Search Results

One more To-do list. This time -  categorise it into personal, work, social, spiritual, house-related, financial. Subcategories and check marks for each. Have a category for to-dos to do with making your to-do list. Then you’ll feel on top of it.  No, actually, one bigger list — one that’s divided day to day. Hour to hour. Schedule in ‘chill out’ then erase it to catch up on the things you forgot about. That’s not working? You feel less on top of it than ever? Try a different method now. A planner now. A diary now. LOCKKKK IN. One more write down your flaws and values list, one more SMART goal, one more fix, one more crack at the Tarantino Method, one more David Goggins montage, more audiobook — one more solution, one more answer, then you can ‘lock in.’  Once you feel on top of it, you will be able to grasp it all in your hands — right?  Or by chasing it every day, aware it is all something that slips away from you constantly, are you allowing ‘it’ to get further away from you? What even is ‘it’? What is this big IT you must reach, grasp, lock in to find? Or is ‘it’ an emotion — a feeling, a desire for order? Is it the symptom of living in the world you do, that you’ve assinged the management of to your own, allegedly lazy, self?  Whatever your ‘IT’ is, the hard truth is no big lock in, no perfect planner, no audiobook, no new kickstart routine, will ever get rid of the feeling of the chase of it, or ever provide a toolkit suitable enough that you find yourself, finally, on top of Mountain ‘IT.’  Because there are so many its. Every time you maybe whack one down, feel semi like you’ve reached somewhere, you look to the side and another one demands your attention — like a waiter carrying many plates, but every time they focus on one all the others drop.  — (Hell yeah, I finally got on top of my gym routine… but now I’m getting up so early I’m not sleeping enough. Finally replied to all those texts, but now my uni assingment is behind. Finally cooking good food, but my friends haven’t seen me in weeks and my room smells.) Even when you’re consistently winning at something, fully locked into it, you think you’re losing, because you are, in a sense. Obsessive management can’t last, and it takes away from other things in your life, or lead to burn out.   But I can’t talk. I’ve spend my whole life trying to lock into something that moves further away. But then, what even is the solution? Every day you do not complete or feel satisfied with your doings, you must be okay with the fact that you NEVER will?  It feels equally misery inducing to provide the solution of ‘have less things to do.’ This is some advice from Four Thousand Hours - Time Management For Mortals that always made me a bit depressed. But maybe that’s because I like the chase of the lock in. The idea of endless opportunities. Maybe I don’t want to come to terms with the limits of life - maybe I do want to lock into everything. Maybe the idea of reaching the top of Mountain ‘IT’, however delusional and excruciating a goal, gives me a purpose.  But the only way out, some say, is - have less focuses. Less pressure, goals, demands of yourself.  Realistically, - everyone usually has at least 1–3 social responsibilities, 1+ job with its own sub categories of responsibility, some form of education, some form of exercise, and if you’re lucky, a form of wind down/relaxation, a form of enrichment, creativity…. it is not possible to ‘solve’ this by ‘reduction’ — I see it as we are wired to crave, and I think it is a beautiful thing to do — to allow juggling of many facets of life, allow a tasting of many dishes on the ever-turning Lazy Susan of life.  I’m not saying I know the answers to it all — but let me ask you this.  Have you ever looked back on a old Todo list?  Here are my observations from doing so:  There were two types of tasks, a year on: Things I had done Things I had not done, but had expired.  Not a single one was ‘Oh shit, yeah that’s right, I have to do that still!’  Within a short span of time, any current tasks, stresses, lock-ins, ‘IT’s will expire, or change in some way — whether you tackle them and they grow into a new one, you don’t tackle them and in some form that causes them to leave, or they no longer need to be done.  So do not cut down on your dreams, your happenings— but be realistic. When giving lock-in expectations, do not let the feeling of the crushing weight of it all and how you never do it break you — this often means you create overwhelming expectations to match the overwhelming feeling — instead cut yourself off from emotional feeling, morph into yourself a year from now, however long, and honestly, think what the fuck can I actually do and do I actually want to do.  In other words, cover as many areas of life as you want. But-  Do the bare minimum in the areas of life that you are happy to, to allow for the maximum in the areas that you want to give.  It is stressful. Scary. To let things slip away, to be the waiter who looks over to a plate and realised it’s smashed right in front of you. But suck it up, go back to the kitchen and get a new one — you might pay for it out of your salary, but a year from now you won’t remember it.  Just stop stressing yourself about what the best way to carry them is, stop getting stressed about what others think you should be carrying, get out of your own head, stop stacking plates you don’t want to or can’t carry and go deliver what you gotta and wanna, bro.  Normalise dropping plates (deleting them altogether on a list) if you feel like, you know what, I no longer really need to do this. You can always pick it back up. Just crossed off ‘print resume’ and ‘get job’ because I applied for many online. Close enough, not perfect, but close enough.  You aren’t tomorrow going to become someone who can lock in from just learning something new. You’ve made it this long, if some systematic change was going to blow you up mountain IT, it would’ve. So just stop climbing, enjoy the view, collect some mf rocks bro, and do what you goddamn can today. Hike up the mountain if you must, but for the journey, not the destination, content you may never reach the top. But who wants to feel on top of IT, anyway? I hear the view is preeeettttyyy shit up there.

