How should one live one's life?
Broadly, two ways: your way or by another's direction. If you're a fatalist, this post is not for you. If you condemn or pity yourself as a product of your circumstances, this is not for you, either. I, for one, believe in human autonomy. An inevitable corollary of that is the freedom of choice, and thus, the power to shape your life, exactly the way you want it.
I. The Autonomy of Choice
The idea of human autonomy, as Kant[1] proposed it, is that one creates one's own (moral) laws. In sum it is simply this: "[the inherent value of the world, the summum bonum, is freedom] in accordance with a will which is not necessitated to action." This is, then, Kant's emphasis on autonomy as the ability to choose whether or not to act (and with the help of human reason, which is a corollary of autonomy, to choose how to act.
The basis for this insistence on the fundamentality of human autonomy rests in the Kantian idea of the noumenal self[2], which, unlike the phenomenal self, is unaffected by and is independent of (or transcends) external influences or natural events. The noumenal self is to be understood in relation to the phenomenal self. The latter is a product of nature - it is bound by the a priori laws of space and time,[3] and is a product, to a great extent, of deterministic laws.[4] To put it simply: the phenomenal self is all those parts of us (the body, mind and intellect, says Indian philosophy) that are affected by external influences or circumstances.[5] Kant believes that noumenal self is independent of all these and transcends them.
Well, all of that is too complex for this post, and I don't understand them fully myself. The quibbles of language will further complicate the ideas. To explain simply: imagine yourself (Person X, the noumenal self) looking through a telescope. The telescope is your phenomenal self: it's going to be affected by adjustment, focus, the quality of lens, etc.; the sort of focus and accurate imagery it gives you will depend on all those. You (Person X), on the other hand, are independent of all those, and you have the power to adjust the telescope because of this independence. Kant (and incidentally, Indian philosophy), attributes the basis for human autonomy and free will to this independence/transcendence.
So then, one is autonomous. But what does that mean for us, really? That we have the ability to choose whether or not to act. This is not only at the physical level of action ('I'm going to throw this stone' or 'I won't write this exam'), but also at a deeper mental/emotional/intellectual level. It means that we have the ability to choose what we accept and reject of the external influences bearing down upon us.
Broadly, two ways: your way or by another's direction. If you're a fatalist, this post is not for you. If you condemn or pity yourself as a product of your circumstances, this is not for you, either. I, for one, believe in human autonomy. An inevitable corollary of that is the freedom of choice, and thus, the power to shape your life, exactly the way you want it.
I. The Autonomy of Choice
The idea of human autonomy, as Kant[1] proposed it, is that one creates one's own (moral) laws. In sum it is simply this: "[the inherent value of the world, the summum bonum, is freedom] in accordance with a will which is not necessitated to action." This is, then, Kant's emphasis on autonomy as the ability to choose whether or not to act (and with the help of human reason, which is a corollary of autonomy, to choose how to act.
The basis for this insistence on the fundamentality of human autonomy rests in the Kantian idea of the noumenal self[2], which, unlike the phenomenal self, is unaffected by and is independent of (or transcends) external influences or natural events. The noumenal self is to be understood in relation to the phenomenal self. The latter is a product of nature - it is bound by the a priori laws of space and time,[3] and is a product, to a great extent, of deterministic laws.[4] To put it simply: the phenomenal self is all those parts of us (the body, mind and intellect, says Indian philosophy) that are affected by external influences or circumstances.[5] Kant believes that noumenal self is independent of all these and transcends them.
Well, all of that is too complex for this post, and I don't understand them fully myself. The quibbles of language will further complicate the ideas. To explain simply: imagine yourself (Person X, the noumenal self) looking through a telescope. The telescope is your phenomenal self: it's going to be affected by adjustment, focus, the quality of lens, etc.; the sort of focus and accurate imagery it gives you will depend on all those. You (Person X), on the other hand, are independent of all those, and you have the power to adjust the telescope because of this independence. Kant (and incidentally, Indian philosophy), attributes the basis for human autonomy and free will to this independence/transcendence.
So then, one is autonomous. But what does that mean for us, really? That we have the ability to choose whether or not to act. This is not only at the physical level of action ('I'm going to throw this stone' or 'I won't write this exam'), but also at a deeper mental/emotional/intellectual level. It means that we have the ability to choose what we accept and reject of the external influences bearing down upon us.
For example, you and I may each have a different work ethic, and different academic opinions about the same thing. The choice to condemn myself (or yourself) as inferior or superior (which is permitting an external influence to define yourself) is mine and mine (or yours) alone. To take another example, I can say: "The entire world thinks I am a horrible person, and I feel unhappy about that and I am tired of it." The choice here whether or not to internalise the world's opinion into oneself. I can or can not choose to internalise these, and therefore, choose whether or not to let the world's opinion affect me (the self). Similarly with ideas ('I think he's an idiot, and I have nothing to learn from him' or 'Everyone's got something sensible to say' - as Bernard Shaw said, pebbles of truth everywhere).
That - the decision of whether or not to permit an external influence to define/change/affect us - is the first step. The second step is the hardest that we shall ever be forced to make[6], but it also, in some sense, the most liberating. Step Two is responsibility for one's thoughts and actions - and therefore, responsibility for the consequences of those choices.
______
[1] I choose him for two reasons: first, because he is one of the only people I've sought to read extensively on autonomy, and secondly, because he appeals to me. More the former, of course.
[2] Noumenal self is one that is unaffected by any a priori laws; it is beyond all this. In some sense, the idea of God fits this, only Kant is speaking of the human self. Indian philosophy's idea of Brahman (or the Absolute or Ultimate Consciousness or Truth) is similar to this. Noumenon refers, in the Kantian sense, to the thing-in-itself.
[3] See Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, specifically the Transcendental Aesthetic, where he discusses the most controversial of his theories: the idea that human beings cannot understand anything in itself, but only appearances (moulded by practical postulates of space and time).
[4] He means that one cannot understand anything one sees without the crutches of space and time. We understand an event in relation to its position in time and space. It happened now because caused it. For example, 'I am unhappy now because my grandmother died yesterday.'
There is an intrinsic link to the idea of cause-effect in this determinism. If you cannot control the cause (the weather), you cannot control the effect (the tsunami). This is different when we look at internal workings of ourselves, I believe. The question there is not whether or not I can control the causes (those may be in the past, and thus out of our control). The question is merely this: can I exert some measure of control over my response to this external stimuli now? Or am I inevitably, helplessly bound by its effects?
[5] 'I stole a loaf of bread because my family is dying of hunger.' Here, 'I' am affected by these external event: relationship and identification with the same (family), starvation and fear of death, lack of resources. Kant says that one cannot give moral judgment (right and wrong) in such cases. Remember Amartya Sen's illustration of three children and the flute in The Idea of Justice?
[6] And I do mean forced, you know. It's an inevitable corollary of the first step. We shall see what happens when we refuse to accept this step, too.
That - the decision of whether or not to permit an external influence to define/change/affect us - is the first step. The second step is the hardest that we shall ever be forced to make[6], but it also, in some sense, the most liberating. Step Two is responsibility for one's thoughts and actions - and therefore, responsibility for the consequences of those choices.
______
[1] I choose him for two reasons: first, because he is one of the only people I've sought to read extensively on autonomy, and secondly, because he appeals to me. More the former, of course.
[2] Noumenal self is one that is unaffected by any a priori laws; it is beyond all this. In some sense, the idea of God fits this, only Kant is speaking of the human self. Indian philosophy's idea of Brahman (or the Absolute or Ultimate Consciousness or Truth) is similar to this. Noumenon refers, in the Kantian sense, to the thing-in-itself.
[3] See Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, specifically the Transcendental Aesthetic, where he discusses the most controversial of his theories: the idea that human beings cannot understand anything in itself, but only appearances (moulded by practical postulates of space and time).
[4] He means that one cannot understand anything one sees without the crutches of space and time. We understand an event in relation to its position in time and space. It happened now because
There is an intrinsic link to the idea of cause-effect in this determinism. If you cannot control the cause (the weather), you cannot control the effect (the tsunami). This is different when we look at internal workings of ourselves, I believe. The question there is not whether or not I can control the causes (those may be in the past, and thus out of our control). The question is merely this: can I exert some measure of control over my response to this external stimuli now? Or am I inevitably, helplessly bound by its effects?
[5] 'I stole a loaf of bread because my family is dying of hunger.' Here, 'I' am affected by these external event: relationship and identification with the same (family), starvation and fear of death, lack of resources. Kant says that one cannot give moral judgment (right and wrong) in such cases. Remember Amartya Sen's illustration of three children and the flute in The Idea of Justice?
[6] And I do mean forced, you know. It's an inevitable corollary of the first step. We shall see what happens when we refuse to accept this step, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment