Thursday 30th of October 2025

in conversation with a few figures....

What makes a life virtuous? The answer might seem simple: virtuous actions – actions that align with morality.

But life is more than doing. Frequently, we just think. We observe and spectate; meditate and contemplate. Life often unfolds in our heads.

As a philosopher, I specialize in the Enlightenment thinker Immanuel Kant, who had volumes – literally – to say about virtuous actions. What I find fascinating, however, is that Kant also believed people can think virtuously, and should.

 

Building a stable ‘abode of thought’: Kant’s rules for virtuous thinking

BY 

 

To do so, he identified three simple rules, listed and explained in his 1790 book, “Critique of the Power of Judgment,” namely: Think for yourself. Think in the position of everyone else. And, finally, think in harmony with yourself.

If followed, he thought a “sensus communis,” or “communal sense,” could result, improving mutual understanding by helping people appreciate how their ideas relate to others’ ideas.

Given our current world, with its “post-truth” culture and isolated echo chambers, I believe Kant’s lessons in virtuous thinking offer important tools today.

Rule 1: Think for yourself

Thinking can be both active and passive. We can choose where to direct our attention and use reason to solve problems or consider why things happen. Still, we cannot completely control our stream of thought; feelings and ideas bubble up from influences outside our control.

One kind of passive thinking is letting others think for us. Such passive thinking, Kant thought, was not good for anybody. When we accept someone else’s argument without a second thought, it is like handing them the wheel to think for us. But thoughts lie at the foundation of who we are and what we do, thus we should beware of abdicating control.

Kant had a word for handing over the wheel: “heteronomy,” or surrendering freedom to another authority.

For him, virtue depended on the opposite: “autonomy,” or the ability to determine our own principles of action.

The same principle holds true for thinking, Kant wrote. We have an obligation to take responsibility for our own thinking and to check its overarching validity and soundness.

In Kant’s day, he was especially concerned about superstition, since it provides consoling, oversimplified answers to life’s problems.

Today, superstition is still widespread. But many new, pernicious forms of trying to control thought now proliferate, thanks to generative artificial intelligence and the amount of time we spend online. The rise of deepfakes, the use of ChatGPT for creative tasks, and information ecosystems that block out opposing views are but a few examples.

Kant’s Rule 1 tells us to approach content and opinions cautiously. Healthy skepticism provides a buffer and leaves room for reflection. In short, active or autonomous thinking protects people from those who seek to think for them.

Rule 2: Think in the position of everyone else

Pride often tempts us to believe that we have everything figured out.

Rule 2 checks this pride. Kant recommends what philosophers call “epistemic humility,” or humility about our own knowledge.

Stepping outside our own beliefs isn’t just about opening up new perspectives. It’s also the bedrock of science, which seeks shared agreement about what is and is not true.

Suppose you’re in a meeting and a consensus is taking shape. Strong personalities and a quorum support it, but you remain unsure.

At this point, Rule 2 does not recommend that you adopt the view of the others. Quite the opposite, in fact. If you simply accept the group’s conclusion without further thought, you’d be breaking Rule 1: Think for yourself.

Instead, Rule 2 prescribes temporarily detaching yourself from even your own way of thinking, especially your own biases. It’s an opportunity to “think in the position of everyone else.” What would a fair and discerning thinker make of this situation?

Kant believed that, while difficult, a standpoint can be achieved in which biases all but vanish. We might notice things that we missed before. But this requires appreciating our own limitations and seeking a wider, more universal view.

Again, Kant’s idea of virtue depends on autonomy, so Rule 2 isn’t about letting others think for us. To be responsible for how we shape the world, we must take responsibility for our own thinking, since everything flows from that point outward.

But it emphasizes the “communal” part of the “sensus communis,” reminding us that it must be possible to share what is true.

Rule 3: Think in harmony with yourself

The final rule, Kant maintained, is both the most difficult and profound. He said that it was the task of becoming “einstimmig,” literally “of one voice” with ourselves. He also uses a related term, “konsequent” – coherent – to express the same idea.

To clarify, a metaphor that Kant employed can help – namely, carpentry.

Constructing a building is complex. The blueprint must be sound, the building materials must be high quality, and craftsmanship matters. If the nails are hammered sloppily or steps performed out of order, then the edifice might collapse.

Rule 3 tells us to construct our abode of thought with the same care as when constructing a house, such that stability between the parts results. Each thought, belief and intention is a building block. To be “einstimmig” or “bündig” – to be in “harmony” – these building blocks should fit well together and support each other.

Imagine a colleague who you believe has impeccable taste. You trust his opinions. But one day, he shares his secret obsession with death metal music – a genre you dislike.

A disharmony in thought might result. Your reaction to his love of death metal reveals a further belief: Your belief that only people with disturbed taste could love something you perceive to be so grating to the spirit. But he seems, otherwise, like such a thoughtful and pleasant person!

Rather than immediately change your belief about him, Kant’s third rule commands you to investigate the world and your own thoughts further. Perhaps you have never listened to death metal with a discerning spirit. Maybe your original beliefs about your colleague were inaccurate. Or could it be that having good taste is more complex than you originally thought?

Rule 3 leads us to do a system check of our mental architecture, whether we’re considering music, politics, morality or religion. And if that architecture is stable, Kant thinks that rewards will follow.

Sure, harmony is satisfying; but that’s not all. A sturdy system of thought might equip us better for integrated, creative thinking. When I understand how things connect, my own control over them can improve. For example, insight about human psychology will open up new ways to think about morality, and vice versa.

