Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law[efn_note]Kant I. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals[/efn_note]. The Categorical Imperative. However, my intention is not a critique. Rather to propose an alternative – the correct alternative.
Those who criticize without creating, those who are content to defend the vanished concept without being able to give it the forces it needs to return to life, are the plague of philosophy. All these debaters and communicators are inspired by ressentiment
What is Philosophy, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari[efn_note]Deleuze G., Guattari F. (1991). What is Philosophy?[/efn_note]
The Ethical Imperative: One wants to act, to the best of their knowledge, as to allow the other to achieve maximal freedom
Note want, as opposed to must and should. Because Ought is the fundamental Is. As Anscombe writes[efn_note]Anescombe G. E. M. (1958). Modern Moral Philosophy[/efn_note], – all moral philosophy is futile without adequate development in the philosophy of psychology.
The structure of the psychoanalytic process is the controlled pursuit to Nihilism. The revaluation of all values, as Nietzsche put it. As the analysand approaches nihilism, supervised by the analyst, she reclaims lost treasures. A limited set of fundamental Is’s; the oughts, virtues or any other name it takes. That constitutes her essence.
While I recognize the need for rigorous development of my ideas, this blog helps the initial groundwork, allowing me to sketch out their rough outlines.
How, then, can morality be derived? Here, I put forth the claim – The Ethical contains the Moral. Morality as the set of ethical virtues that humankind shares, with exceptions for anomalies[efn_note]For instance, psychopathy and the like[/efn_note]. Consider the virtues of every person written on a receipt. Stack the receipts over one another where common virtues coincide. At last, a tiny square remains: the moral realm. Everything outside? The amoral ethical[efn_note]Thanks to my friend Rebecca for creating this analogy.[/efn_note].
If so, a human virtue is our desire for connection. Man is a social animal, as Aristotle said. To foster connection, both individuals must be, at least partially, free. For connection of maximal intensity, freedom of maximal capacity is necessary. Thus, the Ethical Imperative is justified.
Freedom is inherently relational, existing in relation to something else. The question arises: freedom relative to what? Thus, psychological freedom is freedom in relation to our own being. Are we truly free to pursue what we want?
If human connection is a necessary virtue, freedom can only exist relative to its fulfilment. Therefore, requiring the other to be maximally free. This ensures the possibility of rejection, followed by pain, as a consequence of the other’s freedom.
(Human) Freedom presupposes rejection.
Recently, someone asked as to what I expect out of the project: After God’s Death. What form would a prescriptive society take? My candid admission was: I don’t know.
For millennia, philosophers have sought the Ordered Prescriptive. Perhaps not for the sake truth but order. An otherworld governed by predictable objective rules. However, neither is it true nor desirable.
The Chaotic Prescriptive. I aim to foster new beginning, not structured ends. Not to force new chains, rather break old ones. To ground humanity, and wait; to see what flowers blossom out of its fertile soil.