The sage of Koenigsberg

[Carl Jung]

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is by many recognized as the greatest philosopher who ever lived. His contributions to epistemology is vast and indeed, as Schopenhauer pointed out - Kants' thoughts is the defining factor between mankind in adolescence and the adulthood of our species.

No philosopher before or after has reached so deeply within the subject of the possibility of human knowledge. Kant once said that in philosophy we are interested in three great questions: “What can I know?”, “What should I do?” and “What may I hope?”.

Many philosophers of old are rather out of date - and one rightly feels one can't understand why one should read them (except for understanding the history of ideas) - but with Kant there is so much of vital importance for a good life that one doesn't know where to start.

To me Kant is one of those readers that just changes how you look at life. And the most important parts of his works are on epistemology, aesthetics and ethics.

What does Kant mean to you?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Carl Jung

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is by many recognized as the greatest philosopher who ever lived. His contributions to epistemology is vast and indeed, as Schopenhauer pointed out - Kants' thoughts is the defining factor between mankind in adolescence and the adulthood of our species.

No philosopher before or after has reached so deeply within the subject of the possibility of human knowledge. Kant once said that in philosophy we are interested in three great questions: “What can I know?”, “What should I do?” and “What may I hope?”.

Many philosophers of old are rather out of date - and one rightly feels one can't understand why one should read them (except for understanding the history of ideas) - but with Kant there is so much of vital importance for a good life that one doesn't know where to start.

To me Kant is one of those readers that just changes how you look at life. And the most important parts of his works are on epistemology, aesthetics and ethics.

What does Kant mean to you?

I don't know, I don't know enough about him. I entirely agree though with those 3 questions being the most important questions we can ask ourselves.

[EthanT]

Originally Posted by Carl Jung

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is by many recognized as the greatest philosopher who ever lived. His contributions to epistemology is vast and indeed, as Schopenhauer pointed out - Kants' thoughts is the defining factor between mankind in adolescence and the adulthood of our species.

No philosopher before or after has reached so deeply within the subject of the possibility of human knowledge. Kant once said that in philosophy we are interested in three great questions: “What can I know?”, “What should I do?” and “What may I hope?”.

Many philosophers of old are rather out of date - and one rightly feels one can't understand why one should read them (except for understanding the history of ideas) - but with Kant there is so much of vital importance for a good life that one doesn't know where to start.

To me Kant is one of those readers that just changes how you look at life. And the most important parts of his works are on epistemology, aesthetics and ethics.

What does Kant mean to you?

Haven't read Kant, but he's been on my Amazon wish list with several others I've been wanting to read (including Schopenhauer!)

I think you just convinced me to order Kant for my next read ;-)

[Bernardo]

Originally Posted by Carl Jung

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is by many recognized as the greatest philosopher who ever lived. His contributions to epistemology is vast and indeed, as Schopenhauer pointed out - Kants' thoughts is the defining factor between mankind in adolescence and the adulthood of our species.

No philosopher before or after has reached so deeply within the subject of the possibility of human knowledge. Kant once said that in philosophy we are interested in three great questions: “What can I know?”, “What should I do?” and “What may I hope?”.

Many philosophers of old are rather out of date - and one rightly feels one can't understand why one should read them (except for understanding the history of ideas) - but with Kant there is so much of vital importance for a good life that one doesn't know where to start.

To me Kant is one of those readers that just changes how you look at life. And the most important parts of his works are on epistemology, aesthetics and ethics.

What does Kant mean to you?

A true sage. I even visited his grave when I was in Kaliningrad (Russia; former Koenigsberg, Germany, till before the war), which is uncharacteristic of me. Yet, his transcendental aesthetics (Critique of Pure Reason) seems cautious to me in the sense that he sticks to epistemology and avoids venturing into ontology. On the other hand, the impossibility to jump into ontology is the very point of his argument, so...

[paqart]

Personally I think the person who came up with "Do no harm" or "Love thy neighbor" and "Turn the other cheek" to be much more interesting and practical.

AP

[Carl Jung]

Don't you feel that approach kind of leaves out the wonder of trying to understand what being human is all about?

Doing no harm seems a good thing - but then again, it is only possible to do that if you accept life as somehow being unthreatened by the death of the body. When I am threatened it seems only correct to somehow respond to the threat. I have personally no love for doing harm - but often that or having harm done to you seems like the only choices available.

