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!”
Davster is a silly name
ReplyDeleteA valid point NicK. Well stated and backed up well with divine textual evidence.
ReplyDeleteThis 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?
ReplyDeleteI'm lead to wonder... where is the "crispapotamus" in this discussion? His name might be the silliest of all.
ReplyDeleteWell 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?
I think it depends on what kind of state we want to progress toward.
ReplyDeleteKant 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.
^I tried to post that on Sunday and Monday but it didn't work...
ReplyDelete