Friday, 6 February 2015

Sartre's Existentialism

Moving on from last week's post regarding The Distorted Simulation of Reality, in which I looked at how systems have developed in the form of modern media, a principle inspired by Baudrillard, I have decided to place my attentions on one of my favourite philsophical teachings - Existentialism. Jean-Paul Satre, as you've probably guessed by the name, was a French philosopher and perhaps the most significant presence of the Existentialist movement. In this post I will try to explain his views and how they may relate to modern life in what is an increasingly crazy world.

Firstly, Existentialism looks at the fundamental principles behind human existence, as well as deconstructing how we live our lives in the modern world. These philosophical teachings are based around the idea that we are terrifyingly aware of how free we are, thus producing ways in which we are able to cope with our own peculiar place within the world. In order to explain where this notion has developed from we must first look at the idea of consciousness and unconsciousness.

A being that's for itself is considered something that is able to think about things and perceive objects that are around them in reality. Human beings are the most obvious examples of beings for themselves as we can distinguish ourselves as being separate from objects such as tables, for instance. Not only do we perceive things but we perceive our self perceiving things, this meaning we notice our selves in relation to the world around us. We are capable of complex thought.

Something that is unconscious is what we call a being in itself, something that is unable to perceive or think about anything, this laptop I'm writing on for example has a specific purpose and is not able to think, it just is what it is. Now, separating the conscious from the unconscious is the principle of nothingness, this being what keeps the two apart.

Nothingness exists within the conscious being also, nothingness being a vacuous space which we try to fill with our actions and self-achievement. In other words, we go through life looking for fulfillment through what we do. The nothingness, therefore, is what gives human beings the potential to be different, and have different futures. A being in itself is created and this is the main difference between what is conscious and unconscious, a table for example has a pre-ordained life, in the sense that a table has been formed to be a table.

Ok, so now the basics are out of the way (pretty easy stuff, right?) we can now move onto the concept of bad faith. The nothingness inside us can be essentially filled with everything, for example we don't have to be loyal, religious, abide by laws and we are fundamentally free to do what we want. The most obvious example I can think of to stress the extent to which we are free is the idea of killing someone, although doing this has consequences, there is nothing restraining you from being free to suffer those consequences as a result of killing someone.

When we realise that we are free to make our own choices regardless of everything else, we are faced with anguish because we are scared of our own freedom. We do not have to follow any specific moral and this is a concept we struggle with because we do not want to lose what we have built up in our lives, meaning we favour constraints, turning to bad faith.

We decide to ignore our own freedom in an effort to convince ourselves we are not as free as we actually are. One way in which we try to cope with our realisations is by trying to treat ourselves as 'things', i.e. we can't help being a certain way because that's just how we are - pretty simple, I know. This method is what can often be referred to as being in denial of our own potential, we categorise ourselves as a type, or as appertaining to a set of principles or constraints, unable to act outside of those defining characteristics.

Another way in which we deny ourselves freedom is to give ourselves a role to play. Think about a teacher, we do not really think of a teacher acting outside of being a teacher, they are a role model and they perceive themselves as being teachers and role models. If a teacher was to act separately from being a teacher they would be condemned by the general public, maybe an example of this could be acting irresponsibly; getting drunk or sleeping with a student (let's be more specific by saying a lecturer being condemned for sleeping with a student, a student who is also a consenting adult).

Through his philosophical teachings, Satre showed that he believed that we, as human beings, wanted to determine our own futures by placing ourselves within defining constructs. An example of these constructs could be the idea of law or, on a wider basis, capitalism. Sartre believed that money served as a way for people to deny themselves freedom by providing the perfect excuse to say we cannot afford to do specific things. Money is not real in an existentialist sense, and is part of the machine which forces us to trap ourselves in jobs, not giving ourselves any room for fulfillment.

Rates of depression in modern times are through the roof, and perhaps one of the contributing factors is being overworked or not having time to really persue the interests which may fulfill us. A study was done showing that 10% of our happiness levels are governed by life circumstances - only 10%! This means that what we do as a job doesn't really contribute to whether or not we are happy, because once our basic needs are met we don't really have a need to have more money.

However, we continue to work because we are scared of freedom, despite us being eternally aware that it needn't be that way. We have got to a point now where we are trapped within a system, where we have become dissociated from what is truly real, and what it is to be free. Not only have we created a world in which we are no longer free, but the system created ensures that we cannot escape it even if we are to realise fundamental flaws within that system, such as inequality and mass consumerism.