Schools are a place for education, not segregation. In an age where we preach inclusivity and diversity, why is it that we still have divide among schools? Whether it be private vs public, or co-ed vs. single sex schools, schooling seems to have lost touch with what they aim to achieve. We can all agree that everyone should have an equal opportunity when it comes to education, so why is it that we advocate for single-sex schools to this day, despite them dating back to before the 20 th century, and why is it that we enable those with wealthier backgrounds to achieve higher levels of education and support? The issues of public vs. private and single sex vs. co-ed schools have gone on for some time, and these issues are now outdated. Segregation by gender and wealth is unacceptable, and yet society turns a blind eye to it because it has become the norm. We need to recognise these issues, raise awareness and ask questions, as these impact the way we live and connect with one another day-to-day. Should schools operate on the basis of classism? It is an outlandish claim, but there is truth to such a statement. There is an apparent divide within the education system, which is driven by the clash between public and private schools. It costs between $24,000 - $50,000 for a year 12 student to attend a private school [1] , which many families cannot afford. However, as stated in the AFR on the Sep 28, 2024, independent schools “have been growing in popularity over the past two decades and drawing in students from public schools.” [2] Astonishingly, “Australian parents collectively spend about $12 billion each year in school fees alone,” 2 excluding additional expenses, including school uniforms and textbooks. What about funding from the federal government, you may ask. According to the Australian Institute, “the Commonwealth Government will spend an estimated $29.1 billion on schools in Australia. More than half of this – $17.8 billion – will go to private schools.” [3]   So where does this money go?   Well of course, it goes back into staff wages, facilities, and education. However, there is a major imbalance between private and public schools. Public school funding is allocated towards essential buildings that provide “unambiguous educational benefits,” 3 including libraries and classrooms. On the other hand, private schools can still use their “tax-deductable building funds to build boatsheds, rifle ranges, hypoxic chambers, grandstands, orchestra pits, cafes for students,” 3 and much more. Thus, the government should reconsider where they allocate their education funds, and how they are spent, as there is an apparent divide between the public and independent school systems.   We see many private schools that are single-sex; however, it has gained prevalence in the media recently that these single-sex schools are either considering or already making the move towards becoming co-ed. For instance, an article published in the ABC, “with more single-sex schools going co-ed, what is the evidence for gender-segregated education?”, authors Claudia Long and Emily Laurence discuss the reasons for this collective change. A common argument is that single-sex schools prove to be more beneficial for girls than they are for boys. However, “University of Sydney Professor of Education Helen Proctor said there wasn't much evidence when it comes to academic outcomes.” [4]   So what evidence is there?   According to Helen Proctor, "there's a very strong statistical correlation, stronger than it should be, between social class and academic achievement." 4 But what about girls being more likely to study STEM subjects in single-sex schools? It had been concluded after “researchers Helen Forgasz and Gilah Leder looked at 17 years of Victorian data, they found boys and girls alike were more likely to study maths and science in single-sex schools, and suggested socio-economic status, class size and teacher quality might have been the main drivers.” 4   Additionally, Dr. George Variyan, an education lecturer at Monash, investigated “how sexist attitudes can manifest in private single-sex boys' schools.” 4 Dr. Variyan argues that “schools could do a lot to address these issues and educators were doing their best, but often school traditions and cultures hampered these efforts.” 4  Traditions and cultures are at the core of this issue, and must be attended to first before we justify gender segregation as a means of improving academic performance, as said by Dr. Variyan, “Right now we are seeing increasing diversity, increasing nuance in understanding of gender, that I don't think it's particularly sustainable that we are gender segregating our schools." 