IF [can Handle Rival Goods] You'll be a Man

Here is an answer to handling Iambiguous’ Rival Goods within an inherently dualistic reality of antinomies from Rudyard Kipling;

IF
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too:
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim,
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same:.
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings,
And never breathe a word about your loss:
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on!”

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much:
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

Rudyard Kipling

Can’t find, the gist of the above is the often quoted [something like];
If you can hold the opposites in both hand and yet still can move, you’ll be a Man, my son!

As for how to apply the above in real life, there are loads of philosophies, knowledge and self-development programs to guide one on how to do it.

Iambiguous is one good example of an antithesis to the above and being caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, and got stuck in a big hole he cannot get out.
In the words of Kipling, ‘you are not a man, my son.’

I like this version better, by Frank Jacobs.

IF
If you can get yourself a fancy title,
Though no one knows just what your job’s about,
If you can screw up projects that are vital,
Then shift the blame before they find you out;
If you can treat a rival like a brother,
Then stab him in the back each chance you can;
If you can steal the program of another,
Then take the credit that it was your plan;

If you can rig expenses that are phony,
While everyone believes that they are real;
If you can take long lunches with a crony,
And make your boss believe you’ve closed a deal;
If you can get the office staff to love you,
When in your heart of hearts you think they’re dirt;
If you can look alive to those above you,
When nine to five no effort you exert;

If you can seem free-thinking and courageous,
Yet always end up siding with your boss;
If you can get a mammoth raise in wages,
Yet make him feel you’re working at a loss;
If every line that’s written here you’ve noted,
And every rule and precept you obey,
Then to the highest spot you’ll be promoted,
Unless, of course, you’re knifed along the way.

Fantastique!!!

Just the ticket!

Of course, Kipling, in addition to being against women having the right to vote, was also pro-colonialist, pro-empire - and against the intellectuals critical of imperialism - implictly racist, a self-confessed plaigerist, and, just for the sake of irony it should be mentioned, an admirer of Islam, so his sense of Man - capital ‘M’ - is or should be might be a tad confused or might not be considered the best appeal to authority for some.

Karpel,

Never mix , never worry!

Never mix the art with the artist!

Kant threw his maid down the stairs, Picasso like to observe his wife and maid physically fight, Thomas Mann made imcestual love with his sons, the lost is long.

Sure, my post is ad hom. But then it wasn’t an argument was making, RK that is, it was an opinion.
l
When people just state opinions, it matters to me who they are.

They give me reasons to believe them, then I can look at them

And got everything wrong about morality

And produced an oeuvre full of violent sex (which is great)

And was a fantast.

You can never separate a person from his actions, let alone an artist, even less so a philosopher.

Any reference or link to the above.

Btw, Kant did not have a maid [female]. His was a long time man-servant, Martin Lampe.
Kant was not married and he had a male-servant… made me wonder??

I believe to a certain extent a person’s ideas can be independent [can be objectively vouched] from the person’s character.
In any case there is nothing significant in Kant’s behavior in his life time for serious consideration, unlike Heidegger as an active Nazi member.

Thanks pointing out that mistake. In fact, it was Arthur Shopenhauer, and I believe it was the same woman with whom he fathered an illegitimate child. Will look into it more closely and report on it.

There were many other notable persons whose achievements merited public welfare and yet their personal lives were in disarray. That Schopenhauer did in fact influence Nietzsche has him as well, under the microscope , as being not the ideal specimen , even within the context of his own philosophical disposition.

This variance is typical of some fore-runners in the history of thought. and perhaps it is this varience which is the cause and modus operans to get out from underneath the conflict they were experiencing.

As far as Kant is concerned, the basic human foible consists of confusing the ethical and moral conflicts which beset him

It has been suggested that ’ we are living partly in our own construction’ as far as it applies to post modernism, and Kant was very keenly aware of that distinction

This in çonjunctipn to an implication of bisecting construction from existence.

On many grounds, particularly the idea of an definitive aesthetic one, that Kant seemed to have grasped, it’s goal circumscribed both: the material and the formal elements.

Case at hand: the early celebration of the fall of communism precluded the post modern struggle sans the ideology

Which may mean, that it is sustained in a meta ideology without which pure empirical materialism could not stand.

It is this , that.perhaps underlies the quietness of the liberal front, and why Obama has been noted as having disappeared from relevant and formative insolvent with the Democratic Party’s central committees

It was reported Schopenhauer pushed his landlady down the stairs. In addition, Schopenhauer was a womanizer.

Note the recent report that Einstein was a racist.

The general principle is ‘knowing is quite independent of doing’. Many a good coach are not a good player.
Personally I admit I know lots of things morally but I would not claim to be a best doer of every moral obligation I know.

Note sure of your point.

What I know is Kant’s System of Morality and Ethics comprised the following;

  1. Morality - Pure
  2. Ethics - Applied

Both the above to work out within the brain/mind are targeted to eventual Perpetual Peace.

The legislation, judiciary and policing is independent of Morality and Ethics.

I believe Kant’s view is that one should not conflate the three separate elements, i.e. Morality, Ethics and the Judiciary.

To manage Morality, Ethics and the Judiciary there is a need to understand the thing-in-itself is not a substance but rather it is an illusion [transcendental]. The thing-in-itself plays a central role within Morality but not within Ethics and the Judiciary.

Put differently, the transcendental judgement between ethics and morality , is the distinctive feature of Hume’s and Kant’s views . The transcendence is not as illusive as much as it is reflective in the way morality evolves along a trajectory of sensory maps. For a deontologist like Kant, the focus is not teleological, but infused with a sense of aesthetic For Hume the difference is more fuzzy, that is what bothers Kant.