I suspect that de Klerk et al are basically Kantian in their moral stance.
— Joshs
Which is to say very little; perhaps that they were consistent. — Banno
And again, the point is to act. — Banno
I blame myself, Tom Storm. I assumed you at least had a curiosity and a capacity to inquire. The trouble here is that you really don't know anything at all about continental philosophy, which is the implicit background to all this. — Astrophel
And again, the point is to act. — Banno
Ethics on the other hand, in order to so be, requires action governed by a coherent goal. — javra
Virtue ethics lacks the hubris of deontology and utilitarianism.
Sure, being fair, being consistent, and being happy are worthy; but there's more to it.
Hence, goals — Banno
As to their ethical standing, what is it that makes all these deemed to be good goals commonly defined - or better yet understood - as good? — javra
Alan Watts, D T Suzuki, Krishnamurti, Ramana Maharishi and Theodore Roszak — Wayfarer
So - I very much see the course of modern intellectual history as the almost complete loss of the meaning of soul, which has been replaced with various forms of neo-darwinian materialism. It treats mankind as an objective phenomenon, something to study, alongside ants and whales, and has no greater conception of what matters that what works in an instrumental sense.
"Chemical scum", as Stephen Hawkings once put it eloquently. (Oddly, this kind of attitude is sometimes dignified with the term 'humanism'.) — Wayfarer
So - I very much see the course of modern intellectual history as the almost complete loss of the meaning of soul, which has been replaced with various forms of neo-darwinian materialism. — Wayfarer
Whereas I see the great traditions of philosophy (and in my world, those are Christian Platonism, Indian Advaita, and Mahāyāna Buddhism) as representative of the philosophia perennis, and charting the course towards self-realisation. You do find inklings of that in Kierkegaard, and Heidegger wrestles with it in his own secularist kind of way, although I could never see it in Nietszche (flak jacket on.) — Wayfarer
So after that long preamble, what of the summum bonum? I see the grand religious narratives as symbolic an allegorical presentations of the journey of self-realisation, variously conceived and envisaged in different cultural milieu. But that self-realisation, in my lexicon, is possible due to the sense in which h. sapiens is the Universe become aware of itself. We're not simply the epiphenomenal byproducts of dumb material stuff, as the secular academy must assume, absent any meta-narrative of their own. As stated splendidly in one of Albert Einstein's late-in-life musings, by way of a letter of condolence:
A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security. — Wayfarer
Blame - how old fashioned. :wink: But I note that in remainder of your response you put the blame somewhat harshly on me. Nice work. I don't really know anything about any philosophy, I just have an interest.
But I have read smatterings of Husserl and listened to Dreyfus' fascinating lectures on Heidegger and started reading Maurice Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception, so I am not unsympathetic to continental philosophy or phenomenology.
You need to do better than attempt an elitist put down of a poor pleb who is so beneath you. It makes you sound like you're out of your depth. I suspect now that an inherent belief in the superiority of your own thought might explain why your capacity to communicate on this is so muddled. Possibly you are not really trying. Now it might also be that English is not your first language, so that could be a factor too.
Nevertheless, if you were any good at this you would be able to explain your idea clearly and not blame others for the deficits in your own capacity to communicate. And you might not stoop to playing 'in group out/group' games in an awkward attempt to marginalise those who have different views. :razz: — Tom Storm
You'll perhaps be aware that I've a generally anti-philosophical approach. — Banno
So I think that there's a fundamental methodological error in starting by deciding what is good. — Banno
Not to forget Ram Das, Timothy Leary, Carlos Castaneda, Aldous Huxley. — Astrophel
It is said that the Buddha was the ultimate phenomenologist. I think Husserl's epoche, if taken to its logical end, is an act of meditation. — Astrophel
The phenomenological reduction is a "method" not just a theory. It requires one to suspend most of what comes to mind to the understanding. Meditation is just this suspension, but rigorous. Is it possible to "see' the world as it "is" without recollection rushing to claim the moment? — Astrophel
Is it possible to "see' the world as it "is" without recollection rushing to claim the moment? Is it possible to even conceive such a thing, for to think of it is to recall. — Astrophel
I wasted YOUR time? — Astrophel
What is deliciousness? Such an odd question, no? But all such affections go like this. And note that inquiry ends here, for there is no need to justify wanting something delicious, for to be delicious is inherently good, unassailably good. Of course, you can assail many things: can I afford it? Should I steal it? Is it healthy? This kind of thing can be as complicated as human affairs themselves. But: it is these affairs that make for complications, not the Haagen dazs's deliciousness.
Herein lies the essence of ethical agency. — Astrophel
What moves the act beyond the merely irritating into the immoral? — Banno
More than "to act", to reflectively act.It remains that the point of ethics is to act. — Banno
From p.1 of this thread .But do you have any original ideas to share, as well? — god must be atheist
Why definitely "self-sacrificial"? Although sometimes you may sacrifice things you would like to do or have for yourself for the sake of others, e.g. your family, your company, etc., this is not always the case. But even in these cases, if, for example, you sacrifice your desire to buy a nice car and instead use that money to send your son or daughter to the a College or University, this will increase their survival because they would have a better salary in the near future than if they were just school graduates. And this will also benefit the whole family, wouldn't it? There are a lot of examples of such cases.it's a good definition of self-sacrificial ethics — god must be atheist
OK, but this is totally physical. Well-being refers to both physical and mental aspects. Happiness, joy, intelligence, feeling free, and so on are all non-physical and attributes of well-being, and thus ethics.the ultimate spring and origin of ethics is the survival of the individual and/or the survival of his DNA derivatives. — god must be atheist
"Spheres!" We live in a 3D world! :smile:The circles you mention .. — god must be atheist
Please don't stick to the word "survival". A lot of people do. However, I add the word "well-being". But also a lot of people ignore it! I am not sure exactly why. (Although I have some idea why :smile:)actual efforts to make survive — god must be atheist
If there is such a discrepancy, and it is difficult for you to bear that, you might want better go and live in another society. But as long as you stay in it you must respect its rules and expectations. If your company has a certain code of ethics or rules or policies with which you disagree, you have to either live with them (because your salary is more important) or join another company. Isn't that right?his personal ethics may be skewed in the sense of what expectations society places on him, because of the discrepancy between his agenda and society's agenda. — god must be atheist
Well, they are different things, aren't they? The first one means a state of being comfortable, healthy or happy. The second one is much more general and it can mean that which is right (in general), a benefit or advantage to someone or something, etc. I have clarified the word since a lot of people start asking questions like, "OK, but what is (considered) good?" etc.But then, well-being is no more explanatory than good — Astrophel
Please, give me something easier to do! :grin: For instance, answer to your own viewpoint(s).Anyway, there is a book you might find interesting by Oldenquist, called "Non suicidal Society". — Astrophel
It would be good to have some examples, because I can't see how such a thing can work ...family comes before country, country before world; that kind of thing. — Astrophel
Certainly not.The problem with utility is that people are not quantifiable entities. — Astrophel
I'm not sure, but maybe "There is a no sovereign 'right'" ?There is a sovereign "right" one has over the public good. — Astrophel
Ethical agency seen through the 'continental' lens here seems diffuse and likely fruitless. But it is up to you to demonstrate what it accomplishes. However, I am happy to move on. — Tom Storm
More than "to act", to reflectively act. — 180 Proof
The structure of affectivity is twofold — Astrophel
On the other side of this subjective, call it a deficit, there is the true object, the qualified existent, the phenomenon of deliciousness, say, or misery. — Astrophel
we are res affectus, a "thing" of affectivity" — Astrophel
.....value: the "impossible" goodness of something we call good. Non contingent goodness. — Astrophel
It is the entirety of phenomenal possibilities we classify as value that I am saying is the essence of ethics. — Astrophel
Value is THE existential foundation of ethics, something existence "does" — Astrophel
I do have my arguments. — Astrophel
And also The Embodied Mind, the Varela/Thomson/Rosch book that initiated the enactivism school. That is basically a combination of phenomenology and abhidharma. (Thomson has recently published a book Why I am not a Buddhist, but I don't think that detracts from the Buddhist philosophical elements of the original work. ) I think this kind of approach manages to step out of the whole 'reason v faith' dichotomy that bedevils so much mainstream thinking. — Wayfarer
I think the origin of metaphysics, specifically with Parmenides, was grounded in such a vision. There's a (somewhat maverick) classics scholar by the name of Peter Kingsley who explores those themes. (Fascinating recent review on that.)
But subsequently to my exploration of those ideas through the Eastern sources I mentioned, I came to realise that many of these themes are also to be found in the Western tradition. There is that thread in Western philosophy but it's basically been rejected by most analytical philosophy as such, although it lives on in European philosophy. I'm trying to join those dots now but it takes a lot of reading. — Wayfarer
Well, they are different things, aren't they? The first one means a state of being comfortable, healthy or happy. The second one is much more general and it can mean that which is right (in general), a benefit or advantage to someone or something, etc. I have clarified the word since a lot of people start asking questions like, "OK, but what is (considered) good?" etc. — Alkis Piskas
Please, give me something easier to do! :grin: For instance, answer to your own viewpoint(s).
In in fact, I am more interested in first-hand --people's own-- than second-hand opinions. — Alkis Piskas
n the first place, according to this scheme, "you" are more important than your "family", since you are the smaller than it, right? Well, this is one of the reasons why marriages fail. And if your marriage fails and you break up, then you get "smaller": you are retreating into your shell.
Then, how can your family be more important than your country if you need a country to live and work in, in order to sustain it?
Then, if your country is more important than the world, could you go against the whole word to defend it? If another country attacks yours, who would be there to support your country since it behaves as being more important than every else? Why do you think coalitions are created in wars?
Your country cannot live isolated except in a jungle! — Alkis Piskas
I'm not sure, but maybe "There is a no sovereign 'right'" ?
If you meant that, there is such a right. This is where customs, traditions, laws, etc., come in.
But above these, "public good" is what benefits society. And I think everyone knows what. It's another thing if people chose to ignore it or do the opposite. This has to do with personal ethics. Only insane people usually cannot distinguish right from wrong. — Alkis Piskas
Think about acting – learning to act ("fail") better – as one is acting rather than ex post facto, concretely (re: Peirce, Dewey) and not merely in the abstract. — 180 Proof
I see. Then yes, most people think first about themselves, etc. But this depends on the culture. It has to do with social conscience. In Greece, for example, this is quite low in relation to other European countries.e conceived of the de facto condition that we do indeed care about family first and friends ... — Astrophel
I think I see what you are talking about, although these things are not so real to me, living in a totally different society than yours. Anyway, to stick to our subject of ethics and well-beingness, I could say that each country thinks more about its own good than the good of the world, even if Unions of countries are created for supporting each other. For example, I don't think that Germany as a state thinks more about the good of the EU than about its own. And I also think it's not the only one. This is what I call "lack of ethics". In other words, we cannot talk about ethics on a social plane. Ethics is a personal thing.But what about those who stand in our way? those Uyghurs in China that will not toe the line, the poor who not find a job, the useless, the mentally diseased, and so on. We could make the greatness happen if it wasn't for those that hold us back.... — Astrophel
Sure. It remains that the point of ethics is to act. — Banno
Good isn't found, least of all by philosophical discourse. That's part and parcel of rejecting the philosophical method of seeking essences, or setting out definitions, or fathoming the a priori...
There is no feature common to what is good, as Moore showed - apart from being good. Like all definitions, those for "good" are post-hoc rationalisations. But that does not prevent our using the term well and effectively. — Banno
But if we classify something as valuable, value is then a contingent assignment, and cannot be existential in that to which we assign the value — Mww
Jphn Caputo wrote a couple of books, The Weakness of God and The Tears of Derrida, that in one way of another defend the apophatic resolution in the discovery that the world that stands before us impossible to understand, and our "totalities" that is, our coherent systems for taking it up and dealing with it lead to this final aporia. — Astrophel
Being and non Being are impossibly contradictory. — Astrophel
Eriugena proceeds to list “five ways of interpreting” (quinque modi interpretationis) the manner in which things may be saidto be or not to beto exist or not to exist. (Periphyseon, I.443c–446a). According to the first mode, things accessible to the senses and the intellect are said tobeexist, whereas anything which, “through the excellence of its nature” (per excellentiam suae naturae), transcends our faculties are said not tobeexist. According to this classification, God, because of his transcendence is said not tobeexist. He is “nothingness through excellence” (nihil per excellentiam).
Religion is direction or movement toward the ultimate or the unconditional. And God rightly defined might be called the Unconditional. God, in the true sense, is indefinable. Since the Unconditional precedes our minds and precedes all created things, God cannot be confined by the mind or by words. Tillich sees God as Being-Itself, or the "Ground of all Being." For this reason there cannot be "a" God. There cannot even be a "highest God," for even that concept is limiting. We cannot make an object out of God. And the moment we say he is the highest God or anything else, we have made him an object. Thus, beyond the God of the Christian or the God of the Jews, there is the "God beyond God." This God cannot be said to exist or not to exist in the sense that we "exist". Either statement is limiting. We cannot make a thing out of God, no matter how holy this thing may be, because there still remains something behind the holy thing which is its ground or basis, the "ground of being."
I ask "what Is Ethics" because an analysis of ethics bring forth the Real (or, irreal?), which I think is affectively defined. I look at it like this: transcendence is by definition unspeakable and unencounterable; material substance is simply a way to reify scientific theories into an ontology. — Astrophel
God could literally show up and reveal an order of glory and beauty that is eternal, and reason would not flinch. — Astrophel
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.