Thursday, October 4, 2012

Group 2: Kant-Ferriss


 Immanuel Kant would use Tim Ferriss as a prime example of how an individual should not behave in society. Ferriss' “overarching interest in gaming the system” directly violates Kant's categorical imperative, which states, “maxims must be chosen as if they were to hold as universal laws of nature.” If Ferriss' selfish and deceiving ways were the universal norm, there would be no progression towards enlightenment, for all individuals would be shaping their beliefs on false pretenses. For example, Ferriss would not want all travelers to take his advice of putting a pistol in their luggage, for then he would have no advantage. Kant would say that Ferriss' actions relate to the hypothetical imperative, for Ferris knows from experience that his strategy works in “diminishing or altogether eliminating the possibility” of losing luggage.

Kant encourages the sharing of ideas, and says that for enlightenment, “all that is needed is freedom,” of public knowledge, and the courage to spread personal beliefs in order to help others reach an enlightened state. However, he would say that Ferris is using his freedom in the wrong way. Kant says that “a man of learning may through his writings address a public in the truest sense of the word, he may indeed argue without harming the affairs in which he is employed.” While Ferris is not literally employed by the TSA, he is a workering member of a greater community, and by publicly advocating dishonesty, he is harming his “employer,” his colleagues and himself.

Furthermore, In Kant's system, a person is never to be treated as a means, but always as an end. Ferriss sees organizations and people as a means by which to gain an unfair and exclusive advantage. To Kant, “good action consists in mental disposition, not consequences.” Ferriss does not suffer any apparent consequences from his actions, but his mental disposition is selfish and corrupt, so his actions are bad. Ferriss is not unique is his actions. “Selfishness run amok is a national disease,” and Kant would say that this is due in part to immaturity and laziness. He would say to Ferriss and his converts, “have courage to use your own understanding!”

6 comments:

  1. Davster is a silly name

    ReplyDelete
  2. A valid point NicK. Well stated and backed up well with divine textual evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This a very solid blog post, you did a great job of contrasting Ferris' and Kant's beliefs. I agree that many of Ferris' methods are, in a Kantian sense, immoral, his overall intention may be moral. Ferris books are classified as self-help, and are intended to teach the reader how to better his own life. People who read these books are hoping to take the knowledge that Ferris has learned through his own experiences and apply it to their lives. In a sense, Ferris is allowing people to access his a posteriori and use it as their own. While it is easy to find immoral pieces in Ferris' books, I wonder if Kant might believe his motive to be good?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm lead to wonder... where is the "crispapotamus" in this discussion? His name might be the silliest of all.

    Well done, Davi. Do you think that Ferriss might be the only one who truly does "have the courage to use his own understanding"? That we might all just be too unenlightened to understand his greatness and the ways in which following Ferriss through the public sphere use of his ideas might be a way to forward the revolution to a generally progressing state?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think it depends on what kind of state we want to progress toward.
    Kant seems very optimistic, and believes that when enlightened
    individuals express and refine their beliefs, the result will
    eventually be good. Kant was addressing a completely different
    audience, one without technology such as airplanes, internet and cars.
    Yes, individuals would have been able to cheat the system in other
    ways, but I think Kant's points would be blurred in this day and age.
    Ferriss is not lying, but he is still not honest. He is doing good and
    at the same time doing harm. It is admirable that he has the courage
    to use his own understanding, but his understanding is of how to abuse
    trust in order to gain a personal advantage, and Kant would not be ok
    with that.

    But yes, maybe if our society has gotten to the point where the only
    way to keep up is to take shortcuts, then Ferriss is ahead of the game
    and we need to take his advice.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ^I tried to post that on Sunday and Monday but it didn't work...

    ReplyDelete