Way to inner peace

[SolitaryWalker]

'Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. I do not seek to conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagences beyond the horizon of my vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence. The first starts at the place that I occupy in the external world of the senses, and extends the connection in which I stand into the limitless magnitude of worlds upon worlds, systems upon systems, as well as into the boundless times of their periodic motion, their beginning and continuation. The second begins with my invisible self, my personality, and displays to me a world that has true infinity, but which can only be detected through the understanding, and with which I know myself to be in not, as in the first case, merely contingent, but universal and necessary connection. The first perspective of a countless multitude of worlds as it were annihilates my importance as an animal creature, which must give the matter out of which it has grown back to the planet ( a mere speck in the cosmos) after it has been (one knows not how) furnished with life-force for a short time. The second, on the contrary, infinitely elevates my worth, as an intelligence, through my personality, in which the moral law reveals to me a life independent of animality and even of the entire world of the senses, at least so far as may be judged from the purposive determination of my existence through this law, which is not limited to the conditions and boundaries of this life but reaches into the infinite.'

-Immanuel Kant


Axiom: I understand for inner peace to be a state of mind where one is satisfied with the condition of their mind. E.G, the essence of thoughts, feelings, intuitions and so on, as well as the general atmosphere/background of one's sense of self.

Premise: Inner peace is desirable because it is highly conducive to one finding a satisfactory inner identity. The aforementioned is desirable because it will allow for one to maintain a consistent focus in life and allow to be proficient at long-term thought, both of these are highly conducive to happiness.

1)Understand yourself-In order to find inner peace, you must first understand what inner peace means to you. Think of it in terms of how this very idea of inner peace relates to you, not how you relate to some theory of such an entity. Your inner world is the focus, not the outer. Hence, my recommendation for now is learn to do honest and incisive introspection and be consistent at it.

2)Keep a long term perspective- After you have discovered what inner peace means to you, make extra sure that you stay focused on this goal of yours. This should not be just one thing you do in life, it will be the only. Spinoza once advised for us to think in terms of an eternal perspective, as he believed that God is all, and you are part of God, and when you look within yourself, you see God--which is timeless and infinite, you have no reason to worry about what is temporal. Not even death, in fact he advised for death to be the last thing that man should be worried about. This is very similar to what Jesus of Nazareth meant when he advised for others to live not for themselves but for the kingdom of God. To live for what is eternal(God), and not for what is temporary(self). Jesus, unlike Spinoza, was not a pantheist, he believed that the self(flesh) dies.

*Please take note. I referred to Jesus as 'Jesus of Nazareth' and not the Christ. I am not recommending a Christian perspective of inner peace, I am just using his idea as an illustration of an advice to promote the eternal over temporary.

3)Avoid complacency- Continue to practice quality introspection and maintaining focus on the goals that you've discovered and established afterwards.

4)Stay internally focused- This is a very reliable way to avoid complacency. External standards have a very high potential to distract you from your introspection and may force you to focus on concrete,externally founded objectives that can be achieved at one point. In the Myth of Sisyphus, the protagonist who once started off as a naive bliss seeking venturer, hoping to find meaning in his life ends up rolling the boulder up and down to the hill for eternity. For what? One may ask. What has he accomplished? Nothing. And only in external nothingness will one find meaning in life. We will never find a purpose that can satisfy us, this is not possible as that by definition implies becoming complacent. We must find a purpose that we will never be able to achieve, and find solace in striving for it. This will be the greatest joy man will ever find. Whatever goals can be achieved, can be superseded, yet your drive to strive for an unachievable purpose can not be--as it is not subjected to comparison.

[Ferrus]

'The second begins with my invisible self, my personality, and displays to me a world that has true infinity, but which can only be detected through the understanding, and with which I know myself to be in not, as in the first case, merely contingent, but universal and necessary connection.'

1)Understand yourself-In order to find inner peace, you must first understand what inner peace means to you.
This is what I must take exception to. You predicate that there is a 'moral law' that is deduced by understanding? And also that understanding this serves to create 'inner harmony'? But, really, does it? Consciousness may well be somewhat mystifying (as Kant suggests) but if psychology has discovered anything in the last 100 years then it is that the human psyche is not a 'true infinity' - but rather one still so very tethered to its natural grounding, and compelled by forces beyond its control. What does inner peace mean to me or someone else? I doubt we have the faculties to ascertain this but through the vicissitudes of our life, lived experience if you will.

