Self-Legislating Idealist
I · R · C · L · C · I
A purpose is legislated for oneself by reasons, another act was possible, and the purpose remains open to the test of results.
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 a person institutes by commitment. Company can matter, but the authority to give a life its point stays with the one who lives it. This is not a claim that nothing is valuable.
The axes in this code
- Reality — Idealism
- Knowledge — Rationalism
- Morality — Consequentialism
- Freedom — Libertarian free will
- Meaning — Creation
- Social life — Individual 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 refuse to dissolve a person into a collective aim.
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 understate debts and dependencies that were never the product of consent.
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.
The sum and the person
Judging by outcomes and refusing to use a person can recommend opposite acts. Mill tried to defend liberty because of its benefits. Nozick treated rights as constraints that are not derived from the sum. The disagreement is real, and neither side is a personality flaw.
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.
Debts that were not consented to
A strong priority for the person still meets relationships, languages, and care that no one contracted for. The profile can keep the person as a limit and still ask which of those debts are real.
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?
- What standard, if any, can show that a purpose you created is a bad one?
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)
- George Berkeley, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (1710)
- Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus (1942)
- Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785)
Editorial family: Idealism, created meaning, and the priority of the person.