Was Kant mindful?



Immanuel Kant took long walks in Königsberg (nowadays Kaliningrad).
He didn't want to "work" when he walked, so he didn't think of his philosophy. I'm sure he sometimes just walked without thinking at all.

Then he was mindful.

When he wrote about the thing in itself he for sure was near the Buddhist view of no concept.

The iaitv maker Hilary Lawson writes in his book about how we close our view of the world when we label a thing and narrow the interpretation of it. His book is called Closure - a story of everything.


I haven't heard him relating to Kant, though often to Wittgenstein.

But Kant and Wittgenstein plays in the same football team, so to say. Maybe they would argue about the tactics and what the world ball means ;~}

We can only now the thing for me, according to Kant and for me includes categories of understanding as  for instance time and space (we have to see, for instance, a chair in special place and in a special space, maybe a kitchen, because our way of understanding works that way)
.... if we also think of time and space as space-time (Einstein)  it's getting even more complicated.

In a Buddhist context we can read about conventional truth and fundamental truth. Related thinking thought not exactly the same. It looks like that space and time is different entities, but they aren't.
Though in daily and conventional life we can act as they are independent..

Let's stop there, go back to the breath and just look at the fact that people from different cultures and angles have come to related conclusions:
Be careful when you have an opinion about something. Maybe you don't need an opinion, maybe you should wait until you will find another perspective.
Maybe you can say; I'm not so sure...
Maybe you can say; people argue what this world means, what do you mean?
Maybe there are no right meaning (according to Lawson).

Maybe silence sometimes is the best communication, or to hold the hand of another :~}




Kant also had some opinions  that from our time (and space) seems strange and he wasn't consequent - but who is... it's quite boring to be, isn't it?

Art can learn us  how to play with perspectives - maybe it sometimes can let us have a glimpse of the thing in itself too... and there we hear a silent and soft song!! (Klee - dance you monster to my soft song)





Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cora Diamond on eating animals - with the help of Wittgenstein´s ideas

Image
Cora Diamond is a new name for me, even if she has worked as a professor in Philosophy in the states for a long time and is still  teaching at the university of Virginia, even she is over 80 years old. She has written a lot about Wittgenstein and that has helped her to express her view of the topic. Although she, like Wittgenstein,  has lived in a hut in Norway - and actually brought Tractatus with hes - she seems to be different and for sure more glad than W. Anyways, its W: s writings that interests her and especially his critics of metaphysics and ethics in philosophy. As it is said in Tractacus  : " Whereof one  cannot speak , thereof one must be silent." And of ethics philosophy should not speak - why? Is it like in Buddhism - its better to sit in silence and let know yourself, than to speculate about what will happen when we die? But for sure there ethical guidelines in Buddhism,  but the behaviors is often named skilful, not good (or bad). Another
Read more

I think, therefore I am NOT

Image
So Descartes was wrong. He said that he could doubt everything about himself except that he was thinking. That proved that he existed. The word "I" is the central point here. What does it mean? Perhaps we are sure that we know the answer. Is it the thoughts? In that case - where are you when you aren't thinking? Is it your job, your title? In that case - what happens if you loose your job or change job? Is it your house, your nation? Under my course to be a mindfulness instructor, the teacher, Ola Schenström, made us ask to each other; "Who are you?" After each answer the question was repeated by the questioner.We soon discovered that there were no end to the answers - or maybe an adequate end could be; "I don't know."Or maybe; "It seems I have no essence." Other thinkers have come to the same conclusions; Buddha, Sartre and more recently Damasio and Parfit. Sartre, for instance, has said that we are the sum of our actions. We ha
Read more

Wittgenstein and Buddha -buddies?

Image
Ludwig Wittgenstein, the famous philosopher, reflected in the posthumously published  book "Philosophical Investigations" about the picture above; Is it a hare or duck?  He meant that we make, or must make, a statement what it is. And I suppose he meant that we often or always has to interpret the world around us. But two different interpretations can both be right! Language and thoughts controls what we see.....   You can compare with the picture of a glass. Half empty or half empty?  Who decides? Yes, it's you... And whatever you say is right.  But you can be aware of what you think. That can say more of yourself than of the glass....  You can be aware of that you always do interpretations of things that happens.  If you have a pessimistic or a naive point of view, you can be aware of the view and your statements.  Buddha and Wittgenstein were both aware of that different persons uses different perspectives.  But Buddha spoke about the "right 
Read more