So that's my take on Existentialism, I hope you've enjoyed it and have spurred you on to comment below telling me I'm all wrong! Let me hear what you think by commenting below, feel free to share this, +1 it or print it off and put it on your bedside table to be read everyday! Thanks for reading.

Saturday, 31 January 2015

Philosopher Profiles: Baudrillard

After my post on The Distorted Simulation of Reality I thought I would take a look at the philosophical teachings of the man who inspired my thoughts on the  advertisement campaign of John Lewis. Firstly, Baudrillard can be described as a dystopic postmodernist, a man who seemingly felt as though we had already lost to the current cultural implications of having disassociated ourselves from the real. In other words, Baudrillard believed that we had so far sepatated ourselves from true reality, that we were now dependent and obsessed with our separation from it - he expressed this in a number of ways.

Baudrillard was a cultural observer in many ways and his ideas of postmodern society are bleak, suggesting the real is irretrievable. The real is, essentially reality, and Baudrillard argued that postmodern societies had disengaged with what is real by it having been manipulated by media and the systems we now associate with. In the process of having lost the real we have replaced it with a hyperreality, something that continues to shape the way we see the world.

An example of hyperreality would be video games, television dramas, internet dating and artificial intelligence - any system that replaces or simulates reality. One of the problems with mass media, and living in a world full of systems and images that seek to represent reality is that we have become increasingly disengaged from what is real. The hegemonic system which has replaced reality seeks to rebut any attempt to reengage with the real, and one of the consequences of the system is that it enables us to perceive everything nihilistically, and encourages meaningless.

Let me explain, being a twenty-something year old I have been subject throughout my life to the systems Baudrillard talks about, but I am still old enough to remember the frustrations of dial-up internet! I grew up on video games, television and alcoholic-infused evenings throughout my teen years, as well as the expanding prominence of the internet. Exposure to video games, the internet and emotional melodramas has desensitised me to a number of different examples of what would have previously be seen as despicable and ghastly. Here are some examples:

Video games and films: Having played zombie games, GTA, Manhunt and seen a number of gory films like Saw, although disgusting, depraved and wrong, I have always met crime, death and horrific plots with indifference, being able to watch and play these games/films without feeling any real disgust or seeing any real significance in the acts they are simulating. Sixty years ago these video games and films would not have been sold/aired, and any films like The Exorcist or Psycho are not movies I find particularly scary or terrifying because society has moved to new levels in the horror and terror genres. In other words, I am more desensitised to violence, crime and death as a result of the systems I have engrossed myself in.

Consumerism: We have become disenfranchised from the true values of life, and these true values are being represented by products that we are corn-fed into thinking will bring us happiness. We have become engulfed by the worlds of currency and wealth, we now think about everything in terms of exchange and value, whether that be sustenance, sex or time - we have replaced farms and natural produce with large buildings filled with non-nutritious food and drinks, sex and communication are now things we can readily find on the internet in forms of social networking and porn - sex becoming an image of objectification and control rather than one of compassion and love. Time is, of course, given for the sake of earning money - 'how much is our time worth?' has become a cultural form of Capitalism.

Baudrillard believes that these elements are byproducts of the societies we now live in, but these simulations show an obsession with the real that preceded them, further distorting the real. Historical films are a perfect example, events such as the holocaust have been replaced to an extent by the images, melancholy music and sounds that are played through movie showings. This is a part of the system because we are constantly reliving events through systems and images/signs - showing that we have a connection to the past, which is even now being distorted by misrepresentations of those events.

As a result, Baudrillard believes that we are permanently melancholy, and we cannot break out of the cycle which the systems keep us in. The systems' representation of the real are hyperbolic, melodramas on television being an example of what we all aspire our lives to be like - dramatic and action-packed, however this is unrealised. Even reality shows convey misrepresentations of the reality they are supposed to be showing; shows such as The Only Way is Essex and I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here all seek to distort reality in a way that it is now unrecognisable.

So that's my profile on Baudrillard (as well as me going off on a tangent about systems...). I hope you enjoyed this and found it informative. If you'd like to know more about Baudrillard I would recommend this book on Amazon, an introduction into some of Baudrillard's ideas on Simulacra and Simulation. Please comment below to let me know your thoughts, thanks. :) Feel free to share any of my posts as well!