4   Historically, evidence shows that private schools and single-sex schools perform better than public and co-ed schools. However, there are more factors to consider. To name a few, factors including increased funding towards teachers and facilities, coinciding with culture and tradition, prove to have an impact on academic performance in a positive light. Thus, segregating schools by gender and dividing schools by wealth should change. We should work towards diversifying our communities and being more welcoming towards inclusivity, rather than forming this great divide in hopes of enhancing student performance, when it is clear that there is evidence to show that these are not the underlying reasons as to why students at these prestigious and single-sex schools outperform those that are not. Bibliography: [1] Australia : Private School Fees and Costs | Exfin - The Australian Expatriate’s Gateway . (2015). Exfin.com . https://www.exfin.com/private-school-costs   [2] Hare, J. (2024, September 27).  How much do private schools cost in Australia?  Australian Financial Review. https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/education/the-cost-of-sending-your-child-to-a-private-school-in-seven-charts-20240131-p5f1cc   [3] Starr, H. (2024, April 26).  Federal funding for private schools . The Australia Institute. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/federal-funding-for-private-schools/   [4] Long, C., & Laurence, E. (2024, February 29). With the single-sex vs co-ed debate back in the news, we asked experts what type of school is better.  ABC News . https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-01/single-sex-boys-girls-schools-education-pros-cons-for-kids/103516546

It is possible to give an account of what makes exploitation a distinctive injustice when the victim’s circumstances prove to be an indirect form of coercion; however, it would be difficult to enforce specific laws surrounding exploitation due to the mutual agreements made. Exploitation involves two parties making an agreement of an offer that is perceived as unfair, therefore making it challenging to account as a distinctive injustice. Additionally, there are several circumstances where exploitation occurs, but is instead overlooked or accepted by society, such as capitalism. Conversely, for exploitation to be categorised as a distinctive injustice is to determine whether the injustice that has occurs outweighs the circumstances being titled as a moral issue, regardless of consent being provided by the victim. Ultimately, unless the exploitive circumstances can be linked to a form of coercion, it is not possible to consider exploitation a distinctive injustice, as the victim has provided consent without external pressures such as threats.   Exploitation involves individual’s accepting an offer that is perceived as unreasonable, by someone who intends to take advantage of their abilities, which is not a form of injustice as the victim is not forced into agreeing to the offer. Exploitation often results in an injustice of sorts, such as breaking the law by underpaying staff; however, these laws may only apply in certain countries, enabling the perpetrator to take advantage of countries without such restrictions, which is prevalent in China. Therefore, if the person exploiting people does so within the law, they are free to do so without it being a distinctive injustice, despite their moral wrongdoing. According to Alan Wertheimer in his article Remarks on Coercion and Exploitation , “we are interested in coercion and exploitation because consent is typically morally and legally transformative” [1] Consent is required in both coercion and exploitation, where a person is either forced into agreeing to a situation through threats or by choosing at their own free will. A PHD student at the University of Edenborough, Wendy van der Neut, claims in her thesis that “greediness is the wrong in exploitation, and therefore that laws that are intended to prevent or limit exploitation, can be justified as means of curbing greediness.” [2] However, regardless of whether exploitation and greed fall under the same category, they are both moral issues and cannot be accounted as a distinctive injustice. Thus, the law cannot determine whether someone’s greed is unjust unless it causes direct harm to the individual and is non-consensual.   While exploitation is morally impermissible, there are cases where exploitation is necessary in order to operate. The Marxist view supports the claim that if exploitation became a distinctive injustice, our economies would struggle to expand. Karl Marx claims “that workers in a capitalist society are exploited insofar as they are forced to sell their labour power to capitalists for less than the full value of the commodities they produce with their labour.” [3] Marx’s view applies to not only capitalist societies but instead can be applied to “feudal society” 1 as a whole. The idea posed by Marx is that by profiting from workers, the employer is essentially exploiting their workers by receiving more revenue than their expenses paid on labourers. According to Gerald Cohen “under capitalism workers appear to work entirely for the benefit of themselves, selling their labour to capitalists as free independent contractors,” 1 explaining why the pursuit of profit is justified as the labourer receives monetary compensation for the work they have put in, while the capitalist is able to sell the product for a higher value in aims to benefit themselves off others. As such, current economies depend on profitability, and therefore endorsing the exploitation of others; however, as it is necessary for economies to grow, it is not possible to classify such exploitation as an injustice.     