My interesting philosophy...

[Tali]

Re: My interesting philosophy...

Oh, geez. D'oh!! You made it so succinctly obvious, too. Sorry, Armanen... maybe that is a good sign I need to sleep. School has finally kicked me over to nonsensical. Too many exams today, now I can't even read...

[Armanen]

Re: My interesting philosophy...

I was discussing the issue of morality with someone else the other day. We read "Heart of Darkness" (by Joseph Conrad), if you wanted to get an idea of how the discussion comes about; great read, pretty... intense... though.

She argued, as you are, that morality is subjective.

I counter-argued, it seems more coincidental, and frankly, like certain "morals" take precedent over other ones.


To demonstrate my point,
In the book, there was a moment when "Marlow" had to meet the fiance of recently deceased "Mr. Kurtz". "Marlow" was with "Mr. Kurtz" when he died. The fiance asked "Marlow" what his last words were, certain that it would be regarding her. The truth was, Mr. Kurtz' last words were: "The horror! the horror!"; but "Marlow" told the fiance, "he said your name."

Was he right to hide the truth; especially since he thinks it's immoral to lie? Or was it moral (because he believes that women live in their "own little world," shielded by the nightmares, and thus decided to protect her)?

That is a great book. I read it when I was in high school, along with a few other books by Conrad. He is a great author.

And I didn't argue that morality is subjective, and think it is the opposite.

[Tali]

Re: My interesting philosophy...

I was discussing the issue of morality with someone else the other day. We read "Heart of Darkness" (by Joseph Conrad), if you wanted to get an idea of how the discussion comes about; great read, pretty... intense... though.

She argued, as you are, that morality is subjective.

I counter-argued, it seems more coincidental, and frankly, like certain "morals" take precedent over other ones.


To demonstrate my point,
In the book, there was a moment when "Marlow" had to meet the fiance of recently deceased "Mr. Kurtz". "Marlow" was with "Mr. Kurtz" when he died. The fiance asked "Marlow" what his last words were, certain that it would be regarding her. The truth was, Mr. Kurtz' last words were: "The horror! the horror!"; but "Marlow" told the fiance, "he said your name."

Was he right to hide the truth; especially since he thinks it's immoral to lie? Or was it moral (because he believes that women live in their "own little world," shielded by the nightmares, and thus decided to protect her)?

[Armanen]

Re: My interesting philosophy...

The point still remains that a subjective/relative moral philosophy allows for people to violate other peoples rights, but since it is subjective one can not claim someone is wrong. After all, both persons are right according to relative moral theory.

As I pointed out, I reject moral relativism for this basic reason, and few macro reasons dealing with the negative effects it has had on society, politics, and culture.

[jgk3]

Re: My interesting philosophy...

I do not want to digress to much with the drug issue. But if the pot is natural, not laced with any man made chemicals, then yes, but not for me. Why are you so hung up with drugs? Have you been smoking and drinking in moderation?

I personally don't smoke, I sometimes drink. I just identify a paradox, especially among families who decry smoking marijuana, and yet tolerate smoking cigarettes, shisha, and drinking. That is why I like to bring up marijuana.

The choice that you keep referring to is called, free will. And that is what God, the Creator, has granted us. Free will is a whole nother issue though. You are again ignoring the question of what guides you? Where do your morals come from? What are they based on? Let's play your game though, so everything is relative and perception based, so how do you know you exist? How do you know I or anyone else that you encounter exists?

What guides me most of the time, through habit, is ignorance. This ignorance leads me to commit "evils". I have no morals of my own, unless they are realizations of my own ignorance, not given to me by a code of conduct to be read and diligently obeyed (i.e. the ten commandments), but through my own life experience in those sins, their consequences, both external and internal to my being. Also to a large extent, our personal fears, often socially based, limit us in finding out for ourselves the reasons why people consider such and such thing as evil. In my case especially, I have granted other peoples' convinctions and codes of honour prestigious status in my own being, in my conduct, without ever understanding why such things are believed in, and thus, not doing away with the reality of the matter, that I am ignorant. This ignorance will lead me to hazard and catastrophe, that is how I learn my lessons. True morals, for me, are understandings of reality, not possible through belief, but through disaster, through error. This collision with precisely the outcomes we once feared, are what also makes us feel most alive, most present in the real world.

If I had a complete, or an intermediary understanding of it I would, but that is a separate topic, and I have only recently been dabbling in the Work. It would be much better for you to read his works, or read The Gurdjieff Work by Speeth as a starter before you dig into Georges written Work.

