We find our own self realization in society. That's pretty obvious

If everyone was perfect, every door would open for each desire. But we are imperfect and we don't know why, religious explanations not being satisfying. So we are bound by rules, laws of matter and rules of the mind

We have a duty to help others

Because praying in your cave eventually becomes meaningless. Eventually you will want to put your ideals to practice

Having a child takes faith because you have to have the faith that the world is good

The world of time and space do not allow us to do whatever we want, so the LNC applies to it in a sense. But not as Aristotle thought since the antinomies throw out what Aristotle thought he settled: soul and free will, Zeno's paradox, and Deity

If the categorical imperative is binding, than the Golden rule is for the reason that the later follows from the former. As Fitche pointed out, there is a sense in which we bind ourselves to morality and don't all follow a complete will to power. Perhaps we fool ourselves, but when we conceptualize morality we need to think of a universal law that works because it's universal, we need to believe the Golden rule is one of those rules, and we need to believe they are binding beyond our mere fiat. This is what happens when we conceptualize

It's hard to say "what out to happen" from the principle of duty alone understood as the categorical imperative. If everyone steals we have a problem, but if millions are starving and nobody steals there is a problem. Kant seems to say what is most practical is the more universal and ontological in regard to morality, and his book is even call "practical reason". But Kant has a point that we have to understand morality in some general sense, otherwise we are lost in the realm of personal opinion

When the world becomes true but relative, questions of conscience can become more prominent. It's all very subtle and we are not all in the same place mentally. So the Golden Rule comes into play then, which is a part of the categorical imperative

Kant's relativity of motion apparently says that motion of a body in a space at rest is indistinguishable from motion of space itself in the opposite direction with equal speed. The only thing Kant thought was completely absolute was duty, and I would say in a sense he is right but his general laws on the subject of morality are open to too many loopholes. We have an instinct that life is worth it in the end but we can only believe this with a hybrid of faith and reason and hope for the best

Can a Buddhist not be an activist?

Law of noncontradiction? Objects exist and don't exist at the same time. That is Kant's point. The law only applies in our psychology, as the Antinomies show

What i think we all need to process more fully in this discussion is that Kant said that time and space are mental (in "our "intuitions). Asserting that time is in the mind might sound like Aristotle, but saying space is mental is light years from the Greeks and puts the question of time in a whole different relation to us. Spinoza said all was a part of God but could be understood with Cartesian physics. Leibniz thought that Cartesian physics was incomplete and must take account of the "living force" of God which fulgarations of his nature gave rise to. Modern physics interpret Leibniz's physics in the sense that the living force is energy, but it was Kant who first make a dint in pre-modern physics by his philosophy of intuitions. It's hard to overemphasis this revolution

I'm on page 52 of Friedman's book, and he mentions "Kant's principle of the relativity of motion" and that Kant "denies the existence of absolutely hard bodies". Of course I need to be careful to understand this in relation to the physics of the time, but I've noticed before that Einstein's theories seem to have already implicitly stated in the works of German idealists, without of course the mathematical rigor

Yes, physics is the science of understanding how different matters work. Metaphysics is understanding how any substance would react to any other, and I think Kant himself gives an interesting take on this in Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science, published a few years after CPR. If anyone wants to dig further into this after reading the Critique, that is the work to go to. I'm reading Michael Friedman's commentary on it right now

"Cause has the aspect of independence and of a determination that preserves itself from the effect; but in the necessity of its movement what makes the cause 'itself' is the passing into the effect. The cause sublates itself into the effect in that no content is in the effect that is not in the cause."

"Rain is the cause of wetness, the effect. The cause and effect are one and the same existing water. With regard to the form, the cause is rain, which is lost in the effect (wetness). But in that the effect is nothing without the cause, the effect as effect is lost. All that remains is undifferentiated wetness." Hegel's lesser Logic

Is this too abstract in a Kantian discussion or does this gel with some of you?

1 Peter 2 says the emperor and his governors had a right to rule, although they had conquered the people they were ruling over. It all depends on the situation and there are not many hard fast rules when it comes to that (in the abstract)

The idea that "nobody can tell me what to do unless I have a vote" is contradicted by Paul and Peter in the Bible. "No taxation without representation" doesn't always work in the real world. China is an example of communism working, and many European countries are socialist. Here in the USA we have a semi-socialist system and to the north is socialist Canada. It didn't work in the southern Americas but it's worked elsewhere. The thing is you need a philosophy, an ethos, to live by still, be it Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism, or Marxist philosophy

Communism is authoritarian. To an extent so is Christianity. The new testament says to obey the powers that have the authority, although Jesus himself refused to take sides between the Jews and the Romans

Kant, in CPR and the Metaphysical Foundations book of the same decade, was in essence responding to Aristotle. Aristotle thought he proved the existence of forms, simple souls, and a Deity. Kant says we can't know the thing in itself but the thing in itself is Aristotle's forms, which Kant doesn't believe in. What Kant is trying to say in his Prussian Enlightenment way is that the world is as it appears and that speculation about forms, simple souls, and Deities is fruitless. He was for putting aside ancient metaphysics, not modern science

Do you base your individualism on religion, philosophy, or practical concerns?

