My kids are my kids, but that is not really what I meant. They don't
belong to me, they belong to themselves. I have a duty of care
towards them until I deem them fit enough to survive without my care,
but the reality is, they are not my kids they own themselves.
On Aug 31, 4:56 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Deconstruct authority and you end up with men being taller and having more
> muscles. The first article of our constitution says: Die Würde des Menschen
> ist unantastbar. The translation may cause the fuss in Lee and make him call
> out for the creator God as the father of his children: Human dignity is
> inviolable. Fuse with the might of your children, Lee, and don't let me ever
> again hear you saying your kids are not really your kids!
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 3:33 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > None of the above stops duties for an individual like not killing,
> > stealing and so on being simple ways to express rules of thumb for a
> > decent society, or thinking by individuals trying to improve same or
> > come up with ideas free of socially approved epistemic authority -
> > indeed, given human collective history this is probably a rule of
> > thumb itself.
> > Orn often suggests that there are errors in nihilist thinking (as a
> > broad label) - I agree. Modern deconstruction ends up telling us some
> > things are undecidable and we have to do our best with them. A bit
> > like playing a leg-spinner when you can't spot his googlie. This is
> > unremarkable - what might be important is that socially decision-
> > making is broadly established in an elite and the decisions need not
> > be - often obviously decidable. This is very animal stuff and we
> > surely can't be sensibly voting for it. How can we vote for
> > autonomy? We might start thinking that there is a moral cause against
> > representative government that so inevitably decides in the interests
> > of such a small group. Moral thinking against established authority
> > is easily justified - our literature once praised it - often with
> > existential heroes battling torpid discrimination masquerading as
> > objective good sense. I suspect what goes wrong in merely
> > deconstructive thinking is a point at which authority is banished as
> > we recognise its violence and forget that this is merely the ground of
> > default to might is right.
>
> > On Aug 31, 12:50 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Getting out of the mess we're in is perhaps a forlorn hope, but the
> > > 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment