the things i learn from school:
Philosopher Immanuel Kant distinguishes the difference between the
a posteriori and the
a priori:
a posteriori - connected to
experience.
a priori - connected to
rational reflection; is
not dependent on experience, but seeks what is
necessary (what
must or
should be done).
this resembles the difference between
is and
ought:
is - refers to how things are now, in this particular moment, to the current reality, the real world.
ought - refers to how things
should be, the ideal.
if one's decisions are based on the
is ("that's just the way things are"), one's decisions remain in the current reality; nothing would change because one is acting within the existing system.
but, if one's decisions are based on the
ought ("this is not how things are now, but how things
should be"), one's decisions has the
potential of transforming reality.
this change is not instantaneous, but
incremental, and it may be unlikely that one will see the results within one's lifetime.
BUTshould one
resist giving into how things are in the present moment in pursuit of how things
could be, striving for and acting according to one's ideal vision or dream for the future, even if it seems
foolish or naive, even if it
takes forever, even if it's
completely implausible, even if it's
impossible to the world?
should one
cling onto the sliver of possibility that,
against all odds, something
will change?
is this not
hope? is this not being
reckless for the Kingdom?
we may
never reap what we sow in our lifetime.
others may benefit from
our hard labor and toil.
nevertheless,
will we continue to sow?
Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. [Galatians 6:9]