3
" Our critique is not opposed to the *dogmatic procedure* of reason in its pure knowledge as science (for science must always be dogmatic, that is, derive its proof from secure *a priori* principles), but only to *dogmatism*, that is, to the presumption that it is possible to make any progress with pure (philosophical) knowledge from concepts according to principles, such as reason has long been in the habit of using, without first inquiring in what way, and by what right, it has come to posses them. Dogmatism is therefore the dogmatic procedure of pure reason, *without a preceding critique of its own powers*; and our opposition to this is not intended to defend that loquacious shallowness which arrogates to itself the name of popularity, much less that skepticism which makes short work of the whole of metaphysics. On the contrary, our critique is meant to form a necessary preparation in support of metaphysics as a thorough science, which must necessarily be carried out dogmatically and strictly systematically, so as to satisfy all the demands, no so much of the public at large, as of the Schools. This is an indispensable demand for it has undertaken to carry out its work entirely *a priori*, and thus to carry it out to the complete satisfaction of speculative reason. In the execution of this plan, as traced out by the critique, that is, in a future system of metaphysics, we shall have to follow the strict method of the celebrated Wolff, the greatest of all dogmatic philosophers. He was the first to give an example (and by his example initiated, in Germany, that spirit of thoroughness which is not yet extinct) of how the secure course of a science could be attained only through the lawful establishment of principles, the clear determination of concepts, the attempt at strictness of proof and avoidance of taking bold leaps in our inferences. He was therefore most eminently qualified to give metaphysics the dignity of a science, if it had only occurred to him to prepare his field in advance by criticism of the organ, that is, of pure reason itself―an omission due not so much to himself as to the dogmatic mentality of his age, about which the philosophers of his own, as well as of all previous times, have no right to reproach one another. Those who reject both the method of Wolff and the procedure of the critique of pure reason can have no other aim but to shake off the fetters of *science* altogether, and thus to change work into play, certainty into opinion and philosophy into philodoxy." ―from_Critique of Pure Reason_. Preface to the Second Edition. Translated, edited, and with an Introduction by Marcus Weigelt, based on the translation by Max Müller, pp. 28-29 "
4
" I believe in political equality. But there are two opposite reasons for being a democrat. You may think all men so good that they deserve a share in the government of the commonwealth, and so wise that the commonwealth needs their advice. That is, in my opinion, the false, romantic doctrine of democracy. On the other hand, you may believe fallen men to be so wicked that not one of them can be trusted with any irresponsible power over his fellows.
That I believe to be the true ground of democracy. I do not believe that God created an egalitarian world. I believe the authority of parent over child, husband over wife, learned over simple to have been as much a part of the original plan as the authority of man over beast. I believe that if we had not fallen...patriarchal monarchy would be the sole lawful government. But since we have learned sin, we have found, as Lord Acton says, that 'all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' The only remedy has been to take away the powers and substitute a legal fiction of equality. The authority of father and husband has been rightly abolished on the legal plane, not because this authority is in itself bad (on the contrary, it is, I hold, divine in origin), but because fathers and husbands are bad. Theocracy has been rightly abolished not because it is bad that learned priests should govern ignorant laymen, but because priests are wicked men like the rest of us. Even the authority of man over beast has had to be interfered with because it is constantly abused. "
― C.S. Lewis , The Weight of Glory
5
" FatherMichael has entered the room
Wildflower: Ah don’t tell me you’re through a divorce yourself Father?
SureOne: Don’t be silly Wildflower, have a bit of respect! He’s here for the ceremony.
Wildflower: I know that. I was just trying to lighten the atmosphere.
FatherMichael: So have the loving couple arrived yet?
SureOne: No but it’s customary for the bride to be late.
FatherMichael: Well is the groom here?
SingleSam has entered the room
Wildflower: Here he is now. Hello there SingleSam. I think this is the first time ever that both the bride and groom will have to change their names.