On the other hand, exploitation may be a form of injustice if the victim proves to be in a circumstance where they have no option other than to accept the exploitive offer. A victim of exploitation has the right to decline the exploitive offer; however, if they are in a situation which does not allow for this, it can be perceived as a form of coercion regardless of if it is caused by the perpetrator. An argument posed by Mathew Zwolinski in Sweatshops, Choice, and Exploitation , looks at the “Failures of Voluntariness,” examining the difference between coercion and exploitation, based on the victim’s freedom of choice. Zwolinski’s investigation into sweatshops reveal that the workers freely choose to work there; however, it is their lack of options which pose the question as to whether it is a distinctive injustice. Many people who become sweatshops workers often come from a poor economic background, being an underlying reason for why they would accept the unreasonable offer. Zwolinski quotes John Miller, contending that these dismal economic circumstances is “coercion of economic necessity.” [4] However, many individuals find themselves in situations where they find that they have no choice other than to accept unreasonable offers, which Zwolinski sides with, arguing that “the presence of coercion does not license third parties to disregard the stated preferences of the coerced party by interfering with their activity.” 1 ‌As such, unless the exploiter poses a direct threat towards the victim, it cannot be considered an injustice, due to the victim providing informed consent to the terms of the agreement.     While a number of philosophers argue that exploitation should be a distinctive injustice, it is ultimately a moral issue. There are few instances which would classify exploitation as an injustice, where someone’s circumstances may be a form of coercion. However, this distinct line between coercion and exploitation cannot be intertwined, as consent is what separates the two. As such, due to the moral impermissibly of exploitation, it is not possible to account exploitation as a distinctive injustice as no laws can argue against greed. [1] Wertheimer, A. (1997). Denver Law Review Denver Law Review Volume 74 Issue 4 Symposium on Coercion -An Interdisciplinary Examination of Coercion, Exploitation, and the Law Remarks on Coercion and Exploitation Remarks on Coercion and Exploitation Recommended Citation Recommended Citation.  Denv. U. L. Rev ,  889 , 74. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1970&context=dlr ‌ [2] van der Neut, W. (2014). Consensual exploitation: the moral wrong in exploitation and legal restrictions on consensual exploitative transactions.  Era.ed.ac.uk . https://era.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/9594 ‌ [3] Zwolinski, M., & Wertheimer, A. (2017).  Exploitation  (E. N. Zalta, Ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/#:~:text=By%20far%20the%20most%20influential ‌ [4] Zwolinski, M. (2006, May 31).  Sweatshops, Choice, and Exploitation . Papers.ssrn.com . https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=901689

Do you believe that this is a good reductio? If not, please explain where we should draw the line. If so, please try to argue that any line is unjustified. The proposition that “we should enfranchise babies” is a poor reductio as it suggests that we should enable everyone to have the ability to vote; however, it will inevitably lead to an absurd outcome, that would leave the political system in turmoil. An issue that overarches this claim is that babies do not have a sound understanding of politics, therefore posing a threat to democracy. Additionally, a child’s views can be easily manipulated by those with higher authority, such as parents, which may lead to unwarranted bias surrounding their vote. While the idea of enabling everyone the right to vote is plausible in a democratic government, there should be a line drawn to ensure the stability of a political system. Ultimately, the concept of enfranchising children is flawed as it would lead to profound outcomes regarding elections and decisions made within parliament, therefore there should be a minimum age enforced that excludes children from making uninformed and potentially influenced decisions.   