Hello Faithful Reader.
I hope this month's edition of the Black Birdseye View finds you well and in good spirits. I am well. What I am about to share is something that I wrote decades ago for a philosophy class. It's interesting to see that my thoughts are still so similar. I went in and cleaned it up, but for the most part, my thoughts were clear.
"Immanuel Kant placed emphasis on rationality and the ability we should all have to think for ourselves and claim our words as our own. He concentrated on moral law, that is, doing the right thing through categorical imperative.
"Act only that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become the universal law."
One should not depend on hypothetical imperative. A hypothetical imperative is not grounded. It stems from a place where "anything" can happen in a dream. It is subjective and unstable because it is not inevitable. It can only occur if "things" go according to a plan based on "what ifs," "you ought to…then this will happen." It hinges on a sequence of events that we may or may not be able to control.
Rather than exist amid hope, Kant promoted a more reflective, insightful thinking that brings about rational understanding. It dares us to question our reason and consider our actions and their ends. It is necessary to break situations down and figure out if they can be counterproductive.
Are you true to yourself and your growth? Are your ideas empty tales that embrace empty promises that lead to nothing concrete?
Contradictions filled with holes make even the most elaborate story into a child's test of "fill in the blank." Kant dared us to question contradictions in will: Kant said that anything that limits the will is immoral and cannot become a universal law. Kant's prime objective was not to become a slave. He promoted actively thinking.”
Those were my thoughts on Kant. What follows are my free thoughts on the topic:
Being sure of your words because they represent you is not an art to be mastered. Naturally, they should flow. Each of us, born into this place, came to be through our instincts to be. Upon arrival, our individuality is tampered with, as we are tailor-fitted to the environment we are thrust into. Behind this tampering, we come across the customs set into place to keep people in place and at bay, customs that are suspect because they are born from this place that captured us in the first place. Not knowing better, we adopt the customs that rule the kingdom. Without question, we follow down a path paved by fantasy and history that is as uncertain as the meanings in the scriptures that so many recite. What is a word? So many things.
Universal is a big word.
Understanding that I am in my spot in a place in this vast universe, I think that we all play our part in keeping this big ball rolling if it is, indeed, a ball and is indeed rolling. Not having been on the outside, I tend to wonder.
If placed in a position where people only spoke words of truth and had only the best intentions at heart, practicing universal law, the average person would endure culture shock for life. We are preconditioned to think and act a certain way and, in most cases, considering only our positive ends, often overlooking the bigger picture.
Our intuitive nature dulls with the clouds of storms we endure and the fire of drama we wrap ourselves in, in an attempt to forget. All the while urged to follow teachings and hold fast to faith. Not to speak out against religion, only to say that we put our fate in the hands of faith that is not tangible and may or may not exist except to console battered souls. That within itself is interesting.
Universal law does exist, but most never read the fine print because they are busy being brainwashed, intentionally or unintentionally. I see nothing wrong with and can speak nothing negative about truth and understanding as long as the masses don't attempt to justify the "truth" to get by or break the law. But then the law is supposed to be foolproof, so the masses must abide. Abide or what? Look to history.
For universal law to benefit to its capacity, there must be reciprocity. Otherwise, people living right are wide open for deceitful, underhanded, immoral, wrongdoers who do not stand in line for the law because they own the law and use it along with "rights" as tools to reach their ends, regardless of any law. History sits on the witness stand. History is indisputable.
People have issues and are far from perfect, and unless things change, they will always put their survival first and concentrate on their positive end regardless of any law.
Isn't "right" power? Doesn't power stand in representation of right? Is power strength? Doesn't strength endure?
Right, remains focused on the positive end that benefits the masses. The self-centered nature will not exist amid right.
Is this any different from "the meek shall inherit the earth" border lining on "turning the other cheek?" Where did the idea of "right stem?" Who did it benefit first? I believe the reality is that "right" is the opposite of the norm. If you need an example of the norm, look around.
I hope you enjoyed going back in time with me.
Until next time.
Robin
Contact Links:
· Listen the BBEV Podcast https://anchor.fm/blackbirseyeview?fbclid=IwAR32cp_dpNng_N6WYlUgPNSmRks0Q5FhZp5bTt6gpFhdQs7B2LMF96mAjGc
· Website: https://blackbirdseyeviewn.wixsite.com/bbev
· Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/theblackbirdseyeview
· Email: blackbirdseyeviewnews@gmail.com
· BBEV / Carolina Call Newspaper https://www.thecarolinacall.com/
Comments