odd one of hem came off! History as taught is useless other than in
creating factional madness. Biology might help us overcome our
failure to recognise how animal we are and history could show us the
repeated blunders we keep falling for. My thesis is that argument
hasn't helped us much - my guess being we are broadly ineducable
through schooling and need a more technological form. I think we have
the hard technology but have failed to make this socio-technical to
date.
I see some of this as 'moral' in that we can clearly challenge all
morality - this leading to something rigsy said on the hapless ego
state of making this mean 'other people are wrong' - surely (the ego
state - not rigsy) childish. Most of us still live and die very
parochially and one lesson is that the apparent differences in moral-
religious thinking are just cultural. I would be more like Vam and he
more like me if our birth places and families been exchanged. Born in
Islamic families we would both likely be Muslim. This was recognised
before Descartes (Maupassant I think). Some of my Muslim students
think this is not the case because they are chosen.
The question is less one of the nihilist rejection of morality and
more one of a global morality we can sensibly adhere to. The term
'global morality' is scary as is any totalising solution. And many of
the issues we need to grip and grok are scary too - population control
is one - not least because we presumably want people to be able to
live in comfort and plenty - something likely to raise breeding
potential. If we think of the Earth as a commons, then we should
expect the issue of the tragedy of the commons to arise. How do we
tell the people who want then 'no more big families'? How do we
justify issues on disability that would arise? If we want power to be
democratic, How do we prevent power through wealth, whether through
capitalist accumulation to a few individuals or the State =both of
which have a history of either war or oppression or both? Some will
say we are better off not addressing such matters as human planning is
always a mess and we are better off leaving things to the chance of
evolution, war being part of this - the purpose of man is to be a
warrior and women's to be recreation for the warrior and such rot.
Others are more fatalist in that none of this mat matter much as the
overall plan goes on whatever human trivia makes some believe.
My view is that religion and various other myths of origin, all
containing perverse views amongst their elites that ordinary people
can't cope with the recognition they are myths (Plato is the classic)
and only the priests or guardians can, are rationalist fantasies - but
what bigger such fantasy as the very idea of anything global that
would ask all to take on a 'morality'!
We leave out a major 'purpose' in economics in much of our moral
thinking - that of the West (still currently the major military power)
being on top and staying on top. The idea in this is that to prevent
a "backward change" the West needs to dominate economically in order
to attract the innovation needed to stay on top. What, for instance,
would the current situation be now if Muslim states had equivalent
military power, or a dominant one? It is also clear that the same
economics is profoundly anti-democratic in that our own ability to
manage through it is severely restricted, probably by the accumulation
of capital in very few hands. Capital that has invested in such a way
as to hand over manufacturing (the essential means of war) outside the
West - something that is treason in some thinking. This form of
capital has remained imperialist and one can make a good case that it
is a form of organised crime.
The key 'moral' issue in all this - which needs book length
elaboration - is that there isn't much moral in the form of thinking
that doesn't consider what is happening to all people and that moral
thinking should be by social animals who recognise that is what they
are and that we all start with entrenched views that can merely seek
conversion in others without needed reciprocity. I believe strongly
in humility - yet this cannot be a one way process.
I don't believe we can change much through argument and that
technology is the way forward - even such technology as agrarian
living alongside 'hot fusion' energy. I live in a country about to
evict 'travelers' from their homes and the frustrations on all sides
is clear. I wouldn't want them at the end of my garden, yet the law
seems inadequate. We have around 8 million people unemployed (real as
opposed to government figures) and yet continue to be a country with
net immigration. It becomes more and more obvious that we can't
educate our way out of this - indeed, one wonders what effect
education, after some basics such as women having fewer babies =
actually has - rather like milk yields in cows and genetics/
environment equations. 50% of our kids hardly pass go in schooling
terms and we seem content to 'replace' them in our workforce with
"better genetic specimens" because this is how economics works.
Despite the blarney on only bringing in these highly skilled people
(itself morally dubious as this means taking doctors from elsewhere),
our taxi drivers are becoming exclusively 'brown' just as jobs are in
short supply.
Given the practical mess I'm not surprised the moral flight is into
the subjective where an individual can experience control. My guess
is this is a flight from the social, much as the wealthy move
practically away from the problems, to areas where their kids can go
to the schools without the problems or in private schooling and so
on. Even Plato, especially Plato, wanted his Guardians free of the
normal, corrupting social. My own view is that this may be simply the
first step to the immoral.
>
On Aug 31, 12:34 pm, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Indeed OM indeed.
>
> I asked once or perhaps twice or even thrice what is it about human
> life that many see as sacrosanct, I don't see life that way at all and
> so it confussed me why again the majority of us would view the takeing
> of a human life by another human as immoral.
>
> I guess I'm just in a strange place at the mo, beliving in a creator
> God without beliving that life is somehow sacred.
>
> I can see both sides though, I think most would thank their parents
> for the 'gift' of life, but I can certianly understand why some would
> not.
>
> Myself I'm a little differant. I had no choice about my birth and so
> I neither thank nor revile my parents for their choice in makeing me.
> I mean I, Lee, the human and the soul and the mind that makes up the
> indivudual we call Lee, had nowt to do with my birth.
>
> It was my parents choice, and their desire to have kids, I know this
> desire, I think most of us humans do at some point or other in our
> lives.
>
> Now of course I have two teenage boys, I don't ask them for their
> thanks, not for mine and my wifes desires, our choice. We did not
> gift them with life, we simply followed our own wills.
>
> No I'm more intersted in arming them for their own lifes, so that they
> can make their own choices independant of me and their mum. They are
> not really my kids but humans that own their own lifes.
>
> On Aug 31, 11:53 am, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "…Those born into abject poverty or under the rule of a despot may
> > not
> > see their life as agift at all. " – Lee
>
> > Conversely, those born into affluence or under the rule of an
> > enlightened and benevolent leader may not see their life as a gift
> > either.
>
> > On Aug 31, 3:50 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Indeed that is the way I see it, but of course others may not.
>
> > > Those born into abject poverty or under the rule of a despot may not
> > > see their life as agift at all.
>
> > > On Aug 31, 5:29 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Yes- but there are so many ironies and surprises and turn-abouts in
> > > > life that it offers possibilities, as well. It still is a chance
> > > > given.
>
> > > > On Aug 30, 9:47 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Heh and of course there is an argument to be made that life is no gift
> > > > > at all!
>
> > > > > On Aug 30, 2:59 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Yes- a lively topic! The whole matter rests upon the spirit in which
> > > > > > the gift is given or received and it can get tangled up in some pretty
> > > > > > strange emotions!
>
> > > > > > We can never repay parents for the gift of life.
>
> > > > > > I have sometimes given a gift to get rid of a person! And it
> > > > > > works! :-)
>
> > > > > > "The moon belongs to everyone, the best things in life are
> > > > > > free" (song)
>
> > > > > > On Aug 30, 4:46 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Hey Neil,
>
> > > > > > > The word debt is a good one to bring to the convo. It is ridden with
> > > > > > > subjective morality. I think it true to say that nobody likes to be
> > > > > > > indebted to anybody, and that payment of debt whether that be fiscal
> > > > > > > or favours owed, is paramont for the individual to feel free from debt
> > > > > > > agian.
>
> > > > > > > Of course the corraspanding thought is that the individual can also
> > > > > > > feel empowerd by the depts owed to that person. It is like a slavery
> > > > > > > light. If a man buys you a beer you remember it and do not rest untll
> > > > > > > you have returned the favour. If a freind helps you to move it is
> > > > > > > perfectly exceptable to ask of him the same favour when you in turn
> > > > > > > move.
>
> > > > > > > I think it goes deep, I mean real deeply deep in the human physche.
>
> > > > > > > When one welches on a bet, or refuses to repay a favour then that
> > > > > > > person is not thought highly of.
>
> > > > > > > It ties in nice and neatly with my thoughts on individual freedom, and
> > > > > > > the fettering of choice.
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 27, 6:50 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Nietzsche argued (in front of the bourgeois) that bourgeois morality
> > > > > > > > was all based on the ability to use violence to recover debt. I take
> > > > > > > > it his play was ironic, much as Kierkegaard on Xtianity. To abandon
> > > > > > > > morality and ethics in order to do the best we can in practical
> > > > > > > > circumstances is a move from generality to particularism and 'low and
> > > > > > > > behold' the matter is somewhat ironic as we discover morality and
> > > > > > > > ethics in the particular. We might, for instance, be generally
> > > > > > > > against abortion, but leave this generality aside in considering a
> > > > > > > > rape victim wanting one - indeed we should go further and wonder what
> > > > > > > > role morality and ethics play in the decision that we have any 'right'
> > > > > > > > to be considering a decision many of us think the woman concerned
> > > > > > > > should be able to make and expect only our support in it - that is
> > > > > > > > help with her distress.
>
> > > > > > > > In German philosophy after Hegel, there was much attempt to 'free
> > > > > > > > thought' from Geist and what we might call 'socially approved
> > > > > > > > epistemic authority' (which we might corrupt to 'moralising') - one
> > > > > > > > can draw the line through Fichte, Feuerbach, Nietzsche and on to
> > > > > > > > Stirner - the problem always being how there could ever be an
> > > > > > > > association of individuals free of morals and ethics - the answer
> > > > > > > > usually being that some subjective awareness-analysis could replace
> > > > > > > > social authority. This is not exactly new to those of us with some
> > > > > > > > notion of self-discipline, and notions of govern-mentality or the
> > > > > > > > creation of 'docile bodies' worry on just hoe 'subjective' we can be
> > > > > > > > in this sense.
>
> > > > > > > > The question is probably about how we can get into meaningful review
> > > > > > > > of what is deeply and potentially wrongly held. A good example would
> > > > > > > > be that most of us think debt should be repaid. We can hold this view
> > > > > > > > with great certainty and even think it immoral not to repay. Yet what
> > > > > > > > is human history on this? I can point to a recent book that
> > > > > > > > demonstrates history is full of corrections or Jubilee on debt - even
> > > > > > > > that the first word we know for freedom means 'freedom from debt' and
> > > > > > > > that many religious words come from the word debt as sin - in the
> > > > > > > > sense of freedom from it. The very notion of our definition of debt
> > > > > > > > is historically wrong and de-politicised when it should not be. We
> > > > > > > > can abandon what we have come to think is moral and ethical about debt
> > > > > > > > and perhaps recover something 'more moral' in understanding history.
> > > > > > > > The book is readable at Amazon - Debt by David Graeber - at least in
> > > > > > > > its essentials. Much as we might abandon moral and ethics, we could
> > > > > > > > abandon 'money' - though we no doubt come round to a better
> > > > > > > > formulation in new practice. There is always some kind of 'return' -
> > > > > > > > but where are we without trying our best in thinking things through -
> > > > > > > > left with global poverty and indenture? Hardly much 'morality' in
> > > > > > > > that.
>
> > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 3:15 pm, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Hahahah yes Rigsy I find I can't disagree with you here at all. Makes
> > > > > > > > > a change huh!
>
> > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 2:40 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, Lee. A sense of fairness and right/wrong seems to kick in
> > > > > > > > > > naturally in very young children- even more remarkable when you think
> > > > > > > > > > what they are up against re adults and their siblings, but then the
> > > > > > > > > > "teaching" begins "in earnest" via family, education, religion,
> > > > > > > > > > society. Most often, humans adapt to standards and expectations
> > > > > > > > > > because they assume it's safer and easier- they can work out the
> > > > > > > > > > conflicts with a therapist later on. :-)
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 4:49 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Obvioulsy I have to strongly disagree with that. Anybody who thinks
> > > > > > > > > > > that morality comes from religion is not thinking straight.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > My own morality was there long before I even heard of deity, and the
> > > > > > > > > > > same is true for all of us. Yes yes of course religious faith may
> > > > > > > > > > > colour or change ones morality, but then what does not? Culture does,
> > > > > > > > > > > the epoch we live in does, nationality does, even age.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 5:52 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > A guy called Max Stirner wrote an odd book with the intent to outline
> > > > > > > > > > > > what being free of religion might mean. Rigsby's professor seems
> > > > > > > > > > > > unaware of how old his ground is in more recent debate than the
> > > > > > > > > > > > Greeks. My own view is that religion more or less cripples morality,
> > > > > > > > > > > > both intellectually and in its practical horrors. The weakness
> > > > > > > > > > > > involved in believing or pretending to believe twaddle hardly shows
> > > > > > > > > > > > moral character. Ethics are what lawyers have - rules to protect
> > > > > > > > > > > > themselves at the expense of others. The best we can hope for is some
> > > > > > > > > > > > kind of fair-play. Our society is grossly immoral because so many
>
> ...
>
> read more »
0 comments:
Post a Comment