You are still not getting it and it is pretty profound considering I guided you to the most basic literature on the subject. Authenticity is not a standard. — TimeLine
These considerations seem to indicate that both tendencies are present in human beings; the one, to have - to possess - that owes its strength in the last analysis to the biological factor of the desire for survival; the other, to be - to share, to give, to sacrifice - that owes its strength to the specific conditions of human existence and the inherent need to overcome one's isolation by oneness with others. —
Really? Me civilly and respectfully objecting to something you've written is a claim of moral superiority on my part? Sorry. That's pretty silly. There is no "quest for moral superiority." I'm just trying to be a good person. — T Clark
I think that's only (potentially) true if I agree that book larnin' is the only path to moral behavior, which is the whole point I've been arguing against in this discussion. — T Clark
And progress is (seems to me) the move from an inferior to a superior state. — foo
I started a thread to explore being/having some time ago, but my mind got stuck. While I felt like I had the gist of the distinction, where I was stuck was with notions of character orientation, modes of being, and so forth. I'm still stuck there now, else I would have replied to my own thread by now :D. — Moliere
I walked in the woods
All by myself,
To seek nothing,
That was on my mind.
I saw in the shade
A little flower stand
Bright like the stars
Like beautiful eyes.
I wanted to pluck it,
But it said sweetly:
Is it to wilt
That I must be broken?
I took it out
With all its roots,
Carried it to the garden
At the pretty house
And planted it again
In a quiet place;
Now it ever spreads
And blossoms forth — Goethe
That would be in relation to something. The judgement of inferior and superior would be a judgement in relation to some objective, as progress is toward that objective, the goal, the desired end. Without that standard for judgement, there is no superior or inferior, nor is there progress, there is just change. — Metaphysician Undercover
OK, but books were just an example. Here's the simple question: is there individual moral progess? In my view, of course there is. And progress is (seems to me) the move from an inferior to a superior state. — foo
Of course I realize you're just trying to be a good person. Me too. What's the alternative? Being a bad or a less good person. Now why be a good person as opposed to a bad person if being a good person is not to be morally superior? (This is almost tautologous. I think 'moral superiority' just has a bad ring which I did not intend.) — foo
Perhaps you took me in the wrong spirit. I wasn't complaining of being treated badly. I was trying to make a point that moral judgments imply a hierarchy. If it is bad to think that one is better than others, then we will think we are better than others because we don't think we are better than others. — foo
You judge people by whether or not they are authentic - whether or not they live their lives based on what others expect. You apply authenticity as a standard. — T Clark
The description does not match my experience of human behavior. How people are good. How people are real. — T Clark
the one, to have - to possess - that owes its strength in the last analysis to the biological factor of the desire for survival; the other, to be - to share, to give, to sacrifice - that owes its strength to the specific conditions of human existence and the inherent need to overcome one's isolation by oneness with others." — TimeLine
You see, philosophy to me is about defining concepts, mapping and articulating them, but how I apply this with my interactions with others is one of many ways in my attempt to translate their interpretation of the external world. — TimeLine
Why is it that your interpretation of others is somehow justified since people are good and real, and yet I am being judgemental? You are placing yourself central to this standard and projecting it outward, not me. — TimeLine
...we need to avoid defining authenticity because it is not an explicit or inherent thing, but rather something that we cultivate rationally.... — TimeLine
What underpins our humanity, what makes us transcend the biological or instinctual is empathy and our capacity to become self-aware; love and therefore morality is what makes us human, but it is ultimately a decision and not an inherent thing. It is something that we cultivate through learning and experience. It is grounding morality in a priori principles. — TimeLine
I was using "book larnin'" as smart ass shorthand for formal application of reason and will.
I think there can be progress toward authenticity and that may lead to improvement in moral behavior. That's been something I've experienced personally. As I've discussed, I see autonomy and morality as separate. No, I don't believe there is individual moral progress. For me, morality is not a state of being, it is behavior. — T Clark
Ideally, I may agree. But I can't follow this downplaying of the body. We are just such social, sensual creatures that a healthy brain in body that is considered ugly will likely lead to a very different formative childhood than a healthy brain in a body that is considered beautiful. I think we are like plants that develop in the direction of recognition. — foo
Second point: Is there not a tension between autonomy and 'moral' actions? If I am incarnate autonomous reason, I may decide that my culture at large is wrong about some issue. I may decide that some kind of prohibited violence is actually good and even a duty. Those who proscribe such actions while celebrating autonomy will presumably do so in the name of 'reason.' But this is to deny autonomy or to identity it with the incarnation of reason. But then who gets to speak in the name of reason? We are back to the same situation. Autonomy with any bite is dangerous. An autonomous person is not easily persuaded by the claims of those who identify either with God's will or universal reason (variants of the basic idea of authority.) — foo
This is exactly the kind of gross misrepresentation of nature that justifies the continued destruction of our ecosystems and presides over what is becoming the next mass extinction event. "It's OK to kill as many animals as we like because they're all brutal savages who deserve it, not like the angelic humans with their desire to share, give and sacrifice". — Pseudonym
I think what has been misunderstood is that being moral somehow implies something innate or explicit, when it is a rational process that requires cultivation — TimeLine
Language is very dynamical and we have the cognitive capacity to calculate, contrast, and communicate that means that we are enabled or wired with the capacity to transcend conformity and start using our own autonomous, rational thoughts to understand and apply virtue aside from what we have learned. — TimeLine
Your body is regulated by the brain as much as your sensual impressions are formed through experience and maintained by the health of both the physical and the psychological; think of those individuals who have perversions or fetishes. — TimeLine
In the final analysis I believe the need to overcome one’s isolation by oneness with others is also biological and owes its strength to the desire for survival, or rather the drive for gene propagation. In the vast majority of human evolution long term isolation severely decreased the odds for survival, and obviously gene propagation. — praxis
What I have in mind is the attempt to impose a particular vision of the moral (like yours) on an autonomous person. I don't disagree with what you say about morality, but that's beside the point I'm trying to make. For you it is at least the attempt at a universal truth. But other thinkers have other visions. The autonomous person feels a certain distance from the claims of others. They may, of course, be persuaded. — foo
I agree. So when societies or individuals are diagnosed or accused, this seems to imply at least some blurry notion of a preferred state.
I think we have these blurry notions of virtue before we think to justify them. Indeed, thinking we need to justify/clarify our blurry notions was presumably motivated or in pursuit of another such blurry notion --one that tends toward its own clarification. — foo
If, on the other hand, you are saying that our survival is dependent on this blind conformism... — TimeLine
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.