Love thy neighbour seems a good thing too - but I can only love someone who is worthy of that love. Otherwise my love is arbitrary, right? I don't accept that being my neighbour is a criteria for being worthy of my love. However, I am prepared to love any neighbour as long as they are the kind of person I can love.

Turn the other cheek seems flawed for many reasons:

1. It is not psychologically healthy to allow harm to be done to yourself without standing up for your right to be unharmed. One must needs respond if threatened otherwise one will lose respect for oneself.

2. If this world was a forgiving place where choices you make doesn't have life and death-consequences then I can understand one doesn't feel forced to respond to threats. But it just makes no sense not to respond to violence if this life is the only we know we will have.

Still I have a lot of admiration for non-violence and it seems to have worked in the past - but I don't understand it. I guess it is a matter of conflicting worldviews.

[EthanT]

Originally Posted by Carl Jung

1. It is not psychologically healthy to allow harm to be done to yourself without standing up for your right to be unharmed. One must needs respond if threatened otherwise one will lose respect for oneself.

Hi Carl, have you read about Ghandi before? Or watched the popular movie with Ben Kingsley before?

I only ask because I think he is one of the best living examples of Jesus teachings, specifically "turn the other cheek". Ghandi was in part inspired by Tolstoy's book "The Kingdom of Heaven is Within You", where Tolstoy philosophizes about non-violent opposition, or even non-resistance to evil.

I'd be surprised if one could read about Ghandi and not have a great amount of respect for this guy, and the man exhibited a strength that was incredible. It is a very inspirational story and he gave India it's independence from British colonial rule with his methods.

I think Ghandi showed a way to stand up for oneself w/o necessarily succumbing to violence oneself, while retaining a great amount of inner strength and respect.

[paqart]

Originally Posted by Carl Jung

Don't you feel that approach kind of leaves out the wonder of trying to understand what being human is all about?

I'm not that interested in trying to understand "what being human" is about, but in learning to eliminate flaws in my knowledge and character. The old "do no harm" rule, all by itself, can lead to the kind of knowledge you are talking about, but it will be more solid because it is active rather than just conversation.

AP

[Carl Jung]

Originally Posted by paqart

I'm not that interested in trying to understand "what being human" is about, but in learning to eliminate flaws in my knowledge and character. The old "do no harm" rule, all by itself, can lead to the kind of knowledge you are talking about, but it will be more solid because it is active rather than just conversation.

AP

Indeed, I agree - it is not at all a stupid thing. It just seems so otherworldly. Both brave and naive at the same time.

Strong and beautiful - yet at the same time utopian, cold and in-human as we all live in a world ruled by an evil natural law.

It struck me one time as I was lying asleep in my old country cottage that this world is made in such a way that some creatures must suffer so others can live. It is an awful thing, I think - but we must accept it as real.

It seems difficult to accept "Do no harm" in a world that seems as far from paradise as you can possibly come. This a world were the war for resources makes us all do things we don't want in order to survive. And though there are mere moments of happiness, we can strive for those few moments and nurture them as an etherical picture of that beauty we might have achieved were the physical constraints of our existence different.

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by Carl Jung

Don't you feel that approach kind of leaves out the wonder of trying to understand what being human is all about?

It doesn't necessarily leave out anything. It just prioritizes things differently. Kant's questions are fine, but they might not be first priority for everyone, they could be second or third priority for some people.

Doing no harm seems a good thing - but then again, it is only possible to do that if you accept life as somehow being unthreatened by the death of the body. When I am threatened it seems only correct to somehow respond to the threat. I have personally no love for doing harm - but often that or having harm done to you seems like the only choices available.

Doing no harm isn't the same thing as ignoring harm done by others. If you use force to stop violence you are not doing harm, you are preventing harm.

Love thy neighbour seems a good thing too - but I can only love someone who is worthy of that love. Otherwise my love is arbitrary, right? I don't accept that being my neighbour is a criteria for being worthy of my love. However, I am prepared to love any neighbour as long as they are the kind of person I can love.

How do you decide who is worthy of love? If you were inside their head and knew what was motivating them you would might think differently. Knowing that, how can anyone make any assumptions about who is worthy to love. If a loved one did something stupid, you probably wouldn't stop loving them because of one stupid act.

Jesus chased the money changers out of the temple. He didn't do it by asking nicely. But he didn't hate them either.

Sometimes using force is justified, particularly to stop violence and protect innocent people. But that doesn't mean you have to hate the person you are using force against. Love is always a viable option, it doesn't restrict your options, it increases them. It might open you to possibilities for a solution that hate would preclude.

