Philosophy of Action

There's only one way to read Kant: to read him. You have to sit down and work stuff out.


Students and people who want Spinoza's third type of knowledge on Kant might want to write out flash cards, which is the way to memorize most stuff, I think. Then, when you have all of the stuff that he has highlighted in his works, you'll have a supply of the things as he uses his own language over and over; as you are reading these difficult works. That is, build up a cause and effect relationship in your mind and there you have it. So much knowledge of cause and effect is our anticipation of it. Hume's claim that cause and effect does not really happen is what spurs on this trail of thought. But when I played video games when I was younger and I had to have the timing just right, I would practice and practice until I finally got it. Then it seemed as though my fingers would hit the button without me even thinking about it when I played the level that last time.

I've been thinking a lot about cause and effect lately, which I suppose is mostly what metaphysics is about. Sometimes we do timetravel stuffs and that's cool.


There are two stories that you might want to tell yourself about Kant if you want to get into reading him. This is that part of philosophy where you have to convince yourself it's worth doing the work before you, say, do the work.

Make the distinction in your mind between planning on doing the work, supporting doing the work, and doing the work, however. On the side is pretending doing the work, where you can fool other people and even yourself into thinking you are doing the work when you really are not. Like people who blog instead of do the readings for important essays due next week (one Cough).

A: I plan and think about working all the time. I feel as though classes in college are mostly this first thing. Lump this in with learning and dissecting for a second. You have to know how to do something before you do it. The learning is the work! A lot of times we're multitasking and we don't even know it. Learning prepares us for doing, but learning is also doing. This one is important because we have to know how to do something before we do it.

You can't fix a car without knowing how to fix a car. Likewise, you can't do it without any sort of impetus to do it, can you? This last question is a philosophical question. Of course you can, but man it's bear sometimes fighting to do the work. And sometimes I find myself doing stuff without a plan.

B: I support all kinds of work. One example is, I love money, I respect people who make money, and I support learning all about money. At a given time, I will work. But taking a microeconomics class is not the same as making money. Likewise, just because I like chemistry does not mean I am learning about chemistry and working on chemistry. Just because I have crushes on chemists in the past does not mean I am a chemist.

There are times when it's hard to know the difference. Music critics aren't always good musicians, but sometimes they are. We looked to Einstein for metaphysical and moral advice. He was a quantum physicist, and not a philosopher. The distinction does not mean he's bad at other things either. But if it got down to Einstein or a real doctor of surgery doing surgery on me, I would choose the doctor (APPEARANCES VERSUS REALITY).

C: DOING IT. (dirty puns aside). Do we know when we're doing stuff? But if you're thinking that you're doing something, you're not doing it, probably. You're thinking about doing it. Ah, the joys of 'doing it' are endless. Sorry about the bad pun.

But seriously the philosophy of action, subset of our Determinism inquiries, are really immense. It's also a bridge between daily life and philosophy, which normal people complain philosophy does not do enough of.


Here is some Les Claypool poetry for you:


Questions deserve answers
Answers deserve action
What am I
of the Populi?
I am just a fraction