Anyway, explain to me a few details of Kant's quotes. What is the invisible self, what is the infinite world in which were are supposedly necessarily exist, and why is our existance there necessary? I know these are somehow connected to the moral law, some notion of the soul et al., but what does Kant mean exactly? And how exactly is our life purposively determined by this moral law?

[SolitaryWalker]

Our perception of the psyche is finite, yet our real psyche is infinite.

What is real, to Kant, is by definition infinite and therefore outside of human understanding.

[Ferrus]

What is real, to Kant, is by definition infinite and therefore outside of human understanding.
Why is the infinite 'real' to him? And if our psyche is infinite, how are we to come to understand it through reason? And why indeed is our psyche infinite?

[SolitaryWalker]

We cant understand it through reason, we can only know that it exists.

One of the main doctrines of the Critique of Pure Reason was that we are confined to our senses. We need to believe that the infinite exists because there obviously are things in our imagination that were not once in the senses. Yet, we always translate the infinite/imagined into finite, sense-founded. We translate our thoughts into what can be seen (written), we translate them into what can be heard. (Spoken) We translate them into what can be felt. (Sculpture, paintings, E.G conventional arts)..and so on...

Only what can be translated into the world of senses as the world of our senses is all that we can speak of meaningfully. And this he called the practical reason.

E.G, we can try and talk about God and the kingdom of heaven, but we wont be able to because it is nothing like we have ever seen before--it can't be translated into our senses, and that is because, Kant speculates--it is infinite.

Why is infinite real? Because it does not change. It is more fundamental to our existence than what does change.

Hence, I cant say that I am young, because I once will be old. I cant say that I am human, because I at one point will decompose and so on...there is nothing essential... to our 'animalistic' or 'sense-based' qualities, or qualities of the world, our worth consists in the other-worldly qualities.

[Ferrus]

We cant understand through reason, we can only that it exists.

One of the main doctrines of the Critique of Pure Reason was that we are confined to our senses. We need to believe that the infinite exists because there obviously are things in our imagination that were not once in the senses. Yet, we always translate the infinite/imagined into finite, sense-founded. We translate our thoughts into what can be seen (written), we translate them into what can be heard. (Spoken) We translate them into what can be felt. (Sculpture, paintings, E.G conventional arts)..and so on...

Only what can be translated into the world of senses as the world of our senses is all that we can speak of meaningfully. And this he called the practical reason.

E.G, we can try and talk about God and the kingdom of heaven, but we wont be able to because it is nothing like we have ever seen before--it can't be translated into our senses, and that is because, Kant speculates--it is infinite.

Why is infinite real? Because it does not change. It is more fundamental to our existence than what does change.

Hence, I cant say that I am young, because I once will be old. I cant say that I am human, because I at one point will decompose and so on...there is nothing essential... to our 'animalistic' or 'sense-based' qualities, or qualities of the world, our worth consists in the other-worldly qualities.
I see... what is the most confusing element for me is the notion that the moral law somehow determines our lives or that we are somehow casually necessary with... 'it'.

[SolitaryWalker]

I see... what is the most confusing element for me is the notion that the moral law somehow determines our lives or that we are somehow casually necessary with... 'it'.

On earth the physical law determines our lives. But that is not our real selves. Our real selves are in the kingdom of God that transcends the world of the senses and is founded on the laws of morality.

[Lateralus]

I'll try Buddha's path to enlightment, rather than Seawolf's, I think.

[ApeTheDog]

See, I started reading this, but in the first sentence, I already found something that I think is wrong. I skipped the part Kant said.


1. Understand yourself-In order to find inner peace, you must

Wrong. You never 'must' do anything. That does not lead to inner peace. HAVING to do something leads to being restricted. HAVING to follow a certain rule means you restrict your freedom. Not having freedom does not lead to inner peace, in my opinion. Inner peace comes from being free from restrictions.

The way I see it, inner peace is not something you have to work for, or do things for, to achieve. It is not something to gain - it is something that, the less you realise you have it, and the more you try to achieve it, the more you lose it.

I do not HAVE to do anything, therefor, and thereby, I am free, feel free, and have inner peace.

[Bluesman]

Inner peace is only found by getting out of the way, not by reading Kant.

