He can only do what his duty requires him to do. The person who can think like this, Kant spoke very critically. Kant pointed out that the premise is that he must consider himself free. Once he does not consider himself free, Teacher Hu later disappeared and does not know where he went. Some say he went to the south, while others say he went somewhere. Anyway, he said he will not teach us in the future, and no one is missing.
At this point, what do you think is unnecessary?
The country says so, it was launched by South Korea, so of course they don't think it's necessary to say it. Let's talk about it again, we're in a history class, how is it necessary to talk about this kind of thing.
So, it's different, Kant is still right here. At times, I feel very sad. Look at our era, migrant workers always say the word 'I' in silence. This is my freedom, and freedom has become a very common word in our society.
What's even sadder is that 'freedom' has become a tool and a means when dealing with others. I mean words, conceptual words, have become a different meaning. You can't park your car randomly, you can't control it, it becomes our concept for dealing with society, and no one really thinks about these two words.
Kant believed that freedom is simple, it means that we can make our actions not be pushed by external forces, even if it is for the sake of happiness, which becomes our motivation to act. Kant believed that it is not freedom. I do this to see myself, to make myself happy. Am I not freedom?
I'm having some fun now. You guys go to the teacher's class, it's not interesting at all. I'm going out to watch a play or something else. This is my freedom, and I'm very happy about it. For Kant, you are precisely thinking of motivation as being pushed away by an external thing. You are not free, because most people would consider it freedom, and I can seek joy.
He is speaking about the moral philosophy of naturalism and emotionalism in 17th century England, because they believe that morality is meant to make us happy, and the overall trend of moral pursuit is to be happy. Does he mean we are free?
Kant said no, when you are driven by such a motive, you are actually still being promoted by external things. Although we may find that what drives us makes us happy, why?
Because he said that in doing so, freedom is still constrained by something that is not something we choose. On the surface, this happiness is something I choose, but Kant said it is not because many things that satisfy happiness are not something you choose. So, in this situation, you are not free, so Kant has always emphasized moral obligations. In fact, you need to see that it is indeed a constraint, an unconditional constraint. He also acknowledges this, of course, it is a constraint.
Otherwise, morality would have no weight. Of course, constraints require us to go beyond things like pursuing happiness or people's livelihoods, "he said. Therefore, the requirements of morality for us are not only to formulate or say better, but also to acknowledge that we are free.
There is one more requirement, to be able to control oneself. Freedom is up to me. Being able to view moral laws not as imposed by others, but as a free person, a rational person. Moral laws are given to myself, not because I am forced to do so, nor because I have an external force imposing them on me. It is precisely because I am free that I add these things.
The concepts we are discussing, self-discipline and freedom, are about legislating moral laws for oneself. All of these things focus on the concept of absolute command, which is a very complex concept that includes these aspects: freedom, self-discipline, and self, because they guarantee their absoluteness three times. Furthermore, why does Kant say that moral laws are absolute commands?
The answer should be like this: first of all, morality comes from freedom, and freedom is an absolute command for him, because the command is set by myself, and the setting is not my subjective rationality, but because it is in line with my innate nature. Innate means absolute, and I cannot choose him. I came into the world, which is actually what the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Human Rights say, that people are born free, not chosen by me. That's how people are.
So, the commands generated by him are of course absolute, and if I can answer in this way, it will ultimately be achieved through my self-discipline.
Why am I saying this?
Because in ancient moral philosophy, this is relatively simple, and the moral foundation is relatively simple. We can say it is regulated, we can say it is left by our ancestors, we can say it is given to us by our traditions. However, modern people, after the Enlightenment movement, must have another thing to prove that morality still has such absoluteness as it did in the past.
In fact, Kant was a particularly intelligent and sensitive person. He had already realized that a moral philosophy like hedonism, utilitarianism, pragmatism, and naturalism like that of England would inevitably lead to the relativization of morality and ultimately render it meaningless.
He must have already seen it, and after Jacobi mentioned the word "nihilism" at that time, it made him even more vigilant. He repeatedly emphasized this point, and today I feel that we humans, that is, the problem, have never been solved.
The last time I gave an academic salon lecture in the department, as we were all colleagues, I was actually quite restrained. However, when I finally talked about the principles of heaven, I didn't expect all the teachers to feel intimidated and eventually told me that they had exceeded the deadline. This was a huge blow, and he said it was really the most critical issue.
The problem that people are facing today is these four words, where is the natural order.
If there is to be somewhere, you certainly cannot do it in a foolish way, which is a common problem faced by philosophers today. Kant here provides us with his approach, therefore the will not only obeys laws, but also in this way, he must legislate for himself.
Exactly because of this, he first obeys his own law, as Kant said in his "Metaphysics of Morals". He legislates and abides by himself. If the moral laws are not established by us, Kant believes that he has no unconditional constraints and cannot, and even more importantly, if the moral laws are not established in this way, they cannot be consistent with our prior freedom.
So, in Kant's view, it is unacceptable to accept any law that is not established in this way. Why?
Because he shook his fundamental view of human beings, which is absolute freedom, not a priori freedom. So, conversely, the ability of a priori freedom actually implies absolute commands and moral laws.
The reverse is also true. The prior laws and absolute imperative moral laws imply our prior freedom, and both are mutually inclusive and supportive. Only self established laws can complement the concept of our prior freedom, because only such laws can unconditionally constrain us.
When it comes to the laws of the market economy, Kant would scoff at them. What is this? Only things that we are free to know first and are ahead of ourselves can be called laws and unconditionally constrain us. The market, what is this? It is our responsibility to tame the market, not to constrain us. Kant would feel very sad if he lived to this day. How did this person end up in a place where he is becoming less and less successful.
In addition, although we must never be completely forced to do it because it always depends on opportunities and we cannot decide for ourselves, we must never be completely forced to do what we want to do because there are many things in our life practice, opportunities, and things we cannot decide for ourselves, all of which are at work.
But Kant said that we should also believe that we always do things for ourselves, and it cannot be said that this is impossible. It happened by chance, and I have no choice. Who could have imagined that this would happen?
In this situation, Kant acknowledges the normalcy of life, and suddenly something unexpected happens. What happens? However, even though Kant acknowledges the existence of these norms, we still have to persist in what we do to ourselves, because once we use this inherent contingency in life and the enormous influence of external things, once we cancel it off as our own responsibility, nihilism will immediately come again, and morality will be ruined.
Kant's bottom line consciousness cannot be broken through. Some people may say, why are you so inhumane? You must always consider that we have special circumstances, and we cannot let it go with Kant. Why can't we let it go?
Let it go, no one will set an example. Because you need to know that he is a philosopher who is now discussing principles. If you give him relativity, he is no longer called a principle.
He can't let go, why do we have to persist in any situation? We have a responsibility for what we do because the criteria we choose and are bound by them are always our prior values, determined by our prior knowledge. We cannot deny that the criteria or rules are given to us by ourselves in any situation, we can never deny them. He has binding force on me, and I cannot deny it.
Because there are absolutely two things that cannot be denied, we cannot deny that we should be responsible for what we do in any situation. This is a logic of Kant's argument, and today we still consider it a reality.
In each of us, including teachers themselves, we will encounter many moral tests. Of course, we will have various ways of doing things. In fact, when doing things, unless we are really confused, we should follow ourselves or follow how we do them. If we think we are still a sober person, or if we think like Kant said, at least I have freedom in things, we cannot adopt this approach.
网友评论