About moral autonomy and norm

‎Paul quoting Immanuel Kant:

“The single most important quality needed to resist evil is moral autonomy.”

Me:
Moral autonomy can only be understood in non-conformity as to what is considered “normal”. Only the one who is no longer afraid of, and has worked through loneliness, knows what to be autonomous is about.

Paul:
Would it be fair to say normality is evil? That is to say conformity is evil?

Me:
There is no other way I can express it than saying that yes, Conformity is Evil.
Normality is the dream of the lazy, who vehemently refuses to see the obvious
fact that life obeys no rule.

Paul:
I would have to say….I agree. Well said. “Normality is the dream of the lazy.” I like that sentence a lot actually. I think the word illusion is fitting too. “Normal” can never be the same as what is, or “the actual.”

Me:
Yes, there is the Idea of normality but the actual,- or “what is” -, can never fit into “normal”, as it can never conform to any preconceived idea.

About julienmatei
I feel an inner urge to express what I see, to communicate and share with others all these impressions. Often the things I see are there, not yet manifest, but waiting... to be observed, talked about, and embraced. These new insights need another approach, a more vivid curiosity... Due to fear and prejudice we prefer to see only "the official" truth - but THE OFFICIAL TRUTH IS DEAD - being dead, it has nothing to give... We can continue pretending Death is fascinating or... we can take the trouble to LIVE... THE NEW has no definition yet... Again, IT requires another "perception", the courage to apprehend everything differently, from a totally new angle, with new confidence and inquisitive touch. This blog is not about interesting concepts, it is about participation... finding new solutions, inspiration, togetherness.

22 Responses to About moral autonomy and norm

  1. phop247 says:

    Always a pleasure conversing with you, Julien!

    -Paul

  2. goldennuggetde says:

    Hi,
    I agree with you guys like most of the time.
    But I don’t like Kant since I often don’t understand what he tries to say. Sure, it may be due to me, but if You can’t explain it to a 6 year old it’s not really worth to be written down.
    This is where real life takes place. Not in Kant’s own theoretic world.
    Agree?

    Thanks,
    Richard

    • julienmatei says:

      Richard,

      Value is not always a matter of subjective comprehension…meaning that something intrinsically valuable is tacitly conveyed and perceived and not always to be explained – not even to a 6-year-old child.

      Real life is not always “real”…Real life has, – as we know -, many palpable and subtle layers…Thus, even abstract wording has certain bearing, as it is a facet of Reality…Despite his abstruse use of language, Kant aims clearly on something.

      On the other hand, language is precarious – some of his students were bewildered failing to properly inteprete one of his texts written in his earlier years. So they asked Kant as to what he meant.

      Kant read that specific exerpt and simply admitted: “I DON´T REMEMBER”…:)

      • goldennuggetde says:

        I don’t get the meaning of your first sentence. Please explain.

        But NO: real life has only one layer ….. if You put thought aside. Real life isn’t complicated at all. Although I don’t claim for myself living real life. It’s the award for the enlightened one, I guess.
        So if you put aside any knowledge there will be no more differential view of life’s layers.

        I like this anecdote of Kant. It let’s him appear human 🙂

  3. I think it was Sartre who said that we are not responsible for our beliefs until the moment someone questions them. Then we become responsible for what we believe. Normality is more or less the same thing as believing what one has received, through parents, peer group, school etc. We have to have default assumptions about the world since it impractical to live as a tabula rasa (for instance, we make default assumptions about the bus coming, about not getting killed on the way to work, and so on). This is normality. The trick is to be a tabula rasa inside yet at the same time entertain beliefs, knowing that all belief is provisional.

