but this question has been living inside me ever since.

I took a Kantian standpoint and argued in favor of the categorical imperative, whereas my opponent said that, the moral thing is to act to earn God's divine gifts in Heaven. And even though it seemed pretty obvious to me, in the past one week ambiguity has begun to cloud my confidence on this matter.

The heavenly gifts we earn for living a righteous life are quite naturally stimulating and indeed worth living that life for but I thought, that it is not the highest we can get. In my opinion--the one which I had then--acting out completely because of wanting to do the right thing is the most moral way of thinking. Only for the rightness of that action, not for avoiding guilt, or actually finding pleasure in it, or anything of sort.

Using Kant's reasoning however, would actually mean embracing the opposing view, not mine. Kant actually found God in morals this way. His categorical imperative suggests a certain joy felt over the moral act, properly proportionate to how moral the act was. Although he found a problem in this: say--and this is my example--you commit a crime but you have cleaned up after yourself well enough. Still, a clever detective somehow gets to you and you are persecuted. However, when being tried, you find a way to get away by adding just one more lie, that could clearly undo the validity of any evidence they have against you. Now you are faced wih the dilemma, that either you add just one more lie and get away, or act morally and confess. It is problematic to imagine a situation, where a criminal in the midst of trial starts to think about morality but let's accept it for the sake of the thought experiment. Now before moving any further, I add another crucial detail: because of the severety of your crime and the local laws, if you testify guilty, you will be executed on the scene without any delay. So now, acting immorally will just get you life, in which you can try to make up for the wrongs you've done and do probably some even more moral things, than confessing now. On the contrary, in the present state, the only justifiable action is testifying guilty. But this morality, thinking in earthly matters, is completely vain. It earns you nothing, neither for the community, and though everyone will agree, that at least you did the right thing when you confessed of your crime, you will still be marked as overall immoral, and above these, you will not have a chance to feel any joy over your moral act. Impending death, brought forth only by a moral act, which serves only the abstract morality itself, can take away this kind of joy...

In the case above, according to Kant, the only acceptable choice is the moral one. But without a sort of moral joy felt over it and any service implemented through this, it certainly becomes difficult to find any point in it. On the contrary, no matter the contingencies, such as one's lack of time for joy, you should still choose the moral decision.

Now this is a place, where Kant found God. After your moral act, you can have joy over it even after you are dead, in case there is life after death. In case there is Heaven, and it is accessible to you--well, anyone can say a prayer a be saved even right before death--this final moral act of yours, will prove to be not in vain and you will have a chance to have that sort of moral joy in the proper proportion.

No, no one has to agree with Kant. I know, I haven't seen into the depths he has or the depths there are to this question. But--without solidly stating, that this is the right way to think about this question--this is a possible answer, that put some things into new light for me. It's good to get it off my chest :)

osho mausetot

an dieser ställe möchte ich meiner freude über die freiheit, sagen zu können, dass es keinen gott gibt, ausdruck verleihen. diese freude stieg mir anlässlich einer lektüre schopenhauers(etwas in seinem oppulenten werk geblättert) und der “schopenhauer-kur” von irvin d.yalom auf (kluger, unterhaltender roman) .

friedrich nietzsche hatte den “Tod Gottes” seinerzeit populär gemacht und damit die freiheit, dies ungestraft öffentlich sagen zu dürfen, begründet. kant musste noch galileiisch darauf verzichten, da er seinen lehrstuhl riskiert hätte (kante freiheit nicht?). arthur schopenhauer war diesbezüglich(materiell) unabhängig und kritisierte die uniprofs auch dementsprechend verächtlich ob ihres bürgerlichen opportunismus, stand wohl auch mit göte in antagonistischem briefverkehr, dieser mochte es aber auch nicht bestreiten( dass es keinen gott gibt, eher den mefistofel).

auch erbaulich aber pikant ist die vortragsreihe “der gott den es nicht gibt” von sektenführer(puh) osho, auch bekannt glaube ich als rajshnee baghwan oder so,...bei den baghwanis bin ich in den 90ern oft in deren discos gast gewesen, hatte nebenbei immer provokant freundlich aber letzlich vergeblich darauf gewartet, das mich mal einer zu bekehren versuchte...-nicht ein wort. ich war schwer beleidigt wegen des desinteresses an meiner morbiden person. die haben das einfach für sich behalten und mir haufenweise alkohol ausgeschenkt, unverschämtheit. dabei haben sie gerade damit erreicht, dass ich zum, wenn auch abergläubischen, atheisten mutierte. hätten sie versucht, mich über die nichtexistenz gottes aufzuklären, wäre ich sicherlich kleinbürgerlich-reflexhaft in opposition gesprungen und augenblicklich aus protest katholisch geworden. gott bewahre. also psüscho-logie vom osho - und meditationstechniken, meisterhafte - den unerklärlichen rest an weltgeist (siehe I GING) möchte ich depersonalisierend ungeschlechtlich (is nix mit dem HErrn als lieben gott, ätsch) als “höchstes prinzip” bezeichnen. doch : etwas demut tut gut, sonst kriegt man noch rückenschmerzen wegen des besenstielig aufrecht versteiften nihilismus. die moslems wissen schon, warum sie 5 mal am tag gymnastisch niederknien und im “päckchensitz” die nase auf den boden drücken. reiner pragmatismus, salutogenese in religionssoße( s.a. kein alkohol, kein schweinefleisch,..vorm gotteshaus füsse waschen, siehe diabetologische hygiene). protestanten propagiern ja auch immer schlimmer enthaltsamkeiten und lange spaziergänge (ich bin dann mal weg und  gefässerkrankungen mit todesfolge nehmen ab - erklär ich nochmal eben : förderung des venösen rückstromes zum herzen und dessen unterstützung durch die sogenannte muskelpumpe des die beinvenen umgebenden muskeltonus bei bewegung).

nächste folge ... : nach dem tod is da leider nix mehr, tja, schade,... du hast keine chance, aber nutze sie.