[Mind's Eye] Re: "Confessions of an Ex-Moralist"

He may have turned vegan in order to get a date! Most young women I
know are vegan but allow their husbands/beaux to eat meat.//Yes- it
was a weak essay/argument which still could have been argued minus God
or religion- but wasn't.

On Aug 27, 1:13 am, treadleson <treadl...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Aug 22, 9:59 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > By Joel Marks- plus reader comments
>
> >http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/confessions-of-an-ex-...
>
> Thanks for posting. I'm just a passenger here. Some thoughts--
>
> Spinoza said:
>
> "It is clear that we neither strive for, nor will, neither want, nor
> desire anything because we judge it to be good; on the contrary, we
> judge something to be good because we strive for it, will it, want it,
> and desire it."
>
> The writer is saying more or less the same thing. Desire, to Spinoza,
> was more at: striving, as in our striving to persevere. If something
> helps me to persevere, it is good. If not, then it is bad or even
> evil. When we call something "good" that says more about us than about
> the thing. How can something be "good" in itself? It could be good to
> me and evil to you. Or evil to me today, but good tomorrow.
>
> But the writer does something strange. After rejecting his old secular/
> moralist self and experiencing an epiphany about desire ruling us, he
> rejects morality altogether. For Spinoza that would be like giving up,
> and I tend to agree. If he doesn't feel the moral value of what he's
> fighting for, why fight for it? In a way I prefer his old self.
>
> The other part I find weird is that both his pre-epiphany and post-
> epiphany self is devoid of God. It's weird because he seems to care so
> much about the natural world. Lots of his feelings and ethics relate
> to animals and certain "rights" that animals--human and non-human--
> have to live and be left alone.
>
> But what is nature if not God, the underlying basis of everything,
> including the writer's desire? He says: "I now acknowledge that I
> cannot count on either God or morality to back up my personal
> preferences or clinch the case in any argument." I'd think that his
> personal preferences are a manifestation of God or nature just like
> his friend's reaction to the sunset was.
>
> In a way I prefer his old self. At least there was an acknowledgment
> of God, even if it was through rejection. He's going to try to
> persuade people about the goodness of his cause just through polite
> dialectics? Just because a person doesn't desire something, it doesn't
> mean it isn't good for them. But they have to hear a moral appeal--how
> it will fulfill their desire.
>
> I'm glad I got to read this. Thx.