(and ask her why we're who we are)

[frailphilosophy]

Right. You know, I haven't even the faintest idea of where to begin with this silly thing. Gabriel told me I should get one, so I did. And normally I'm full of thoughts, and ideas, but ... I feel as though they'd all seem trivial, here. Or at least ... flatter

Comments

[frailphilosophy]

Kant's Categorical Imperative. It ... hm. How to explain it in a few words ... there are a few parts to it. The first is that everything moral is relative to everything around it. The second, however, is that you have to think of your actions as not just a means, but an end, all in one. The third is that you have to consider your own set of morals and wonder if they should apply to everyone.

... I guess the best example is "If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?" So basically, Kant is trying to say that morally, everyone should consider themselves the same person. And that would render things like horoscopes and archetypes completely obsolete.

At least, well. Morally. But then you get into another, completely different branch of thought: do someone's morals and/or ethics define them, as a person? Plato thought so.

As for you and I? Classification is a little ... well. I won't call it impossible. More ... in constant flux.

[frailphilosophy]

Oh, I didn't say I agreed with it, either, meri jaar, I just think it's interesting.

And I agree with people's inaction defining them more than their action. There are many things a man will do. There are, in the end, only a handful that he will not.