Hmm, interesting; Spinoza as a pioneering biological ethicist?
On Aug 27, 7:13 am, treadleson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
