"Dot the I", a kiss, to complete my life. In the first half of the film, this kiss seems to be a gift of youth, beautiful and pure; but from the second half of the film, this kiss is not so beautiful and illusory, it is a realistic kiss, which makes people fade away the original true feelings , put on a protective shell to cope with this complex world. The unbelievable and unexpected surprises brought by the film are still fresh in my memory. However, after the shock, what remains is the reflection on human nature. "Your action, take the humanity in your own person and the humanity in other persons as an end at all times, and never just as a means." This is Kant's "man is an end" famous assertion. He believed that every human being has intrinsic worth by possessing reason, and thus becomes an end-in-itself in itself. Because of the objective existence of rationality in human nature, everyone has the same value, regardless of whether they are rich or poor, whether they are old or young. Therefore, everyone is equal, and as long as they are human, they have a purpose. It is impossible to regard others as different individuals and deny their objective value existence, so as to regard others as a tool or means for the purpose of "being a human being". When using others as a tool, I don't know that the subject of the tool will also exert its purpose, and unknowingly, it may have become a tool of others. Just like Barnaby in the film, for his artistic achievements, for a so-called documentary film, he used love and marriage. He took Carmen and Kate for granted with a sense of superiority, and designed other people's plots, which eventually became the ending of the movie. Well, this reminds me of a sentence, "If people don't offend me, I won't offend others. If anyone offends me, I will offend others." This is the character I prefer. I can't hurt others, but I don't need to aggravate myself. After all, in Kant's words, "people are the goal." You can't trample on the value of others, but don't ignore your own rational existence. So, I don't like those "good-hearted" heroines who blindly swallow tears of grievance, but they are deeply attracted by Carmen. You hurt me, so, okay, I'm welcome. Of course, this is just a statement extracted from a legitimate proposition with a premise, and it is the lack of a certain premise that makes people feel that such a character lacks tolerance and cares deeply. Then, thinking more rationally, the "criminal" here should be a crime in the narrow sense, that is to say, those injuries that need to be tolerant and understood, but are not worth worrying about, do not belong to the category of "criminal me". This is based on the rational judgment of personal emotions, that is, the measurement of degree, which is the existence of a moral premise. Then, to be more rational, this involves the "legitimation of the crime". That is to say, when others violate me in the category of "criminal", then, what is the right way for me to be a "criminal", whether I can fight fire with fire, and whether I have the right to "criminal", "criminal" "Whether the acquisition of rights is the inevitable result of my being committed. The different answers to this series of questions represent whether the starting point for judging human nature is "hypothetical order" or "categorical order", that is, "no matter whether others commit me, I cannot commit crimes" or "if others commit crimes". If you sin against me, I will sin against others." In my opinion, this is another legal premise. Of course, in the scope of morality and law, I prefer hypothetical orders, because everyone has the same value as a purpose, there is no need to aggrieve their existence, deny their own value, and achieve the excessive pride and dignity of others . Of course, if everyone fights poison with poison, it will inevitably lead to the bankruptcy of social justice and the collapse of the entire ethical system. Then, as Mr. Ji Ciwei said in the book "The Two Sides of Justice", "As a moral imperative, justice must be unconditional. Since those who are willing to obey the norms of justice can actually obey the norms of justice, it depends on whether other people also In this way, the unjust behavior of some people may lead to the unjust behavior of others, and the result will spread the unjust behavior to the whole society. In view of this, justice must be unconditional, whether as a system or as a personal character, Otherwise, the justice situation in society will be difficult to maintain.” That is, if the moral imperative of “if others treat me as a means, I will treat others as a means”, then the justice attached to it will be fragile. Only when justice is elevated to unconditional, that is, "regardless of whether others regard me as a means, I cannot regard others as a means." In this way, the justice attached to it can be maintained. Then, this unconditional is the restriction of the dual premise of law and morality. However, as stated above, within the scope of this dual track, I still stand in the position of hypothetical command. Aside from all kinds of justice considerations, I only stand on the standpoint of human nature, and I cheer for the ending of the movie. After all, people are emotional bodies with joys and sorrows, and those who can tolerate everything are either saints or cowards. So, is it possible to make everyone self-discipline by absolute command? I think, this should be a beautiful sun city or utopia.
View more about Dot the I reviews