SingleSam: Hello all.
Buttercup: Where’s the bride?
LonelyLady: Probably fixing her makeup.
Wildflower: Oh don’t be silly. No one can even see her.
LonelyLady: SingleSam can see her.
SureOne: She’s not doing her makeup; she’s supposed to keep the groom waiting.
SingleSam: No she’s right here on the laptop beside me. She’s just having problems with her password logging in.
SureOne: Doomed from the start.
Divorced_1 has entered the room
Wildflower: Wahoo! Here comes the bride, all dressed in . . .
SingleSam: Black.
Wildflower: How charming.
Buttercup: She’s right to wear black.
Divorced_1: What’s wrong with misery guts today?
LonelyLady: She found a letter from Alex that was written 12 years ago proclaiming his love for her and she doesn’t know what to do.
Divorced_1: Here’s a word of advice. Get over it, he’s married. Now let’s focus the attention on me for a change.
SoOverHim has entered the room
FatherMichael: OK let’s begin. We are gathered here online today to witness the marriage of SingleSam (soon to be “Sam”) and Divorced_1 (soon to be “Married_1”).
SoOverHim: WHAT?? WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE?
THIS IS A MARRIAGE CEREMONY IN A DIVORCED PEOPLE CHAT ROOM??
Wildflower: Uh-oh, looks like we got ourselves a gate crasher here. Excuse me can we see your wedding invite please?
Divorced_1: Ha ha.
SoOverHim: YOU THINK THIS IS FUNNY? YOU PEOPLE MAKE ME SICK, COMING IN HERE AND TRYING TO
UPSET OTHERS WHO ARE GENUINELY TROUBLED.
Buttercup: Oh we are genuinely troubled alright. And could you please STOP SHOUTING.
LonelyLady: You see SoOverHim, this is where SingleSam and Divorced_1 met for the first time.
SoOverHim: OH I HAVE SEEN IT ALL NOW!
Buttercup: Sshh!
SoOverHim: Sorry. Mind if I stick around?
Divorced_1: Sure grab a pew; just don’t trip over my train.
Wildflower: Ha ha.
FatherMichael: OK we should get on with this; I don’t want to be late for my 2 o’clock. First I have to ask, is there anyone in here who thinks there is any reason why these two should not be married?
LonelyLady: Yes.
SureOne: I could give more than one reason.
Buttercup: Hell yes.
SoOverHim: DON’T DO IT!
FatherMichael: Well I’m afraid this has put me in a very tricky predicament.
Divorced_1: Father we are in a divorced chat room, of course they all object to marriage. Can we get on with it?
FatherMichael: Certainly. Do you Sam take Penelope to be your lawful wedded wife?
SingleSam: I do.
FatherMichael: Do you Penelope take Sam to be your lawful wedded husband?
Divorced_1: I do (yeah, yeah my name is Penelope).
FatherMichael: You have already e-mailed your vows to me so by the online power vested in me, I now pronounce you husband and wife. You may kiss the bride. Now if the witnesses could click on the icon to the right of the screen they will find a form to type their names, addresses, and phone numbers. Once that’s filled in just e-mail it off to me. I’ll be off now. Congratulations again.
FatherMichael has left the room
Wildflower: Congrats Sam and Penelope!
Divorced_1: Thanks girls for being here.
SoOverHim: Freaks.
