The Game Of Life, Your Game And Mine

As we evolve through life and time, there is a certain way we all must swim, go or travel. That is our own choice. What is not our choice is that forward movement that never does stop. Sure, we can try to live in the concrete past, and even make “negative points”, but life and existence is always in forward motion like gravity and physics works.

In my opinion and some reality, we automatically go toward what we consider God or the good for ourselves. What I mean by that is we become what we are most genuinely attracted to in existence. Sure it seems like an oversimplification of things. But, is that not real? I mean, even the most evil people in the world are attracted to what they consider “good”, right down to “patriotic wars” and all of that for “the benefit of the people”.

Sure, I am making this article about the game of life simple to understand and easy to apply, but not easier and not simpler.

So, we all have a Good or a God, even if we claim not to, and that God is what benefits us in our own unique way, really. We have got to serve somebody or something even if it is our deeper selves.

A few minutes ago before I started on this article, I was having a snack and realized that simple truth about life: Even if we are totally evil, ultimately we naturally gravitate to what is good for us, even if we are good, we do not really want to be on the side of evil. That is human nature, there. Like I said, what justifies war and murder in the minds of those committing the crimes of war and murder? At a surface level, nothing is justified. But, deeply: The whole game is justified by its roles, rules, and players. You have the right and you have the wrong. Everybody, including the wrong, ultimately want to be right or win the game.

I was thinking about the play Jesus Christ Superstar, today as I was coming up with this article, and I thought to myself that all dramas, comedies and everything are ultimately games from a standpoint of higher evolution of reality, but they seem serious when you are in them. From wars, to business, to the drama of Christ, and just everything, it is a sort of game with right, wrong, winners, losers and all. Right, wrong or in the middle, we must swim forward or sink and go nowhere. Action is the currency, money, and medium of trade and work. We must make our choice where we are.

Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant (1724 1804) is actually the central figure in philosophy that is modern. Early modern rationalism and empiricism were synthesized by him, establish the terms for a lot of twentieth and nineteenth century philosophy, and goes on to work out a considerable influence now in metaphysics, aesthetics, political philosophy, ethics, epistemology, as well as other areas. The essential concept of Kant’s “critical philosophy” – particularly in his 3 Critiques: the Critique of Pure Reason (1781, 1787), the Critique of Practical Reason (1788), and the Critique of the power of Judgment (1790) – is actually human autonomy. He argues that the person understanding is actually the cause of the basic laws of nature that framework all the experience of ours, and that human cause provides itself the moral law, that is the basis of ours for trust in God, independence, and immortality. Thus, scientific knowledge, morality, and religious belief are secure and consistent mutually since they all rest on exactly the same basis of man autonomy, which is additionally the last conclusion of nature based on the teleological worldview of reflecting judgment that Kant introduces to unify the practical and theoretical areas of his philosophical system.

The primary subject of the Critique of Pure Reason is actually the chance of metaphysics, to be known in a certain way. Kant defines metaphysics in terminology of the cognitions after what motive may make an effort independently of all the experience, as well as the goal of his in the book is actually reaching a decision about the chance or maybe impossibility of a metaphysics in common, as well as the determination of the sources of its, in addition to its boundaries and extent, all, nonetheless, from principles. So metaphysics for Kant applies to a priori knowledge, or maybe understanding whose justification doesn’t count on experience; and a priori knowledge with reason is associated by him. The task of the Critique is actually examining whether, exactly how, as well as to what extent human cause is actually effective at a priori knowledge.

In the Critique Kant therefore rejects the insight into an intelligible society, and he then says that rejecting awareness about things in themselves is actually needed for reconciling science with regular morality and religion. This is since he says trust in immortality, freedom, and God have a purely moral foundation, and nevertheless adopting these beliefs on moral justification will be unjustified if we would realize that these were false. Thus, Kant states that he had to refute expertise to make room for faith. Restricting knowledge to looks and relegating God as well as the soul to an unknowable world of items in themselves guarantees that it’s not possible to disprove statements about God and the independence or maybe immortality of the soul, that moral arguments might as a result justify us in believing.

Furthermore, the determinism of contemporary science no longer threatens the independence needed by conventional morality, since science and thus determinism apply just to appearances, and there’s space for independence in the world of items in themselves, the place that the self or maybe soul is actually set. We can’t know (theoretically) we’re free, since we can’t know something about stuff in themselves. But there are particularly powerful moral justification for the perception in human freedom, that functions as the keystone supporting different morally grounded opinions.