[xNTP]

I don't find this particularly objectionable, but that's because I think it's essentially transparent. It seems to be saying "find what you consider peace of mind and stay focused". If one considers freedom to be piece of mind, then he can go for that. Money, power, booze, whatever.

It start to run into conflict with a philosophy of surrender and acceptance at some point, because by definition, the OP advocates effort, while at some point, absolute acceptance includes acceptance of the current state of things, including the fact that you may or may not have peace of mind. But even effortlessness is something that takes effort.

[SolitaryWalker]

I don't find this particularly objectionable, but that's because I think it's essentially transparent. It seems to be saying "find what you consider peace of mind and stay focused". If one considers freedom to be piece of mind, then he can go for that. Money, power, booze, whatever.

It start to run into conflict with a philosophy of surrender and acceptance at some point, because by definition, the OP advocates effort, while at some point, absolute acceptance includes acceptance of the current state of things, including the fact that you may or may not have peace of mind. But even effortlessness is something that takes effort.


Ah no...your idea of inner peace cant be arbitrary because human nature exists..and only it alone knows what is truly good for you...you dont create what is good for you..you can only discover it..

[SolitaryWalker]

See, I started reading this, but in the first sentence, I already found something that I think is wrong. I skipped the part Kant said.



Wrong. You never 'must' do anything. That does not lead to inner peace. HAVING to do something leads to being restricted. HAVING to follow a certain rule means you restrict your freedom. Not having freedom does not lead to inner peace, in my opinion. Inner peace comes from being free from restrictions.

The way I see it, inner peace is not something you have to work for, or do things for, to achieve. It is not something to gain - it is something that, the less you realise you have it, and the more you try to achieve it, the more you lose it.

I do not HAVE to do anything, therefor, and thereby, I am free, feel free, and have inner peace.


Perhaps the only way you can arrive at a situation where you have no objection is when you embrace Kant's moral law which is founded only in reason. And reason will liberate you from the tyranny of undesired impulses.

[Hermione]

Never mind , SW, I for one, "got it". At a certain age , I would've been fussing and arguing and oh, lots of whining, too, about being a grown up and still having responsibility for myself, despite whot I thawt would be 'freedom' ad infinitum. The intp brain doesn't really work that way, tho, does it? Well, you are right. Me , too. Glad we are on to something good anyway. We can argue specifics again w/em tomorrow. Maybe I'll have a go. Good topic. most timely.

[xNTP]

Ah no...your idea of inner peace cant be arbitrary because human nature exists..and only it alone knows what is truly good for you...you dont create what is good for you..you can only discover it..

Um. Okay? But then how do you know if you've found it? Can it be booze? Why not?

[Hermione]

Um. Okay? But then how do you know if you've found it? Can it be booze? Why not?

That's a silly question coming from you, Eedahhn. You know it by the ahhhh you feel more often than you used to. I suggest we pause for Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and a good stiff drink to wash it down with.

[meanlittlechimp]

INTPs are pre-disposed to never find inner peace. You are probably genetically engineered never to have it.

[euterpenc]

See, I started reading this, but in the first sentence, I already found something that I think is wrong. I skipped the part Kant said.



Wrong. You never 'must' do anything. That does not lead to inner peace. HAVING to do something leads to being restricted. HAVING to follow a certain rule means you restrict your freedom. Not having freedom does not lead to inner peace, in my opinion. Inner peace comes from being free from restrictions.

The way I see it, inner peace is not something you have to work for, or do things for, to achieve. It is not something to gain - it is something that, the less you realise you have it, and the more you try to achieve it, the more you lose it.

I do not HAVE to do anything, therefor, and thereby, I am free, feel free, and have inner peace.


I could see how such thinking may cause problems. Freedom with no restrictions would be boring and very daunting, I think. Though, if we suppose inner peace comes from being free from restrictions it would take a lot more than not working for it. For if you are taking an oath against working or "having" to do something, you are limiting yourself. Having and not having to do things are both part of the deal, and absolute freedom would thereby include being able to do both. So it is a contradiction or paradox of sorts. If taken to the logical extreme, absolute freedom would mean freedom to do anything and everything, with no restrictions, etc. and this would therefore have to include the freedom to not be free.

I think such freedom is beyond anything we may be able to comprehend as it does indeed appear to be infinite. And as an infinite it is paradoxical. If we are to make functional method for living we must reduce things to a finite realm so our minds may grapple with the issue at all.