To my mind people make unnecessary distinctions in social-political theory. I do not support control of a country by a single person (monarchy, Fascism) but much fascist social theory is not different from socialist theory. The real opposed positions are

1) individualistic capitalism vs governmental control

2) cultural elitism vs cultural relativism

In America the Republicans believe that white Western culture is better than other cultures and that individualism is about human rights given by their white God. I don't call myself a Democrat because I see the Planned Parenthood movement as capitalist abortion, just a free market for people to make bad choices. I'm learning lately about "actual idealism", which was born from a paper by Giovanni Gentile in 1912. He intended to continue the "reform of the Hegelian dialectic" that had been started by Bertrando Spaventa, a Hegelian from Naples, by a "method of immanence" that was largely founded on Hegel's ideas but to a lesser extent, maybe, Fitche. (Gentile's ideas were latter put into Christian garb by Armando Carlini, who's initiatives lead to the movement called Christian Spiritualism.) Like Hegel's philosophy, it is a community oriented philosophy which supports a strong government, although I do not support any monarchical tendencies in any of these thinkers. See The Social Philosophy of Giovanni Gentile by H. S. Harris (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1960) if you want to learn more

The West says it has objective Good as its goal and the suffering element is irrelevant. Let suffering take care of itself, so to speak. I know that most Americans are narcissist however. Their facial expressions they put on and the parts of movies they especially like are all about the pride of the underdog being vindicated. It really becomes a bore after awhile

Every thing is illusionary is most ways according to the Buddhist. Reduction in suffering is their goal

As the article says, Buddhism doesn't say the experience of self is bad or unreal. It says it is an illusion that causes suffering if not handled well. I live in California, USA. Third world countries are jealous of us but I don't think most Californians are happy from what I can see

Well they say self and God are illusions so ye

It's about social identity, as the article says. Few can be hermits

I watched a great old movie yesterday, Comrade X (1940). I was impressed with the talk of "ideals" in it (in opposition to a philosophy of "bogie-wogie and hotdogs") but the ending was really unrealistic

I liked the article until the end when he turns on the reader and basically says the situation is hopeless. Saying Buddhism can "help" without there being revolution is not an intelligent assertion.

Kant did not believe the thing in itself causes appearances. Phenomenology is like a union of the ideas of Parmenides and Heraclitus. And iis not easy to put into words

Cardinal Hans Urns von Balthazar is very popular in modern Catholic reading circles nowadays and he disagrees with the traditional Greek-scholastic idea that evil is purely privative. Just thought I'd throw that out there

Negative refers to process and formlessness does as well

Here are some easy videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5PfjsPdBzg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKxQTvqcpSg

Life arises from the motion of chemicals. I didn't use the word organic. Anyway, you are still trying interpret modern physics within the parameters of Aristotle's theory of being and that just doesn't work. Do you know that length is relative? Do you understand how time causes gravity? Modern physics is much closer to process philosophy than outdated Thomism. We know from science and mathematics that a self-consistent infinity of past motions is possible. I question whether the very idea of Aquinas's God is even plausible on very serious grounds

Thomism has been fought against since Spinoza and Hume. I'll read your longer article today sometime. This is fun because I base my arguments on my own critique of Aquinas's and Aristotle's original writings. I don't read a lot of contemporary commentary

I comprehended your critique of Thomistic consolidation of all attributes in a single first Mover and can tell you understand the arguments. You've done a fine job. I recently have been inspired by Jung's idea of darker, more primitive god who interacts with the human mind at deep levels. We can't know about the existence of this being nonetheless like we can of a table or chair. Aquinas's God is good by his will being infinitely subtle in its goodness and although this may be a ideal a human may have but it can not be proven to be a reality outside us

"If being exists as over against God, it is its own support; it does not preserve the least trace of divine creation. In a word, if it had been created, being-in-itself would inexplicable in terms of creation; for it assumes its being beyond creation. This is equivalent to saying that being is uncreated." Sartre in Being and Nothingness

Aquinas writes like Mozart made music. Technique is good in both but neither are the best at their craft. I wish I could enjoy Aquinas and get into that but his writings are a bore so I read more difficult philosophies by other writers. Thomists say that they can prove their is a God but is their proof infallible? Can philosophy prove anything beyond all doubts? It seems to me that Aquinas made an error in making existence a predicate of essence

Are you saying time is measure of motion or that it is a dynamic aspect of space? Aristotle said the first, Einstein the second

I see no reason that actuality has to be centered and combined in one entity prior to the world since potentiality, the might of substance, time, and motion operate as a organic whole following the laws of relativity to produce a dynamic experience of time

I can't say for sure that an actuality that has all power and goodness is not the ground of being. It's not about that. It has to do with what is provable. I've been saying that time, near infinite potentiality, and limited material actuality move by the laws of physics to produce life and the experience of phenomena. You would have to provide an infallible proof that an infinite person is required to explain the universe in spite of the fact that Aristotelian physics has been debunked

Important addition:

The arrow of time is not absolute as Aristotle thought. Time is not the sustaining power of God in the universe, but something science can frame and understand. Imagine two sets of cards suspended under a piece of cardboard. We will call the cardboard space. Now because of the first or prime force the the cards fall side by side, and we will call one deck time and the other motion. This little illustration helps us see that time is potentiality and exists only so far as motion is happening, but the prime mover could simply be the empty space into which the cards fall, and the laws of General Relativity can explain it from there with greater precision

An unnecessary distinction unless in a larger context. The first three chapters of Phenomenology of Mind are by far the best of Hegel's first book. It shows many ways of looking at time (now) and space (here). His "Logic" books add a lot of neat thoughts too. I would someday like to write a 60 to 80 page paper expressing all his particular thoughts on matter and actuality in condensed form. When seen within the context of modern physics, a different perspective emerges than the Thomistic one. Everything within the universe moves at the speed of light all while in the spacetime continuum. There is a trade-off between space and time. When you move faster in space you move slower in time and visa versa. Since physics can now explain the world without supernatural assumptions, the Thomistic arguments are left with philosophical arguments alone, all of which can be absorbed within the larger framework of phenomenology