Due to babies having little political competency, their vote would be uninformed and could cause for an unwanted outcome for the wider community, who are informed of who they are voting for. It is assumed the voter has a sound understanding of political parties, the politicians background and more importantly their intentions. A child’s view is likely to be negligible as their priorities do not align with what is needed in society, let alone a baby who has not had the opportunity to develop. Jason Brennon states in his journal, Against Democracy , that “if the individual’s cognitive process of deliberation is flawed, the system is corrupt, and the results are illegitimate,” [1] recognising that children do not uphold the competency necessary for making such influential decisions. Furthermore, Timothy Fowler argues that political competence “entails reaching a certain level of rationality and reasonableness, which allows one to form and revise one’s conception of justice and the good, and to understand and abide by fair terms of cooperation.” [2] A child’s political competence proves to be insufficient and could cause dire consequences, such as swaying votes towards an unfavoured politician with promises that discard the needs of society. Thus, a baby’s inability to make informed choices suggests that they should not have the right to vote as they are likely to make irrational decisions that do not account for what citizens need.   Moreover, while children are unlikely to understand their role in voting, they are also vulnerable to manipulation if they were to gain the right to vote. Throughout adolescence, children develop their own views; however, the nature of ‘positionality’ entails that their views are influenced by external factors, such as the media and in particular people of authority. As revealed by a political science professor, Lisa Argyle, “political science research shows that families are typically the ‘starting point’ for someone’s political views,” [3] demonstrating that if a child were to vote, it is likely that their political views would align with their parents. Argyle’s claim suggests that this period of adolescence is a time of developing one’s own views, rather than expressing them in such a way that may impact the wider community. As such, the voting age is 18 in most countries as it is an age where most individuals have matured and formed their own beliefs, which they should be entitled to express instead of an early age. Another factor to consider is religion, as religious values may align with the values of certain political parties. For instance, a Brigham Young University student, Hans Lehnardt, acknowledges that his faith corresponds with the values of the democratic party in the United States of America, claiming that they “are more about helping the poor and the needy and helping refugees and allowing immigrants to come in.” 3 Thus, the religion a child is born into has the potential to inspire a child’s political views, reiterating the influence parents and people of authority in a child’s life has, therefore raising light to political bias if they were to vote at this adolescent age.   While children being enfranchised would likely damage a democracy, from an equal rights standpoint, it is plausible that children should be provided the right to vote regardless of their competency surrounding political views. It is almost certain that children do not have the capacity to make informed decisions if they were to vote; however, this argument does not consider that adults similarly may not have the necessary competency to vote either. An Assistant Professor at Doshisha University, Kei Nishiyama, argues that “States grant suffrage to adult regardless of knowledge, skills, literacy, intelligence, or even cognitive impairment or dementia,” [4] posing the argument of double standards surrounding suffrage. Additionally, a research associate from the University of Cambridge, Harry Pearce contends that “the fact that adults don’t need to show franchise credentials or an independence of mind shows that voting is not a privilege of competency, but rather a right of citizenship,” [5] furthering Nishiyama’s concerns surrounding the legitimacy of child disenfranchisement. However, the overall implications that would follow if children were to be enfranchised, particularly babies, outweighs arguments suggesting that adults may also make ill-informed decisions when voting. The idea of enfranchising babies is an invalid reductio as it would give children the opportunity to make decisions that would not consider the impacts on the community. As such, child enfranchising should not be an equal rights issue, but instead an argument on whether such power should be permitted to those who have yet to develop their own views.   The concept that “we should enfranchise babies” should be discarded due to the implications it would have on democracy. While democratic views advocate for equal rights for all, it is important to draw a line when it comes to issues that may impact the wider community. There comes an age where people have the capacity to form their own views and values without external influencers, justifying why lowering the voting age is absurd and an illegitimate reductio. As such, children require the opportunity to mature and develop such beliefs without the threat of manipulation, and should not have the opportunity to harm democracy due to ill-informed decisions. [1] Brennan, J. (2016). Against Democracy.  Against Democracy . https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400882939 ‌ [2] Fowler, T. (2013). The status of child citizens.  Politics, Philosophy & Economics ,  13 (1), 93–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594x13483482 ‌ [3] Holbrook, K. (2020, October 30).  How family and religion influence young adult political views . The Daily Universe. https://universe.byu.edu/2020/10/30/how-family-and-religion-influence-young-adult-political-views/ ‌ [4] Wall, J. (2023, May 5).  🦋 Why democracies need children’s suffrage . The Loop. https://theloop.ecpr.eu/why-democracies-need-childrens-suffrage/ ‌ [5] Pearse, H. (2022, December 28).  Why aren’t children allowed to vote? An expert debunks the arguments against . The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/why-arent-children-allowed-to-vote-an-expert-debunks-the-arguments-against-187497 ‌

