Founding Colleague
I · R · C · L · C · C
Fellow reasoners are free to found a common aim and to revise it when the consequences fail.
This is not a measure of personality, mental health, intelligence, or character.
Reality is taken to have a rational depth that is not identical with physical process, and argument is trusted to approach that depth. Experience prompts the inquiry. It is not the final court.
Acts are judged by what they produce, and the agent is treated as someone who could have produced something else. Responsibility tracks a difference the person could actually have made.
Meaning is something people institute together. A common project can be genuinely weighty without having been a purpose the universe already had, and without reducing each member to a tool.
The axes in this code
- Reality — Idealism
- Knowledge — Rationalism
- Morality — Consequentialism
- Freedom — Libertarian free will
- Meaning — Creation
- Social life — Communal priority
What this stance can see
- You refuse to treat consciousness as an embarrassment to be defined away.
- You look for the difference between a coincidence and a reason.
- You keep harm and benefit in view when a principle starts to feel abstract.
- You protect the thought that a person can be the source of a turn not already written.
- You take a sustained commitment to be capable of giving a life weight.
- You see that a life is formed with others and can owe them something.
What this stance can miss
- You may underweight the ways a mind-independent world corrects a cherished picture.
- You may trust an elegant argument after the world has already spoken against it.
- You may talk yourself into using a person once the sum looks favorable.
- You may ignore how much of a choice arrives already shaped.
- You may underdescribe the standards a project answers to that its author did not create. This pole is not nihilism.
- You may let “the community” speak without asking who is unheard inside it.
A pressure in the pairing
A pressure in this pairing: an open alternative matters because the results could have differed. It is worth asking whether that is the whole of responsibility, or only the part this profile uses.
Questions this combination has to face
Mind and correction
If reality is not independent of mind, it still has to be possible to be wrong. Otherwise “reality” names only what one already thinks. Idealists have offered different accounts of that possibility, from Berkeley’s God to later distinctions between appearance and a public world of meaning.
Luck inside an open will
If more than one act was open, the ability to take the better one may still be a matter of luck in character, upbringing, or timing. Galen Strawson pressed a related regress: a free act seems to require a self that is already responsible for the way it chooses. The regress is a problem for this pole, not a refutation delivered by the questionnaire.
Who speaks as the community
A priority for common life has to say who may speak for the whole, and what a member may refuse. Without that question, “the community” is only the loudest voice.
Questions for reflection
- What would count as the world correcting you, if reality is not independent of mind?
- Which of your convictions about the world would still stand if you had never had the relevant observations, and why?
- If a person could have done otherwise, does that matter because the outcomes would have differed, or for some further reason?
- How should a group tell that a purpose it created together is one a member may still refuse?
Traditions in the neighborhood
Reading, not a syllabus ranking
- Simone de Beauvoir, The Ethics of Ambiguity (1947)
- René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy (1641)
- Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism Is a Humanism (1946)
- The Analects, a later compilation of Confucian teaching
- Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
- George Berkeley, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (1710)
Editorial family: Idealism, created meaning, and the priority of the community.