Thursday, 29 January 2015

The Distorted Simulation of Reality - A Cultural Observance

Having read Baudrillard's ideas on Simulacra and Simulation I thought I would delve into the idea because it is certainly one that dominates the modern lives we lead. Rather than relay the works here I will attempting to provide my own perspective on the world in which we live, occasionally referring to Baudrillard's philosophical teachings along the way.

I thought I would start with advertisement. Switch on the TV and flick through a few adverts, what do you see? You don't see a black and white image of what the product is and what it does anymore, you see instead a series of images regarding the lives we lead. The John Lewis Christmas advert can be viewed by clicking here. If you were watching this advert for the first time, not knowing what John Lewis primarily sells you would probably come to the conclusion that John Lewis sells love at Christmas, or penguins.

What we see with the John Lewis Christmas advert are symbols within symbols and I will be using this video as my primary tool for exploring Western culture and Capitalism. Firstly it's important to address that John Lewis sells clothes, something that we all need but John Lewis in particular is an up-market high street chain selling rather expensive items - in my opinion on my average salary.

John Lewis is essentially a symbol for clothing so we already have the first representation of reality there, John Lewis is an image which we can easily associate with clothing. Fine. When you see John Lewis you automatically and subconsciously think of clothes, that is until you see this advert. The John Lewis brand image dissociates itself with clothes in this video, making a new representation of childhood, love and togetherness - all in time for Christmas!

The issue is that while John Lewis is creating new associations to do with concepts rather than products it is creating an image representation and tangible association with those concepts. For example, it is, on a subconscious level, easy to think that buying John Lewis products will automatically bring you happiness and love, as well as everything you want for Christmas. So let's break this down further.

The child in the advert is the primary subject, who is seemingly made out to have an imaginary friend - the penguin, which we find out later is his teddy bear. The child then observes that his imaginary friend feels lonely, so assumingly with the help of John Lewis he brings his imaginary friend another imaginary friend of the opposite sex.

As well as the John Lewis logo being a simulation of reality through its image, we also have the teddy bear being a simulation for the child's love. As the penguin is in fact a teddy bear we have to assume that the love and loneliness felt by this teddy bear is in fact a fabrication, or simulation of something deeper the child is feeling. Throughout the advert we see people communicating and being with one another, but throughout the whole advert the child is alone and there is no obvious acknowledgement that he is even there.

What we have is a complex representation of the child's life which he lives through his teddy bear/imaginary friend. What makes things more complicated is that John Lewis is seemingly advertising the penguin '#Monty the Penguin', which is odd seeing as they don't sell teddy bears or imaginary friends.

Through watching this advert the only conclusion I can make is that we have lost all concept of what is real, and have replaced this with a simulation, firstly of the John Lewis logo, and also of the penguin - the penguin being a misrepresentation of the child. We are replacing concepts with material possessions, and through this we truly lose a sense of worth, believing that the price of a John Lewis product will bring us all the things it is advertising.

We are manipulated by mass media because it is ubiquitous, there is no escaping advertisement or images representing products. We have no true sense of what brings us happiness and I am fully believing that this sort of thing has contributed to the increased depression rate as we are no longer able to dissociate ourselves from the procurement of material possessions in the hunt for happiness and togetherness.

Christmas is a good example of a corporatised festival which has no longer been about Jesus, Pagan tradition or even the coming together of family - or maybe the coming together of family being commercialised to the point where we need to bring eachother presents in order to see eachother.

The idea is that Capitalism has become cyclic and because there are so many representations within symbols withing symbols, within symbols (I hope you get the idea here!) we are no longer capable of establishing a connection to what is actually real. It is as though we cannot see beyond a material world which has imprisoned us into thinking that hard to find concepts, such as love, beauty and even justice, are all materially acquired, or materially dependent.

So that's it for now. I hope you've enjoyed reading this post and I look forward to any comments you might make. What are your thoughts on commercialisation? Do you agree that we are beginning to lose a sense of what is real? Comment below so we can discuss it.

Monday, 26 January 2015

Artificial Intelligence: What Do We Need To Fear?

Do we need to fear artificial intelligence becoming more intelligent than the creator - us? I read an article recently which looked into artificial superintelligence, and how, on establishing what intelligence is, would we be able to instill this into a computer or in an artificial way. Anyway, the article got me thinking on whether or not it would be possible for artificial intelligence to one day surpass our own intellect. In some ways the idea seems absurd but it is not that absurd when you think about it, we have already created machines in specific areas that outperform humans in pretty much every way. The only lacking division is a human capacity in terms of compassion and the ability to truly think.

