Immanuel Kant and Timothy Ferriss agree on
one major concept, that every individual lives with a sense of freedom. To both, freedom is an inherent quality that
every man and woman is graced with at birth.
The two differ, however, in their beliefs on how that inherent freedom
is expressed. There are two basic ways an
individual can act out his/her freedom, the first being in a moral way, and the
other in an immoral way. In Kantian
terminology, this choice between acting morally or immorally is found manifest
in Kant’s idea of the categorical imperative, or in other words, A Priori. If every individual of Kant’s ideal state
lives in moral A Priori, Kant believes the state can function in a status of
near perfection.
In contrast to moral A Priori is its
inverse, immoral A Priori. To Kant, what
constitutes as immoral is any individual acting in a way that takes away from
the granted autonomy and dignity of every citizen. And to make sure this ideal is respected,
Kant believes it is the responsibility of every individual and of the state “to
stop anyone forcibly hindering others from working as best they can to define
and promote their salvation” (What is Enlightenment 58).
Kant’s beliefs make it easy to see the
vast difference between him and the ideals held by Ferriss. Contrary to Kant, Ferriss believes that
“personal advantage over the public good” (Individualism in Overdrive) is how
every individual is entitled to act. A
prime example showed in the article is his idea to bring unloaded firearms in
your luggage, so that you won’t have to worry about losing it. The outcome of this is that “It’s extra work
and fretting for them (security administration) but, hey, you get peace
of mind. Isn’t that what counts?” (Individualism in Overdrive).
In an idealistic, prefect state, Kant
believes there must be peace between citizens. What this entails is mutual
respect between citizens, but more than just that the respect to the laws of
conduct within the state. Those being,
“Act always according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the
same time will” (Metaphysics of Morals 437), and, “Act according to maxims
which can at the same time have for their object themselves as universal laws
of nature. In this way there is provided
the formula for an absolutely good will” (Metaphysics of Morals 437). If every
citizen acts under these rules than the state will be successful, but if
individuals such as Timothy Ferriss become part of the state then that success
will be no more, for there will be an impediment on the other citizens. That being that their right to autonomy and
dignity would not be respected. Kant
would despise Ferris as part of any society because of the ideals and actions he
embodies.
I totally agree with this, Isaac. Something in the article that struck me as a very Kantian argument against Ferris' behavior was the quote "To cheat it is to cheat your neighbor. It’s really that simple." (Individualism in Overdrive) It seems very similar to Kant's belief that acting on one's A Priori will be be beneficial to the state as a whole, and the value in acting morally towards those around you.
ReplyDeleteSomething I was wondering about is Ferris' motives for his actions. If he's aware of anything at all, i'm sure he realizes how obnoxious he is. I wonder if he would still do the things he does if they didn't bring any attention to him, or if he just really needs to be the center of attention and this is how he's figured out to do it?
But could you make an argument about Ferris pushing the population to a greater state of enlightenment? Is it possible to see Ferris as the only one with the "courage to use his own understanding"? That we all only need to see Ferris as the ultimate of what's possible? Would a Ferris-led revolution lead the world to a more enlightened state?
ReplyDelete(side point: where is Caleb here?)
(side point #2: I don't think there would be an "immoral a priori" also I don't think it's ever capitalized)
I agree that technically, a Ferriss-led revolution would lead to a more enlightened state, but I think the concept of enlightenment, and the pros and cons that come with it, is a tricky subject. Obviously enlightenment is a very positive thing, but I do believe that it can be taken too far, and in the case of Ferriss, I do believe that his state of enlightenment is practiced in the extreme.
ReplyDeleteWhen practiced to the extreme, such as Ferriss, enlightenment can negatively affect individuals with a lack of compassion for others, and greed. Qualities like these, which it seems like Ferriss embodies, I do not believe contribute to the betterment of society. Thus, I don't think that viewing Ferriss as a role model of enlightenment is something we should do. He may represent the ultimate of what's possible, but that does not mean it is desirable.
Do you have to define enlightenment here in order for the argument to work? What do you think Kant means by "enlightened"?
ReplyDeletePersonally, I feel like the manifestation of enlightenment takes place in the mind, and not as much in action. Being enlightened is an entirely mental process, it just has the ability to affect an individuals actions. From Kant's texts, I get the impression that he feels similarly, because he also agrees that enlightenment is not an excuse to act in bad ways.
ReplyDeleteIt is a word with many interpretations though, so yes, I would agree that in order to make a conclusion regarding this question of enlightenment, there must be a more concrete definition.
Elise, it seems that you're (possibly intentionally) misinterpreting Kant's definition of enlightenment in your argument against Isaac. You and Jamie have repeatedly, both independently and in collaboration, maintained that Kant defines and enlightened individual as someone who has the conviction to act upon his own moral understanding regardless of whether or not is conflicts with society's (or atleast a higher power's)status quo of morality. Therefore, I assume your defense for the assertion that Ferris has reached enlightenment lies in the "courage" he displays through acting like a selfish jackass. What you fail to realize (or more likely admit to) is that Ferris isn't motivated by an appeal for morality (which I'm sure he is aware of), but instead the very injustice against which Kant argues.
ReplyDeleteFerris regards society as a 'kingdom of means', the polar counter-example to Kant's "kingdom of ends". Isaac's quote "YOU get peace of mind" essentially exemplifies his willingness to assume a 'fuck all else' attitude, with which he concerns every others individual "what can you do for me?" Ferris' disposition makes for an undeniably unstable society due to its inapplicability on the popular (or individual) level. For these reasons, I believe that Isaac's original assertion that Ferris' lifestyle and Kant's ideal society are mutually exclusive.