is vs. ought

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.

BUT

should 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]