On Aug 22, 9:59 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> 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.
