Reals and Ideals

1. Beyond Reality 2. Conflict and Collaboration 3. Reals and Ideals

Beyond Reality

I want Kant to be right, but he isn’t. But I want him to be, but he’s not. But I want him to be! So, I find myself going back to his categorical imperative, which is to say how people should act in the situation in order to have an ideal, internally consistent moral system.

Starting from Kant’s moral imperative, I act as anyone would act in a situation, or in a way which is ideal, without thinking of how the other person will receive it, without calculating self-interest, but rather focusing on good intent aligned with an ideal. This meets the limit of the other person, their difference, their interests, theier understanding will not only not fully understand my words, but also assert themselves in their own unique way.

A concept arises here, meeting people where they are at. What if, however, they are actually in conflict with you, do not understand you, or have bad intentions/are bad actors?

Conflict and Collaboration

Kant’s system may in fact work with good actors. Everyone gets around Kant’s dinner table, everyone shares their thoughts about what is right and wrong and how things should be, and everyone is treated as an end-in-themselves. Kant’s system is a collaborative ethical system. It can not adequately address the dialectic of Conflict and Collaboration.

In conflict at the highest level of the state, deception is necessary. In a basic sense in chess, you do not signal your intentions to the other person and give them your game plan. Consequentialism is also necessary. The need to take, defend, and hold territory against another actor becomes essential.

Dialectical Egoism is a system that primarily outlines the ontology through logos-force. The logic of the world is not seperated from the forces in the world. An ethics can not forgo practicality. Yet at the beginning, I want Kant to be right because his is a system of collaboration.

Here are some basic ideals to be put into motion and through reality: Tendencies of a system of conflict include, self-othering, projection, deception, authority. Tendencies of collaboration include, love, compassion, one-ness and oceanic feelings. A dialectic of intentionality and consequentialism emerges out of the dialectic of conflict and collaboration, which is to say the dialectic of power and love in a sense. Intentionality is the mode of love, consequentialism is the mode of power. Intentionality is the mode of collaboration, consequentialism is the mode of conflict.

Reals and Ideals

The intentionality of the Ideal guides the mess of the Real. The real world or RW is the world of conflict and consequence. Intentionality introduces the possibility of love, compassion, and collaboration in what is the potentially zero-trust, all out dog-eat-dog world of conflict and authority.

Ego seperates to attend to conflict, it comes together with others to attend to conflict. In the same way, it seperates for the possibility of peace. It comes together for the possibility of love. Intentionality and Consequence are never synthesized into one unit, but rather a dialectic of Reals and Ideals is the only thing that can be called Ethics, in a substantial sense.