    • seeingwhatis says:

      Cornelius, its only impractical if we believe in a purpose. I enjoy missing the bus. It’s an adventure 🙂

      • Do you not have a job? Responsibilities? Seriously?
        That mystical book, Ecclesiastes, says our lives are meaningless Eccl.1:2), but advises us to do the best we can, work hard, enjoy wife and family (Eccl. 9:9-10, Eccl. 4:10-11), and fear God (Eccl.12:13).
        Yes, if we miss the bus, it is a new adventure. But we still depend on the timetable and we still need a pay cheque. The alternative is to become a mendicant monk, but I suspect that is not your way. At any rate, it isn’t mine.
        Work hard and let God decide results.

      • seeingwhatis says:

        he he
        no
        i have no job
        there are responsibilities, but i dont feel forced to fulfill them, to the extent i do fulfill them.
        i enjoy a good book though, there are so few
        no, i have no fear, especially no fear of god.
        there is no purpose.

      • We need to achieve the level of snataka – good householder – in order to be able to work spiritually.

      • seeingwhatis says:

        Is it so. And what does that mean today?

      • There has to be some resistance, otherwise we can imagine we’re enlightened. As regards responsibilities, if you are a prince or a pauper, either way you are supported by the work of others. Therefore you have responsibilities.

      • seeingwhatis says:

        I don’t understand that. I think our views differ regarding the whole picture.

  4. seeingwhatis says:

    You are such a Good friend and beautiful human beeing. Thank you for your existence. You make the world a lot brighter.

  5. reikiheidi says:

    There is no such thing as ‘normal/normality’. people only think there is, and try to emulate that to fit into to a pre-conceived idea (of illusion).
    Normal is subjective – and thus, illusory.

  6. Angel Heart says:

    A well known phrased question “What is normal?” Since nothing in existence has a value of its own, everything is relative in terms of how something is perceived, experienced and received etc. No two people are the same, so how can there be a ‘norm’, just doesn’t make sense.

    • julienmatei says:

      Since common man lives in constant self-denial and irretrievable projection, we have been taught that things have a value of their own.

      We do live “externally”, as long as the subject – the real sense of I-ness – is at best unconstellated, and in most cases, non-existent…

      “Self-awareness” is just a mere word for most of the people. Without awareness, from a moral point of view, you remain “un-born” to WHO YOU REALLY ARE – which is the case of the majority of people on this planet.
      People being morally un-born, don´t know much about themselves, so they have invented something to obey: norms and principles.

      Subsequently, Power cannot exist without man´s insecurity, power subsists therefore, due to lack of awareness

      Norm is thus for many an unquestionable symbol for power, which is to compensate their deep existential fear; an excuse for not being able to handle life and themsleves, an incapacity to deal with one´s inner chaos.

  7. seeingwhatis says:

    Nice discussion.
    My reflektion:
    Norm is the “supposed public opinion”.
    Since that supposed median value of opinions may be the opinion of many or or a few it is not about democracy but about fear of being different.
    Most people fear beeing alone.
    Most people are too lazy to form a well founded opinion, as you say. But the few, are too afraid, not autonomorous, to break the norm (the supposed nonexisting public opinion).
    I think the word evil, is a word that has lot of luggage built in. There is actually just an opinion about what is evil. No concensus. There is almost consensus about a lot of things beeing evil, but still, negativity is a word that we can accept within our self. The word evil is always about someone else, so it is rather useless.
    Evil or negativity has very little power in the world of good – let’s focus on the goal and good, in order not to put our attention on the nagative and by such an act bring evil into our present by which the immediate future is a clone.
    All acts except autonomous thinking is evil or negative. Love can be negative, exploiting or adding to ego.
    The worst kinds of evil is the result of relative autonomity in combination with remaining desires. This is a scary thing. Still, negativity is a word that isore neutral if we want to see clear. There are no We and Them. We are not separate
    By creating a black sheep we hurt our selves and those that are dearest to us.
    😉 Are you back home maestro? 😀 Coffe next week? Or a beer? My treat!

  8. Pingback: Norm is a preconceived idea based on Fear « Mirrors of Encounters

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: