Could you please say more about the "contract" and the third
hahahahahahteeejej
Sort:
Jul 27, 2015
0
#43
Trash_Aesthetic wrote:
Why do we play chess? More precisely, should we be playing chess? Should we, in fact, be posting here instead of spending time with our friends and family?
This issue raises a hot ethical debate. In the late 18th century, Immanuel Kant published his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, in which he laid out his ethical philosophy. Invoking the concept of a law, he said that all human beings obey a law that influences and motivates our actions, although we cannot know what that law is. In other words, Kant says, we think we are autonomous beings, but, in reality, are heteronomous - that is, we are not the author of our own fate, so to speak.
What this translates to here is that although we may play chess of our own free will, in actuality we are doing so, assuming we are not physically forced to, due to forces we don't understand and don't even know are operating on a supra-mental level. Freud, who lived in Austria and who grew up on Kant, called this phenomenon being led by one's unconscious.
My view, and I hope you agree, is, ethically, it is very dangerous to be led by a law that you cannot control (of course, this position can also be debated). It's a deep debate, but when I tell people, you need to write a contract and then tear it up, in order to escape the law, after explaining them what I mean, they acknowledge my thesis.
Essentially you can take Plato's advice and compare the ethics to a household. The law is like the father; in fact, in ancient religious texts, the law is generally referred to law of the father and it's thought Kant got his idea to name it "law" from these texts. Assuming you are male (Freud also assumed this, but my big hunch is if you are female then just reverse simply! - the law is the mother), then (and it's proven in the modern psychology) that you do things to garner your father's love and support. Because your father is always telling you what to do or not (disregarding Freud's Oedipus complex for now) he becomes the law that you follow. You may be playing chess because you want to be good enough for him, even if consciously you don't acknoweledge this fact. You feel indebted to your father; you want to prove to him you're worthy.
But, there's a way to escape the law of the father, even though you have no direct access to this law. Now one can see the mother at work. Specifically, I have in mind marriage - obviously not to actually marry your mother but to marry a women and love her, so she becomes your law (Freud would agree; a displacement of the Oedipus complex!) By leaving the father's household, one, in effect, "writes up a contract" of marriage. The law is still there, as a trace, but the new, stronger force, replaces the old one.
However, I advocate a freedom as the best policy for ethical actions. Marriage is great but not enough. Now it's time to "rip up the contract" so that you, essentially, can "be in touch with yourself" - that is, act according to your 'own' law. As Freud would probably agree, this freedom comes when you see, discover, your wife doesn't have the same sexual organs as you. You realize that the male was never special and that they have something you lack. So you "rip up the contract" and distance yourself from both father and wife/mummy, keeping both as someone you'd like to please, but yet having enough distance to think and humble yourself.
This is essentially how I think ethics works, and many professionals agree, albeit reluctantly. I play chess of my own free will, because it's fun - and when I'm having fun everyone benefits.
What do you think? Should you be playing chess? What do you have to say about the ethical theory?
Looking forward to your comment
kant you look at it from the personality thing, 4 personalities - law-followers, contract-followers, phallus-followers, and no-followers (you left this one out. it means you have absolutely no identity. or it is the same as phallic followers.
thanks TA
Jul 27, 2015
0
#44
in literature you see the characters fallling from their law to following a contract. you dont see contract to phallus
Jul 27, 2015
0
#45
precisely no. in sacher masoch its specifically a contract with the seductress, he falls and separates from himself at the end - as a man, in the phallic stage as you seem to be misusing it. Phallic represents emptiness, as in the Truth..... and not emptiness as in existence but in Truth
Jul 27, 2015
0
#46
Oh, please! the contract brakes when the guy realizes the law is there! phallus is an extension of the law
Jul 27, 2015
0
#47
obeying a contract by latching onto the other means nothing - you realize its a quick fix, so you break. but you need to latch onto the other first before you break completely
Jul 27, 2015
0
#48
its just development of a personality. you learn to be "independent" (as you say, autonomous) and go through these "Freudian" stages.
I know more about Freud than you and your monkey-mouth put together
Jul 27, 2015
0
#49
Whip_Kitten wrote:
Trash_Aesthetic wrote:
astronomer999 wrote:
As the drowning man said "I sink, therefore I am"
It was Descartes, and he said I think therefore I am.
I don't know where you got that quote
You've got to be shitting me.
Actually I think he's right
Jul 27, 2015
0
#50
And it wasn't so clear. so descartes first proved ideas exist, then the cause of these ideas the self. then the cause of the self, a divine creator. He is big into causes and effects. so really his famous statement should be understood as thus:
(cause) i think
(effect) i am
he was a product of enlightenment rational thought that you could explain any cause from its effect, which later hume and kant proved wrong
Jul 27, 2015
0
#51
like the famous flying man argument - if youre elevated in midair without a body you can assert your existence. because, descartes, said, you think it
bla bla bla bla
Jul 27, 2015
0
#52
Which books are law to contract and which are contract to phallus
Jul 27, 2015
0
#53
law to contract is when the character "falls". contract to phallus is when general things fall
Jul 27, 2015
0
#54
simply contract to phallus is when an already miserable character ends his narrative
Jul 27, 2015
0
#55
its different characters; the law-followers feel guilt, whereas the contract-followers feel misery
Jul 27, 2015
0
#56
you have to go from guilt to misery to desire (pain to pleasure to desire)
Jul 27, 2015
0
#57
law-followers feel a need to payback, contract followers resolve NOT to payback
Jul 27, 2015
0
#59
Hatty-Freeham wrote:
like the famous flying man argument - if youre elevated in midair without a body you can assert your existence. because, descartes, said, you think it
bla bla bla bla
I have recently concluded that Descartes major contributions were to mathematics. He was a true mathematician by nature, and his works on the coordinates wil reamain as long as mankind does.
But...his dualistic philosophy sucks. It just sucks.
Jul 27, 2015
0
#60
YoungPatzer wrote:
Hatty-Freeham wrote:
like the famous flying man argument - if youre elevated in midair without a body you can assert your existence. because, descartes, said, you think it
bla bla bla bla
I have recently concluded that Descartes major contributions were to mathematics. He was a true mathematician by nature, and his works on the coordinates wil reamain as long as mankind does.
But...his dualistic philosophy sucks. It just sucks.
i prefer even mary wollenscroft to descartes
As the drowning man said "I sink, therefore I am"
It was Descartes, and he said I think therefore I am.
I don't know where you got that quote
Nothing gets by you.
This alone made reading the other tripe on this thread worthwhile. Almost.