Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Augustine's Notion of Lust being Kantian and Other Garbage




Augustine’s complaints of lust seem to be Kantian and not Augustinian.  Augustine’s notion of sin was it was done for its own sake (like stealing the rotten pears in his youth) rather for the thing you crave.  But I would hope he would be honest and say we have sex out of lust (we yearn for sexual gratification) rather than because we’re bad little boys and girls who enjoy sinning and making Papa mad.  It’s selfish gratification and seeing someone as a pure means to meet one’s ends rather than as something that is considered in itself – this is Kant’s notion of evil.  His idea that Adam and Eve could’ve before the Fall stimulated Adam’s Johnson by pure will and have coitus solely for the sake of the child also I suppose might be an aspect of Kant’s Kingdom of Ends.  Where everyone is respected as an end in themselves.  In such a world either all children would be born through the sake of the child, or more preferably no children would be born through moral consideration of the well-being of the child. 
Also for another Kantian note, to just show how absurd the Categorical Imperative is according to it either I’m immoral for never having children (because if people followed suit no one would procreate and the species would die out – which would be awful to a pro-natalist) or no one should ever have children because if its morally right or considerable for one person to do it it must mean the same for everyone.  I was speaking to a friend as to why I seldom eat red meat anymore and he gave me the same Kantian logic.  “well if everyone didn’t eat meat…” first off so what if no one ate meat?  People would have less joy in their lives but asides from that minor detail the world would be a better place.  Yes, jobs would be lost but if it’s a job doing a shitty thing (like drilling oil) than it’s a job that should be lost.  These type of “don’t take my job” morons need to remember that transporting slaves was once a job; and guess wait, when Lincoln freed the slaves someone didn’t have a place to punch into on Monday morning.  That’s the price of progress.  And secondly we can’t act as if we were these Messiahs creating a code that everyone is jogging in place in anticipation to follow.  All we can do is do what we think is right in the time and place it is in our estimation right based on our actions consequences.  We can’t be saying to ourselves, “well if everyone looked at porn right now all the servers would crash so I shouldn’t do it.”  Doesn’t work that way.  When we consider what to do in life we have to consider the impact our actions have on the world not logical hypotheticals of creating moral codes that have nothing to do with reality.
And a quick note that you may or may not find interesting, movies/stories with “lack of soul” being evil argue implicitly for a deficiency (Augustinian) interpretation of morality.  Where the thing is evil simply through lack of a soul rather than through possession (something positive, that is the actual presence of an evil thing rather than lacking the good).  Doesn’t really mean anything but it’s interesting to think about.  I agree with Schopenhauer over Augustine – Evil is positive (pain makes its existence known) while good is simply a negative (the lack of pain) though a good will is a positive.  Was thinking about writing something about that.  Still might, would probably be a part of my Negative Utilitarian essays but it’s another essay for another day.

No comments:

Post a Comment