The article comes to the conclusion that it is highly unlikely we will ever understand the make up of intelligence and, therefore we would be unable to implement it into machinery, even then, if we could work out what intelligence truly consisted of on a fundamental level it may be too convoluted for us to form algorithms complex enough to mimic it. However, the idea of this intrigues me; think about Cleverbot, a robot that was created to mimic human responses in order to fool humans into thinking they were actually talking to a human.

A test was conducted where people were asked to decide whether or not they were talking to a robot or a human based on the answers they received to questions they asked. The test was conducted as if speaking on an internet chatroom and human participants, as well as Cleverbot, partook in the experiment. Out of 334 votes being cast, 59.3% thought they were speaking to a human when talking to Cleverbot, while only 63.3% thought they were talking to a human when they were in fact talking to a human. As you can see, Cleverbot scored very highly on the test.

The reason I have used Cleverbot as an example is because it is programmed to mimic human beings through ongoing interaction with us. As Cleverbot speaks to more humans it essentially evolves the language it uses in order to sound more human and adjudge tone. My argument is that if a robot can learn to mimic a human being in the language it uses, it could necessarily evolve beyond those capabilities given the correct criteria in which to function in.

I don't mean that Cleverbot will now become a full-fledged human who is able to 'love', don't be silly, but if there was a specific algorithm which mimicked human beings on a very fundamental level, there is not reason, in my head, why it couldn't take off and begin to learn to enhance itself - especially if the intelligence consisted of sub-systems, as the article mentioned previously talks about.
The article I read, entitled 'The Creation of a Superintelligence and The End of Enquiry' talks about how intelligence is broken down into various subsystems, and it is possible to categorise these.

The sub-system idea would allow a combination of these to be created, in which an outcome could be derived from the various inputs, essentially creating an intelligence system that makes decisions based on various inputs. If we think about it, this is very much how a human being operates, the five senses can be regarded as differing inputs in this situation. Obviously it is much more complex than this, but in principle we should be able to create something that mimics the process of decision making among other things.

Professor Murray Shanahan, professor of Cognitive Robotics at Imperial College is quoted in this article regarding artificial intelligence, and it is very clear that he believes the development of AI is very much going towards a 'human-level' understanding, although not within the next 20 years. However, the issue is that moral code and constraints are not being put in place at this early stage which would result in AI essentially running amok, if we were not to think about the implications at an early stage it could cause complications in the future.

The article also brings to light that it is unclear whether or not we should try to mimic human nature or start from scratch. This brings forward ideas of how we perceive intelligence rather than how it is formed on a natural level, meaning we could essentially create something without having to break down our own biological capacity for intelligence. Stephen Hawking among others have warned about the potential implications of AI enhancement, some even citing human extinction as a possible outcome.

So what do you think? Can you imagine an AI revolution taking down the puny human beings we all are? Or is it inconceivable to create an AI that is capable of surpassing ourselves? And if it was to happen would we be exterminated, ignored or even just patronised by this superior intelligence? Please share this post, comment below or whatever, hope you enjoyed the read :)

Saturday, 24 January 2015

Top 10 Philosophical Quotes

Dedicated to the philisophical teachings uttered in short sentences, musings that will change your outlook on life in the blink of an eye and quips to equip you to face the hardships of life, this list will open your eyes to some of the great brains to have graced this Earth. I will be focusing on short quotes rather than longer ones - the snappier the better for those looking for that quick injection of knowledge and wisdom.

10. Heraclitus - "One cannot step twice in the same river."

Meaning that everything is in a constant flow of change - from each passing moment the water of that river passes through before being replaced with more water, the river has changed. This definition reaffirms Heraclitus when he argues that the only thing we can call permanent is change.

9. Nietzsche - "God is dead!"

Not in the literal sense, but in an ideological one. Nietzsche's works display concepts of nihilism, in which he warns us that the growing detachment from religion in the western world could lead to chaos. Often debated, but the true meaning is thought to be foreboding the movement away from the morals expounded in religious verse.

