1041. What makes the human mind dependant on morality and a system of universal rules of behaviour and thought? What makes bright humans, like Kant for example- who are otherwise so adept in analyzing the limits of human cognition and in evaluating the limits of human reason - then reach for the absolute veracity of ethical correctness? Is it a natural consequence of human frailty? Is it the tribal instinct asserting itself upon free-will? Is it the innate terror felt, by every conscious and rational mind, when faced with responsibility? Is it the inherent contradiction of reaching for dissimilar goals, such as in the case of ‘happiness’ and ‘power’ or the confrontation between practical and abstract reasoning? Is it the struggle between individual, immediate virtues against communal eternal ones? Is it the natural aversion of the mind, created by and dependant on order and linear time, of all that appears chaotic and disorderly? Zizek said in "Welcome to the Desert of the Real": It is not emphatically true of our ‘post-modern’ time, with its freedom to deconstruct, doubt distantiate oneself? We should not forget that Chesterton makes exactly the same claim as Kant in his “What is Enlightenment?”: ‘Think as much as you like, and as freely as you like, just obey!’ The only difference is that Chesterton is more specific, and spells out the implicit paradox beneath Kantian reasoning: not only does freedom of thought not undermine actual social servitude, it positively sustains it. The old motto ‘Don’t think, obey!’ to which reacts is counterproductive: it effectively breeds rebellion; the only way to secure social servitude is through freedom of thought. Chesterton is also logical enough to assert the obverse of Kant’s motto: the struggle for freedom needs a reference to some unquestionable dogma. The main reason being that freedom itself is so terrifying to the mind, that it will grasp onto anything that is close at hand when it is left in the void of self-reliance. The mind needs a ground to stand on before it ventures off to discover, even the illusions of its own certainty. Without it, without the a priori, consciousness becomes fragmented and schizophrenic. But where higher minds separate themselves from lower ones is in that the latter, not only want rules for their sensual interpretations and synthesis of concepts, but want rules for the righteousness of their interpretations and synthesis- the approval of the Other-, whereas the former feel this to be a constraint on their evaluations. Morality, can be seen, as the rule of approval, by the Other, in the application of reason. But let us not forget that this difference between individuals is one of degree not of substance, again. The consent of the Other, stands in social species, as a necessary consequence of socialization but it also serves as a testing ground for thought and a means to acquire a multiplicity of perspectives through sharing. The size of the group, from which we seek support, determines our overall value and individuality. Larger groups, more commonly, demand a higher loss of self and a higher degree of discipline to their dictums, because through quantities, qualities become dispensable. All social interactions and the emotional mechanisms that enable them and which eventually lead to moral systems are the consequence of the struggle against extinction. Only physically weak creatures, on an individual basis, congregate in groups. The weaker the species the more elaborate the social structures it creates for its own survival. Even in solitary creatures that only socialize for procreative reasons once a year, express through this brief interaction a failing. All living matter is by definition disadvantaged, because it requires constant effort to maintain itself. Need is how this disadvantage exposes itself.
Posted on: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 09:25:03 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015