Do you think that philosophy can successfully be conducted if one member of a discussion refuses to articulate any doctrinal commitments, or is Nāgārjuna arguing in bad faith by only attacking opponents' theses without providing any indication of what he may or may not believe? Nāgārjuna claims that an arguments validity relies on it having substantial groundings; however, he contends that everything lacks substance and therefore thesis have no argumentative power. The nature of Nāgārjuna’s argument suggests that all that oppose him have no argumentative power due to their lack of “substance,” which is explained through the theory of emptiness. Similarly, the discussion of “negation and existence” which entails that despite an arguments significance it must be false, is disproven by his argument. However, while Nāgārjuna does not intend to attack his opponents’ theses and instead shows that all arguments are false, his logic would discard the groundings of his own. As such, the philosopher diminishes the argumentative power of his opponents’ theses, but in doing so he unsuccessfully upholds his own arguments validity as he does not articulate any doctrinal commitments.     Nāgārjuna claims that “I have no thesis” as he believes that all theses are invalid as they “lack substance,” [1] therefore his own proposition is unable to be classified as a thesis. Under The Status of the Theory of Emptiness , the philosopher discusses that there are two horns. The first horn implies that if arguments are to be insubstantial, then “the substantialist’s view that substances do exist” 1 is invalid. However, the second horn investigates the opposing side to his view, that “if it does have argumentative power it must be substantial,” though he concludes that “the universal thesis that everything lacks substance has to be false.” 1 For instance, his analogy involving “chariots, pots, and so forth, which are dependently originated” 1 are in fact empty, which he correlates with the concept of a thesis without substance. However, he again contradicts this statement, stating that they are “obviously capable of fulfilling a variety of functions.” 1 He furthers this claim through examining epistemology , which questions the theory of knowledge. For a thesis to be believed as valid, it must be supported by evidence gathered from reputable sources. While all theses include valid evidence, Nāgārjuna’s opponent expresses his concern that perception, inference, testimony, and likeness, “cannot provide any basis for our knowledge of the world if they, like everything else, are regarded as empty.” 1 As such, the philosopher demonstrates an eagerness to invalidate opponents arguments through posing the belief that all arguments lack authenticity.   Moreover, Nyāya’s theory of language exemplifies the argumentative power of Nāgārjuna’s argument, for it seamlessly discards the theory. Nyāya’s theory stems from the idea that all “simple terms in a statement have to connect with entities in the world.” 1 This theory suggests that if an object is absent, it does not mean that it does not exist as it exists somewhere else. Therefore, Nāgārjuna’s claim that there is no substance at all is false, as it is not possible for that substance to not exist initially. Conversely, the nature of Nāgārjuna’s theory contradicts this as a meaningful statement such as “emptiness does not exist.” 1 where “emptiness” must exist as it has a referent. As such, the philosopher disputes Nyāya’s theory through using its own logic against it. While he has not supported his argument by articulating doctrinal commitments, he pursues the idea that “his negation only makes the non-existence of substance known but does not bring it about,” therefore suggesting that substance cannot exist, regardless of it having a referent. His proposition demonstrates that there are two sides to an argument, hence his theory having “two horns,” enabling him to counter all of his opposition’s defences. It is through contending against all opposing views which reveals the argumentative power that his treatise holds, implying that there is no need for doctrinal commitments.   