The Metaphysic of Architecture

I've gotta say that this guy writes with an amazing tenacity to be just hellish. But it's okay - I got through 80 pages of it.

Method: As I had agreed with Timothy, I thought that the most effective way to process all introductory and foundational explorations are to lay out all my thoughts in a format that reveals and opens further discussion - through questions and more questions.

Why read Kant? Because I thought it would be a fitting introduction into understanding the "nature" of why one has any interest in "the social", both as an independent philosophical construct and of architecture, and to test whether there is a cross-section between general social "action" and the tenants of architecture that might establish for itself a facility for social productivity. I suppose this exploration is what one could consider as being really, really, really basic and fundamental - but that, I think, is the point of all this preparatory research. My goal is to understand (hopefully concisely and strategically) the whole purpose of architecture as it relates itself specifically to any possible dimension of ethical purpose - essentially "service" - to humanity and the implications it has for specific social conditions such as "Homelessness".

I should however, also say here that it is not necessarily a given that my thesis will absolutely result as merely an academic exploration of "social architecture"; it could obviously turn into a slew of many different things beyond merely being a general and conceptual perusal of the realm of the "social" as it relates to architecture. One concept/principle that I have just recently begun to focus on with a little more specificity is the idea of "permanence" as it relates to the social realms of architecture (especially in its irony when we consider Homelessness). I will get into more detail for this in a subsequent entry - for now, it is not as immediately relevant to this exploration.

Responses to The Metaphysic of Morals:

Is architecture socially productive? This is possibly my most primary and fundamental question. Maybe a better way to put it is: what is social production in and of architecture? Let’s unpack this: According to Kant, the Ideal of any principle (in this case, of architecture) is what is most pure in its capacity for “moral good” and is, in and of itself, a categorical imperative. I think I’m interpreting this as the idea that architecture’s Will is solely dependent upon itself for any possibility of “goodness” and is therefore capable of affecting actions that are perceived as morally good, though not exclusively nor necessarily dependent upon such objectified results to define itself as “good”. As Kant said: “A good will is good, not because of what it performs or effects, nor its aptness for the attainment of something, only by virtue of the volition, that is, it is good itself and is of a higher esteem than any occurred effect or even of all its inclinations. Good Will’s goodness is independent of its utility and purpose”.

I guess the better way to put it at this stage, is unfortunately even more …generic – Is architecture, good? Is it qualified as being a “good will” itself or does it in fact require an independent “other” to prescribe it a facility for “good will” and social activism? (Such as, an architect either revealing or creating it depending on how one sees architecture’s being, or the action of architectures and the subsequent object of architecture that qualifies it as being architecture).

Does it act “naturally” as “good”, as it is prescribed? Or does architecture contain an “inclination” that is natural and independent of Reason? The necessity of this line of questioning is found in the fact that I’m really trying to understand whether or not architecture can “do” something: Does architecture have an inclination to do “good” or be socially productive without Reason or a conception of Duty? From duty, “good” is, at this point, an obvious notion of construction especially as it is dependent upon reasoning and justification that produces a required and sought after effect. What I’m trying to perceive is whether or not architecture can be independent of said notions of Duty and if it contains a Will of itself that is not simply an inclination for philanthropy. Does architecture occur without motive? Is it in fact, ever done outside the realm of Duty? And is its philanthropy ever possibly without moral content and therefore, socially productive as it is on its own without definition or recognition?

Continuing on the line of philanthropy (and in recollection of some of last semester’s Artifice discussions) what if architecture is object? If the “moral worth” of a socially relevant architecture is found in its principle and not at all dependent on the action and subsequent production, is the physical embodiment of this architecture without content? Can it ever contain a content of social relevance or is it merely worthless when it manifests as an object even with a social objective?

Now I come to probably the most personally relevant questions, beyond merely an inquisition of architecture itself and now, instead I position myself as the subject matter as I relate to architecture. As an example: if I am legislating that the Ideal of architecture for the homeless is a categorical principle of “architectural morality”, is it a principle of architecture or is it merely an artificial principle of self-interest as a result of my own conception of moral architecture? As I understand it right now through Kant, an action of service to, say the homeless, is actually ironically flawed and morally reprehensible as it requires a highly narcissistic action to confirm that it is morally good for itself. Thus I must ask – can any action of my own as it relates to architecture be principally, moral? Can my desire for an architecture for the homeless be principally “dignified” without the necessity of selfish recognition and objectification? Kant argues that such a “maxim” is possibly moral only through the method of the Will of a subject when it is the legislator of universal law.

Conclusive thoughts?

At this point, I offer no firm conclusion to these largely abstract and theoretical explorations that are more or less outside the immediate bounds of my thesis, let alone architecture. Perhaps one reason why this interests me so much is that I am in fact trying to debunk for myself the idea that architecture necessarily must be socially productive in some impulsive manner and that instead, it ought to be as such because it is its natural agenda, whether empirical or not, that any and all social realms are part and parcel with the principle of architecture and can easily be its own maxims when it is required to do so.