But ultimately, Kant found harmony important because it supports the construction of a coherent “worldview.” The English language gained that term through the translation of a German word, “Weltanschauung,” which Kant coined and which has been a focus of my own work. At its most basic, a harmonious worldview allows us to feel more at home in the world: We gain a sense of how it hangs together, and see it as imbued with meaning.

How we think ultimately determines how we live. If we have a stable abode of thought, we take that stability into everything we do and have some shelter from life’s storms.

https://theconversation.com/building-a-stable-abode-of-thought-kants-rules-for-virtuous-thinking-263597

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

SEE ALSO: 

flying on our own...

 

a chip of the old block...

 

the pandemic that changed the course of history...

 

of the importance of measurements...

 

SPONSORED BY WARMONGERS...

 

money, laws...

Philosophy in College Beyond the Philosophy Major

By Justin Weinberg

It’s not just budget cuts that are leading some colleges and universities to get rid of their philosophy major programs. Sometimes its legislation.

For example, as reported this summer, the state legislature of Indiana passed a bill that requires BA major programs to have a minimum average of 15 students graduating each year (calculated over the past three years). Reportedly, the new law has affected several philosophy departments in the state, with major programs being consolidated or cut

It’s unlikely that Indiana will be the only state to adopt such a measure (perhaps other states already have?).

Legislative, budgetary, and cultural threats have some people thinking about how philosophy can maintain a curricular presence on campus in the absence of a dedicated major program.

Some have suggested and implemented cross-curricular programming, such as “ethics across the curriculum” initiatives (see, for example, “Philosophers and Embedded Ethics“). At the same time, such programs have come in for some criticism (see, for example, “The Counterfeiting of the Humanities“). Perhaps philosophers need to consider the role of philosophy in their institution’s core curriculum or general education requirements. Maybe there needs to be extracurricular philosophy as well.

The topic will be the subject of an upcoming conference put on by the Prindle Institute of Ethics at DePauw University. “Philosophy Beyond the Major: A Conference for Faculty and Administrators” will be taking place in December and registration for it is still open. The aim of the conference is to “explore how philosophical thinking can be meaningfully integrated with other disciplines—and how we can communicate its value beyond the traditional major.” Check it out.

https://dailynous.com/2025/10/27/philosophy-in-college-beyond-the-philosophy-major/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

housekeeping....

Dubbed the “illegitimate offspring” of the Uxbridge English Dictionary and the Philosophical Lexicon, the dictionary used to be hosted on Mellor’s website. Recently, Gottlieb shared with me some of the entries he contributed to it, lamenting that the whole collection appeared to no longer be online.

While it’s not on an active site anymore, I did find the archived page, last updated September 10, 2019.

So, below are the entries in the Uxbridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Suggested additions/revisions are welcome in the comments.

A fortiori: There are at least 40 papers on this already
A posteriori: He is talking out of his arse
A priori: Someone already said that
Abstraction: Stretching stomach muscles
Accidental property: Windfall
Aesthetic: Pain-inducing
Argumentum ad baculum: Back-stabbing
B-theory of time: Time is honey
Bad company objection: ‘That’s what they say’
Canonical form: Clergyman’s track record
Chinese Room: Restaurant with effective but uncomprehending waiters
Chinese Room Argument: Dispute in a Chinese Room (q.v.)
Contingent proposition: Unnecessary remark
Converse: Prisoners’ poetry
Copula: Small policewoman
Demiurge: Weak inclination
Determinist: Ambitious colleague
Disposition: Here (see also ‘dat-position’)
Dualist: Disputatious
Endurantist: Patient listener
Entailment: What Manx cats envy
Error theory: Your theory
Ex post facto: The proof is in the mail
Existential import: Cheap foreign philosophy
Extensional operator: Masseur
Extensionally adequate: Stinks but otherwise OK
External relation: Foreign family member
Fallacy: Male-dominated
Fictionalist: Liar
Formal ontology: Black tie metaphysics
Framework: Conceptual zimmer frame
Genidentity: Jennifer’s essence
Goedel’s Theorem: ‘Every system of truths contains at least one misrepresented by popularisers’
Heterological: Preferring the other truth-value
Idealist: String of suggestions
Internal relation: Embryo
Intuition: Under instruction
Material conditional: A device for drawing material conclusions from immaterial premises
Mentalese: Dualist painkiller
Metaphysics: Just encountered a branch of science
Monist: Philosophical whinger
Naturalist: Bare particular
One over many: Head of Department
Ontic vagueness: Indeterminate credit
Ontological commitment: Longevity
Ostrich nominalist: Exotic meat menu
Overdetermined: Tries too hard
Paradox: Military airports
Physicalist: Muscular naturalist (q.v.)
Presentist: Generous gift-giver
Property dualism: ‘What’s yours is mine’
Propositional calculus: The science of pick-up lines
Reductionist: Administrator
Second order desire: Wish for a refill
Semantics: Sea-going parasites
Specious present: Gift-horse
Sorites Paradox: ‘Philosophers never lose enough hair to become bald’
Supervenience: Large toilet
Surprise Test Paradox: Students are never ready for the exam
Theodicy: Companion piece to Theiliad
Third Man Argument: I can’t see what’s wrong with this, but X can
Thomist: Bibliophile
Transcendental Argument: Enables philosophers to endure the toothache
Transworld identity: Frequent flyer number
Two-place relation: Family member with a second home
Universalist: Academic poet

https://dailynous.com/2025/10/29/fixing-the-definitions-of-philosophical-terms/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.