For a thesis to be valid, it requires proven evidence in order to form a sound argument; however, Nāgārjuna’s argument would examine as to what makes the evidence itself valid. The issue with the argument is that it contradicts itself, as it suggests that all arguments are invalid, and therefore it must be invalid itself. From this perspective, the argument loses its argumentative power and poses the idea that Nāgārjuna’s is in fact arguing in bad faith of his opponents. To an extent, he may seek enjoyment in contradicting those that oppose his views. Nevertheless, he still provides a treatise that is capable of diminishing the value of all arguments. If he were to uphold the strength of his argument by removing its own contradiction from the equation, then he would successfully pose a philosophy that does not require articulation of doctrinal commitments. As such, by asserting that he has no thesis, he then provides a valid claim as he has conceded with his idea that all theses are false. In turn, he has revealed that there cannot be a true thesis, but only propositions, for there are always two sides of an argument, which is exemplified through his ability to counter each of his opponents’ views.   Ultimately, Nāgārjuna’s treatise demonstrates to the reader that philosophy can be conducted successfully without attending to doctrinal commitments, as he successfully counters each of his opponents’ views. While the theory is flawed in that it does not have underlying support, he proves that philosophy is a matter of posing views and beliefs rather than a sound thesis that can be contradicted. [1] Westerhoff, J. (2010). Introduction.  Oxford University Press EBooks , 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732692.003.0001 ‌

Do you find this claim plausible? Why, or why not? What is the Kantian Prohibition? Do you find it plausible? Why, or why not? Immanuel Kant argues that space, time and causation are essential factors in human experience, revealing that they form the basis for what enables humans to comprehend the world around them. The philosopher’s argument stems from the idea that both objective and subjective successions of representations are “necessary forms of experience.” The philosopher’s prohibition poses the idea that you cannot fathom anything outside of space, time and causation, as they are at the core of where human knowledge and experience stem from. However, the issue with Kant’s proposition is that it does not explain as to why humans are able to advance and learn new information that does not stem from past knowledge. As such, while Kant’s argument is plausible in that space, time and causation are what encapsulate experience, it does not take into account as to how new experiences can be formed without “priori’s.”   The necessary forms of experience are factors which an organism interacts with, which can be either subjective or objective. Kant contends that space, time and causation are essential forms of representation and the reason for why people are able to comprehend the world around them. Schopenhauer elaborates on Kant’s argument by looking at the body’s senses. While senses are perceived as ways the body experiences feelings, he contends that “it is quite wrong to call pain and pleasure representations.” [1] He describes the body as “a forced, momentary willing or not-willing of the impression the body is undergoing,” [2] alluding to the idea that the body cannot sense things outside of what is present in space and time. For instance, a person cannot experience pain without a threat posed within their environment, therefore space is the catalyst for humans to endure pain, no different to any other organism. Kant emphasises that experiences can only be attained from coming in contact with the space around them, as space holds objects for the being to encounter and form interpretations, whether it be experiencing pain by coming in contact with a flame, or observing a scenic landscape and remembering it as a joyful moment. Furthermore, Schopenhauer responds to the idea of what would happen “if we remove our own subject or even only the subjective constitution of the senses in general.” 2 By removing the philosophers listed factors, it is plausible that “all the constitution, all relations of objects in space and time, indeed space and time themselves would disappear, and as appearances they cannot exist in themselves, but only in us.” 2 As such, a human for instance must be present in space and time in order to form experiences, as space and time act as an empty slate where objects present in the space can form relations either directly or indirectly, through observation or contact.   If there were to be no space and time, objects would be non-existent, and there would be no potential for causation as it depends on an objective and subjective succession of representations. Kant’s argument further demonstrates the significance of space, time and causation as they provide the framework for events to occur, and relations to be made between objects. The Kantian prohibition suggests that actions can only be performed if it can be imagined, as imagination stems from experience and knowledge, there are limitations in what can be achieved, also known as being “morally prohibited.” 