8. Einstein - "The real sign of intelligence isn't knowledge, it's imagination."

Einstein questioned the scientific conventions at the time and moved away from the acceptance of said conventions. This philosophy is perhaps the ethos behind how Einstein was able to imagine new concepts which changed the formerly accepted notions of science and the way we perceive the world. Want to know what Einstein thought about God? Click here!

7. Socrates - "I only know one thing, and that is I know nothing."

Perhaps tying in well with Einstein's own ideas - no matter how much we learn we will be eternally in the depths of what we don't know. There is too much in this universe which we will always struggle to explain, but Socrates' words are what many people look to to inspire questions about the world we live in.

6. Descartes - "I think, therefore I am."

Descartes' rational behind his own existence was that he thought, therefore he was. The age-old concept of whether or not you exist is something that plagued Descartes' mind, but this quote was his only way of putting into words that he knew he must exist, even if that didn't necessarily mean other people did...

5. Kant - "Morality is not the doctrine of how we make ourselves happy, but how we make ourselves worthy of happiness."

A lot of his philosophy was based around morality, and indeed Kant changed western philosophy and is probably one of the most influential philosophers to have ever lived. On questioning whether or not God exists, Kant came to the conclusion that morality was proof of God's existence.

4. Aristotle - "Love is composed of a single soul inhabiting two bodies."

Don't hate me, it's valentines day soon! Besides, isn't love one of the biggest concepts we all grapple with from time to time? A classic from Aristotle nonetheless.

3. Rousseau - "Man is born free, but is everywhere in chains."

Social class, wealth, and poverty are all things that trap us, but none of these are of a natural creation, they are consequences of everything man-made. Rousseau isn't known to be the greatest but he did write a good line! This one working in some capacity to inspire the French Revolution.

2. Gandhi - "Live simply so that others may simply live."

With only 1% of the world's population owning almost half of the entire world's wealth, perhaps this idiom has never rang so true throughout the world. Living simply would be to not exhaust the world's resources, and passing on luxuries would improve the lives of those less fortunate - an ideal thought amid the less than ideal surroundings.

1. Socrates - "The unexamined life is not worth living."

The only person to make it twice on the list, although others could have easily shoehorned themselves on here somehow. Without examining life would any of the previous nine quotes ever have been uttered?

So there you have it, a list of bite-sized philosophical teachings to keep you ticking over on the philosophy front. Please have a share, and if you think I've missed any off, let me know below!

Einstein On God: Does God Exist?

Not a philosopher but a very interesting man who did not conform to ideas, and of course was an extremely open minded person - this being the basis of his discoveries and detachment from scientific conventions at the time. Einstein's scientific ideas are perhaps a testament to his creativity and ground-breaking principles, and this blog post will be used to analyse Einstein's quotes about God and his ideas surrounding the unified field theory which I feel may be helpful when talking about this topic. Differing from previous posts about Kant's ideas on morality and Aristotle's motifs surrounding the Unmoved Mover, this post will be centred around Einstein's quotes.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists," said Einstein when addressing the question of whether or not he believed in God. He goes onto say that he does not believe in a personal God, far from it and, similar to Kant, I think it would be fair to say that the word 'God' represents something that does not have a name, a type of force rather than something tangible or ominous. This is not to say Einstein was an atheist, he indeed came out and said he was "annoyed" at the use of his words in defending the argument that God did not exist - it would perhaps be more apt to consider Einstein as agnostic.

So why did Einstein not believe in a personal God? The thoughts of Einstein on God were numerous, and there are many reasons why Einstein did not believe in a personal God, however I like the idea that scientific research is based on the premise that everything lives and functions within the laws of nature, this meaning that the idea of prayers influencing events or outcomes doesn't really work. Einstein was primarily a man of science but was influenced as a child by the Bible and Jewish teaching, he even went as far to believe that Jesus irrefutably existed. He said that "no one can read the Gospels without feeling the presence of Jesus," and that myth could not contain such life.

With this in mind, Einstein respected the historic presence of theology and religious figures, but he believed that the future of human thinking must fundamentally change if the race was to survive. He believed that the rigours of science could not be handled by any of the current religions, and the only one that could perhaps take on the pragmatic research into scientific principles was Buddhism, although to say Einstein was a Buddhist would be very incorrect - Einstein did, however, believe in the harmony and connection of all living entities and universal matter.

Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life searching for a unified field theory, one that would combine general relativity and quantum mechanics. Unfortunately Einstein's attempts were largely fruitless but taking into account the cosmic religious feelings Einstein would get from contemplating the universe, his hunt for a unified theory, in my opinion, was Einstein delving into his own personal beliefs, searching for something that would justify his feelings towards thinking there were some underlying force within the universe - a creator that would dispel ideas of there being a God-inclined beginning.

In conclusion, Einstein did not believe in God, in particular a personal God, but he did feel strongly that we were but schoolboys in trying to increase our knowledge of the universe. He believed that we would never know why the universe came into being, but the concept of a God, an influence would perhaps be a better word, was not one he would dispel. Einstein's search for a unified field made more sense than anything else in his belief that there was an underlying and fundamental principle or force connecting us all, and this would have obviously had a role to play in the forming of the universe as we know it - something that similarly parallels Aristotle's ideas.

I hope you have enjoyed reading this post and I hope you will also have reason for further reading on Einstein's incredible wisdom. Please share this post where you can as it is the only way I can get more coverage, and I also welcome your comments on this topic, so please, leave a comment below. :)

Friday, 23 January 2015

Kant On God: Does God Exist?

Another one in the philosophers on God series, if you missed the last one then click here for Aristotle's intriguing take on God.

Kant, to put it shortly, rationalised that God must exist, he put this rationality down to how morality effects the average human being, and used this idea to explain how without justice for one's actions in life, there must exist an afterlife of some sort where justice is redeemed. This is a surprisingly simple concept but Kant came up with the idea very uniquely and this post will try to analyse the flaws and benefits of this way of thinking.

Firstly, it is perhaps short-sighted to say that Kant believed God to exist, as his moral argument is more of a reason to believe that an afterlife exists, but more importantly, an afterlife that is based on justice of what decisions you have made in your Earthly form. So where I have said previously that the rationality of Kant is to say that God must exist, this in fact refers to God as a judgement or dependable afterlife.

The basis of the Kant on God argument resides within morality, the argument being that we make moral decisions because it is rational to do so, and the only way for those decisions to be rational is if they lead to ultimate consequences and implications.If we look more specifically at giving to charity as an example we see that, on a personal level, we feel as though we ought to give to charity. If we ought to do something then that is the perfect reason within itself to do something, such as giving to charity, this making moral decisions rational decisions. Furthermore, when confronted with a decision to make, the moral reason for making that decision will always be the more important of a basis on which to make that decision, therefore moral decisions are completely rational.

Moving on from this, it is possible to surmise that when having to choose between a morally correct outcome and a morally bereft outcome which benefits us more, we will still, in most cases choose what is morally correct. If there were no consequences for choosing the immoral path, which benefits us more, then we would rationally pick the immoral choice ahead of the moral decision - this being the fundamental principle behind Kantian logic.

It is plain to see that justice for making moral decisions does not lie in this lifetime; bad people do well and good people will sometimes do badly, therefore the logical and most rational conclusion is that justice is done after we die, by God or in another life. Kant used this argument to suggest that the most logical religion is the Christian ideology of being judged by God; placed in hell or in heaven. The whole idea is that we have a reason to do good things and we naturally move towards them, in other words we know the difference between right or wrong. However, because there are no obvious consequences in this life, therefore these must be atoned by something else after our time.

The problem with the Kant on God argument is that it does not address social implications. I think it is fair to say that we make a lot of our decisions based on what is socially acceptable, and it is also fair to say that what is socially acceptable has changed dramatically over the years, for example gay marriage, sex out of wedlock and divorce are all common themes within our current cultural narrative in the Western world, however this does not mean that those decisions are morally wrong - far from it.

This means that what is right or wrong changes based on what is correct within present society, and is not down to a fundamental or ultimate moral compass that exists ubiquitously throughout the world, therefore the idea of judgement is not one that would really make sense, unless the Bible were correct. If it were then the reckoning is coming! - but hasn't yet...

The idea also fails to address bad decisions that do have consequences within this life, for example, someone who serves jail time for murdering someone, in our lifetime, pays for their sins, so what effect would that have on any ultimate judgement? The concept Kant has put forwards is complex in many ways but it is impossible to address all of these points from the human perspective in my opinion. If you'd like to know more about Kant then here's a great website for you to read up on him - Kant Philosophy

So what do you think about this theory? Do you think Kant makes sense here? Have I overlooked something? Let's talk about it, I would love to discuss this topic because I'm a massive fan of Kant, so let's have it out! :) Comment below.