das Ding an sich

The red hue represents the limitation of our reason.
The objects represents what we perceive.

Immanuel Kant reminds us that we can never know the world in itself, for we only perceive the world as it is to ourselves. Everything we know about this world is limited by the capability of our reasoning, as the form of ’space’ and ‘time’ always precedes all of our experiences.

To Kant, it is pointless to prove or disprove God as it is a matter beyond the capabilities of our reason. However, Kant maintained that it is through faith and logical postulates (explained in his ethics) that God exists.

Similarly, when Christians talk about ‘God is love’, it is an expression of the necessity of faith as part of love itself. Yes, the feelings of love can be observed from scientific analysis of the various chemicals in the brain. But, we mustn’t forget that (usually) people don’t continue to love each other based on scientific reports, they base it on trust and faith. St. Thomas Aquinas tells us the same thing about how there are various paths towards the common truth i.e Reason, Experience, Faith.

All in all, I found that I shouldn’t be complacent with the limited capabilities of my reason, I believe in the possibility of something beyond the inferior form of knowledge (the world it is to me/you).

Remember Plato’s cave? That’s exactly what Plato was trying to say:

The picture above – The shadows on the wall of the cave (Inferior representations of the true forms/The world as it is to us)

The real objects outside the cave – The world of forms/The reality beyond the material world (The world in itself)

I am not trying to prove anything. I am only writing about the philosophies of philosophers as it is.

Those who insist that I shut up must be playing God

“Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign” – ‘On Liberty’ by John Stuart Mill

In this essay, Mill aims to prove the necessity and positive effects of liberty. Unlike the other philosophers such as Kant and Locke,  the basis of Mill’s arguments are founded on his utilitarian approach to the question of liberty – the common good of society. Mill rejects the notion of a Social Contract with the claim that “no good purpose is answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from it”.  The mechanism of his idea is expounded in his essay with a major assumption that people will truly understand and learn about their opinions through dissent. Opinions can never be legitimately suppressed by a government. Initially, Mill puts forth the argument that a silenced opinion may be true and it would not benefit the society. Ostensibly suppressing an opinion because it is ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ is tantamount to claiming infallibility in judgement. Mill also considered the possibility of the opinion to be false, however he argues that persons of different opinions should be confident to debate and disprove the false opinion. Human judgement as Mill writes, is only valuable if a person is open to criticism. Hence, this is how a person will be able to improve him/herself through these experiences and discussions.

The cornerstone of Mill’s philosophy is the ‘harm principle‘. Mill believes that opinions and actions should be free insofar as it does not harm any other individual besides the agent him/herself. In the event that an individual is proven to be a drunkard, he/she should never be punished for being drunk. However, Mill believes that a drunkard can only be rightfully punished if he/she fails to fulfil his/her duty or obligation. Therefore, a drunk police officer on duty should be punished for not carrying out his/her duty, not for being inebriated. It is apparent from Mill’s arguments that he places emphasis on individualism. In the introduction of his essay, Mill introduced the idea of ‘the tyranny of the majority‘ by explaining how a majority can oppress a minority through public opinion. This is further expounded with the problem of customs and the lack of development of human faculties. Mill complains about a society bound to stagnation in the future, a result of people following customs without question, without the use of human faculties in decision making. Individualism as Mill envisions it to be, is a society where people are free to develop in any means that pleases them. Dissimilarities is sacrosanct to the human learning process, as a combination of positive traits can benefit society as a whole. Mill exemplified the problem of the ‘despotism of custom’ by referring to China’s ideal of making everyone alike. On the contrary, Mill is optimistic of Europe’s diversity of lifestyles as it appears to be more progressive unlike conformist China.

Society does not have an interest in actions that affect no one but the person acting, or people by their consent. Furthermore, society may even interfere wrongly by imposing their “moral values” upon others: “there is no parity between the feeling of a person for his own opinion, and the feeling of another who is offended at his holding it; no more than between the desire of a thief to take a purse, and the desire of the right owner to keep it.”

So are you try to tell me that Beyoncé is too sexy for Malaysians?

We have learned over the course of history that it is not acceptable to ask questions, the “gods” who claim infallibility are out there watching.