Sometimes it never occurs to people that they can be assertive and stand up for their rights without buying into the scenario of anger and hate. When we see someone acting stupidly or someone angry at us we get angry automatically without thinking if it is wise. But anger doesn't always help bring about a solution. You can say what you have to say and do what you have to do without being angry.

I think this is easiest to understand if you think of a conflict with a member of your family. Your loved one wants you to do something you think is unwise and you refuse. They get angry but you remain calm and stand your ground, and continue to speak and act from love. Love doesn't mean weak, it doesn't mean slave, it is more likely to mean free.

It is possible for you to act the same way with strangers.

Turn the other cheek seems flawed for many reasons:

1. It is not psychologically healthy to allow harm to be done to yourself without standing up for your right to be unharmed. One must needs respond if threatened otherwise one will lose respect for oneself.

Probably true for most people.

2. If this world was a forgiving place where choices you make doesn't have life and death-consequences then I can understand one doesn't feel forced to respond to threats. But it just makes no sense not to respond to violence if this life is the only we know we will have.

It depends who else is involved.

Consider the quote in context. Jesus did not give life threatening examples, or examples where other people were involved when he tried to express this idea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

Also of interest from the zen tradition.

http://spiritualinquiry.com/zen-stories/is-that-so/

A beautiful girl in the village was pregnant. Her angry parents demanded to know who was the father. At first resistant to confess, the anxious and embarrassed girl finally pointed to Hakuin, the Zen master whom everyone previously revered for living such a pure life. When the outraged parents confronted Hakuin with their daughter’s accusation, he simply replied “Is that so?”

When the child was born, the parents brought it to the Hakuin, who now was viewed as a pariah by the whole village. They demanded that he take care of the child since it was his responsibility. “Is that so?” Hakuin said calmly as he accepted the child.

For many months he took very good care of the child until the daughter could no longer withstand the lie she had told. She confessed that the real father was a young man in the village whom she had tried to protect. The parents immediately went to Hakuin to see if he would return the baby. With profuse apologies they explained what had happened. “Is that so?” Hakuin said as he handed them the child.

Still I have a lot of admiration for non-violence and it seems to have worked in the past - but I don't understand it. I guess it is a matter of conflicting worldviews.

You can learn about non-violence:

http://www.nonviolenceinternational....hatis/book.php

Nonviolent action is a technique by which people who reject passivity and submission, and who see struggle as essential, can wage their conflict without violence. Nonviolent action is not an attempt to avoid or ignore conflict. It is one response to the problem of how to act effectively in politics, especially how to wield powers effectively.

Non-violence is a method chosen for it's effectiveness not necessarily because of philosophical belief in meekness. Non-violence works by provoking a repressive government into becoming more and more repressive until they have alienated so much of the population that no one supports them and they lose their power base and can no longer wield power. These provocations are often designed to avoid harm to provocateurs or others although sometimes that will happen. It doesn't necessarily mean standing up to a tank on the way to Tianamen square, it could mean wearing a green head scarf, or shouting god is great from your roof top - two tactics attempted in Iran because they would normally be unexceptional except in the repressive environment after the contested elections.

In some cases a violent revolution is impossible, if there are no weapons available, if the regime is sufficiently repressive, if too few people are ready to fight, in these cases non-violent actions may be the only useful actions.

People who advocate non-violence understand that violent revolutions often lead to changing one repressive government for another and they want to avoid that result. Often, non-violence is a practical, safer, solution to violence. It is form of action. It is not a philosophical belief in meekness or inaction.

Another example from the zen tradition...
http://spiritualinquiry.com/zen-stor...me-a-disciple/

One evening as Shichiri Kojun was reciting sutras a thief with a sharp sword entered, demanding either money or his life.

Shichiri told him: “Do not disturb me. You can find the money in that drawer.” Then he resumed his recitation.

A little while afterwards he stopped and called: “Don’t take it all. I need some to pay taxes with tomorrow.”

The intruder gathered up most of the money and started to leave. “Thank a person when you receive a gift,” Shichiri added. The man thanked him and made off.

A few days afterwards the fellow was caught and confessed, among others, the offence against Shichiri. When Shichiri was called as a witness he said: “This man is no thief, at least as far as I am concerned. I gave him money and he thanked me for it.”

After he had finished his prison term, the man went to Shichiri and became his disciple.