SoOverHim has left the room "
― Cecelia Ahern , Love, Rosie
12
" The goal that you hope you will one day arrive at after a long and roundabout journey you are able to possess right now, if only you do not deny it to yourself. That is, if you can let go of the past, entrust the future to Providence and redirect the present according to justice and the sacred. To the sacred, so that you welcome what has been given to you, for Nature has brought this to you, and you to it; and to justice, in order that you may speak the truth freely and without distortion, and that you may act in accordance with what is lawful and right. Do not allow yourself to be hindered by the harmful actions, judgments, or the words of another, or by the sensations of the flesh which has formed itself around you. Let the body take care of those. But if, when you have come to the end, having let go of all other things, you honor only your guiding part and the divinity that is within you, and you do not fear ceasing to live so much as you fear never having begun to live in accordance with Nature--then you will be a man who is worth of the Cosmos that created you; and you will cease to live like a stranger in your own land, that is, surprised at unexpected everyday occurrences and wholly distracted by this and that. "
― Marcus Aurelius , The Essential Marcus Aurelius
15
" Not at all," persisted Chalmers, unaware that Shea was trying to shush him. " The people of the country have agreed to call magic 'white' when practised for lawful ends by duly authorized agents of the governing authority, and 'black' when practised by unauthorized persons for criminal ends. That is not to say that the principles of the science — or art — are not the same in either event. You should confine such terms as 'black' and 'white' to the objects for which the magic is performed, and not apply it to the science itself, which like all branches of knowledge is morally neutral —" " But," protested Belphebe, " is't not that the spell used to, let us say, kidnap a worthy citizen be different from that used to trap a malefactor?" " Verbally but not structurally," Chalmers went on. After some minutes of wrangling, Chalmers held up the bone of his drumstick. " I think I can, for instance, conjure the parrot back on this bone — or at least fetch another parrot in place of the one we ate. Will you concede, young lady, that that is a harmless manifestation of the art?" " Aye, for the now," said the girl. " Though I know you schoolmen; say 'I admit this; I concede that,' are ere long one finds oneself conceded into a noose." " Therefore it would be 'white' magic. But suppose I desired the parrot for some — uh — illegal purpose —" " What manner of crime for ensample, good sir?" asked Belphebe." I — uh — can't think just now. Assume that I did. The spell would be the same in either case —" " Ah, but would it?" cried Belphebe. " Let me see you conjure a brace of parrots, one fair, one foul; then truly I'll concede." Chalmers frowned. " Harold, what would be a legal purpose for which to conjure a parrot?" Shea shrugged. " If you really want an answer, no purpose would be as legal as any, unless there's something in gamelaws. Personally I think it's the silliest damned argument — "
17
" [W]hen men have both done and suffered injustice and have had experience of both, not being able to avoid the one and obtain the other, they think that they had better agree among themselves to have neither; hence there arise laws and mutual covenants; and that which is ordained by law is termed by them lawful and just. This they affirm to be the origin and nature of justice;—it is a mean or compromise,
between the best of all, which is to do injustice and not be punished, and the worst of all, which is to suffer injustice without the power of retaliation; and justice, being at a middle point between the two, is tolerated not as a good, but as the lesser evil… "
― Plato , The Republic
18
" In the play of living we engage in three fundamental forms of action. We begin things, we continue to be engaged in things, and we bring things to an end. We are each obligated to be capable of fulfilling these three forms of action relative to every condition in our experience. To suffer disability relative to any of these three forms of action relative to any condition in our experience is to accumulate a tendency relative to that condition. Such is the way we develop our conventional " karmas." By virtue of such accumulations we are obliged to suffer repetitions of circumstances, in this life and from life to life, until we overcome the liability in our active relationship to each condition that binds us.In the manifest process of existence, we and all other functions in the play are under the same lawful obligation to create, sustain, and destroy conditions or patterns that arise. The inhibition or suppression of the ability to create conditions (or to realize that conditions are your creation and responsibility) is reflected as " tamas," or rigidity, inertia, indolence, and laziness. The inhibition or suppression of the ability to sustain (or to realize that the maintenance of conditions is your responsibility) is reflected as " rajas," or unsteadiness of life and attention, and negative and random excitation or emotion. The inhibition or suppression of the ability to destroy or become free of conditions (or to realize that the cessation of conditions is your responsibility) is reflected as artificial " sattwa," sentimentality, romance, sorrow, bondage to subjectivity, and no comprehension of the mystery of death. "