2 Due to the nature of the prohibition, it is often recognized as a universal law, as it can be applied to all dimensions within space and time. However, one flaw of the Kantian prohibition is its simplicity, as it does not explain as to why humans are able to form new experiences that have not been thought of before. An inventor is known as someone who creates an object that has not been thought of before, such as the iPhone. If there is no priori to the iPhone, then there is no explanation as to how this new idea was formed, which is a common issue with the prohibition. On the other hand, causation reveals that there are priori’s that inform new imaginations, where the iPhone is an advancement of technology as several components already have been created, such as electricity are linked together to form the new object, which in itself was always possible as it uses objects already present in that dimension. For instance, a common anecdote discussed is that a two-dimensional object is unable to comprehend and experience a three-dimensional object as it is outside of its realm and capabilities, providing a limitation for what is experienced between the two. As such, there are limitations to what humans can achieve. While there is the belief that there are no limitations to human imagination, the Kantian prohibition reveals that this philosophy is false, as humans can only imagine things possible within their own dimension, therefore being unable to imagine possibilities in the fourth dimension for instance, as it is inaccessible to humans.   In order for experiences to occur, they must fall in a sequence of events, which requires a subjective and objective item, a time frame for the sequence to occur, and a cause which enables for distinctions to be made. The philosopher, Reza Mahmoodshahi discusses the Kantian prohibition in his response titled, Kant’s Proof of a Universal Principle of Causality: A Transcendental Idealist’s Reply to Hume . An argument that opposes Kant’s proposition is that an organism’s senses are necessary for experiencing, such as observing being capable through sight, feeling an object through touch, or listening through hearing. While senses are what enable humans to comprehend the world around them, Mahmoodshahi argues that “the application of the categories to what we might call our ‘sense-data’ is a necessary condition for the representation of the objects of experience.” [3] Furthermore he draws on Kant’s Transcendental Deduction , where he “established that we must em- ploy concepts of objects in order to have objective experience.” 3 While the Kantian prohibition lacks empirical evidence, and is often dismissed as it cannot be scientifically supported in the real world, it holds sufficient groundings as it discusses space, time and causation as necessary forms of experience which cannot be objectively examined, but instead understood as a guidance for as to why there are limitations to human experience. As such the idea of forming objective experience is justified using examples no different to Kant’s boat theory. Mahmoodshahi summarises that “in order to imagine a boat going down stream, you must be able to imagine it upstream as a reference, for there must be a preceding point,” 3 reiterating the significance of time as a point of reference. However, the concept of “perceptual isomorphism,” 3 which explains that “there is a perceptual process between” 3 point one and point two, is implausible. Wilkerson argues that “a cunning arrangement of mirrors, designed to reflect some of the light over large distances before it reached my eyes might ensure that I saw later events before the earlier.” 3 As such, there are limitations to the Kantian prohibition; however, the underlying logic proves that experiences can only be formed through space time and causation.   Space, time and causation are “necessary forms of experience,” as Kant reveals, as these factors form the basis for the way events occur. While Kant’s argument lacks empirical evidence and detail, the nature of his argument is plausible to an extent in that it demonstrates the factors needed for the comprehension of the way the world operates. The Kantian prohibition explains that there are limitations to human experience due to space, as three-dimensional objects are unable to fathom what occurs in dimensions other than what they are placed in. Furthermore, experiences require there to be reference points for there to be distinctions made, provided through examining a cause and effect, which can only be placed on a time frame.     [1] Rickards, B. (2023). Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant. Salem Press Encyclopedia of Literature. https://research.ebsco.com/c/xppotz/viewer/html/hsaybzumrn [2] Schopenhauer, A., Norman, J., Welchman, A., & Janaway, C. (2010). Schopenhauer: “The World as Will and Representation.” In Cambridge University Press eBooks. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511780943 ‌ [3] Mahmoodshahi, R. (1995). Kant’s Proof of a Universal Principle of Causality: A Transcendental Idealist’s Reply to Hume. https://digitalcommons.denison.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&context=episteme ‌