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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 > > ... > > read more »