Thanks, hopefully one day I'll come across his books on a visit to a library.

The likely reason you ask this question is because you believe that humans and animals are on the same level. That philosophy is not even worth commenting on. However, I will say that the mistreatment of animals is wrong, but to kill an animal for food or clothing to keep oneself warm is not bad. I am not into hunting, but I will not condemn it, only if the killing is purposly done in a manner to torture the animal.

It is worth commenting on. Because we are so removed from the slaughter or animals by humans. Chances are, we have eaten meat that comes from tortured animals (unless one has always bought from a farm which raises and slaughters their animals with the sentiment and intent of minimizing their suffering in this life), but it becomes justified because it is done for the purpose of profit maximization, and to feed our demand for meat. I believe that a population that knows not how to honour its animals, and not at some point during their mealtime make a conscious link between their appetite for meat and the life of the animal it came from, will equally not know how to honour its fellow humans beyond the immediate circle of whoever they regard as worthy of "human morals", and will treat humans outside this circle of respect with less respect and more discrimination, likely leading to violence and mistreatment unless law enforcement and the punishments it deals act as a deterrent. This is also precisely why time and time again, we have seen violent groups who justify their murderous violence against another group after becoming convinced that their enemies are not human: "that they deserve to be slaughtered like the animals which they are."

This hatred becomes expressed in action because laws are not good enough to teach morals, to teach us to love and respect one another; they cannot extinguish hatred, they can only deter its manifestation in a given situation.

Good treatment of others comes through practice, and the greater the extent one takes their respect for others (beyond family, beyond friends... then perhaps beyond humans... more and more into the domain of natural resources which affect the livelihood of others, both human and non-human), the fewer paradoxes can one identify between a person's caring and consideration for some, and violent disregard for others.

It need not, but it often does. Because the question then becomes, by what right do you have to challenge another, afterall, his views are just as valid as yours. And again, where do your values come from? What are they based on?

Maybe there is an objective good out there, but it is recognized by humans in a very multifaceted way. Each person values it differently, and every society which establishes a relative consensus on what "good" is, differs. If one believes in objective good, perhaps they will recognize their own falling short of this good, due to their ignorance of it, but recognize that they as individuals, are not worthless in these scheme of matters, because they hold a piece of this recognition of good, a shard of consciousness for ones' surroundings and their well-being, it enables us to recognize good conduct that may be absent in others. On this basis, we may or may not challenge (or otherwise begin an initiative to change the behavior of) those whom we feel have committed something wrong. Our decision to intervene with their bad habits depends on our own judgment, associated risks, our stubbornness and/or courage. The manner in which we intervene may also reveal, likely to those experiencing and observing us, our own good and/or bad conduct. We depend on others to know our own faults, but by ignoring their judgments because we've decided that they are categorically "wrong" for some odd reason or another, we dramatically slow our ability to think about how we may be wrong, and one can only hope for the same potential lessons we've rejected to appear from a different source in the future.

This conclusion is different from my previous one, perhaps it's less apathetic?

[Armanen]

Re: My interesting philosophy...

Ok, ideals aside, do you feel that smoking pot in moderation is also "fine", in the same way as drinking alcohol in moderation is "fine"?

I do not want to digress to much with the drug issue. But if the pot is natural, not laced with any man made chemicals, then yes, but not for me. Why are you so hung up with drugs? Have you been smoking and drinking in moderation?

I don't place a judgment of "correct"-ness or "incorrect"-ness on the non-uniformity of our actions and moral codes. You must find what is right for yourself, the layout of metaphysical truths you must abide by is your choice. Believing there is some exteriorized, universal law of what is good and bad, and advocating that all who don't abide by it are "harmful" to society and thus can be tallied to "bad" in your system of good/bad judgment is but one possible layout, one you have chosen, not because it is a provable law of the universe, but because those are the patterns you personally recognize as true of the universe. Building a community along common principles of what is good and bad can only truly happen if all its members recognize the same patterns in exactly the same way, and that is not the case in society. We constantly find members of it which do not agree with one another, whether in argument or action, about what is right, so instead, leaders impose what is right using manmade laws that can stand independently of our differences of opinion, and use a form of policing to ensure that the community abides by such principles.

The choice that you keep referring to is called, free will. And that is what God, the Creator, has granted us. Free will is a whole nother issue though. You are again ignoring the question of what guides you? Where do your morals come from? What are they based on? Let's play your game though, so everything is relative and perception based, so how do you know you exist? How do you know I or anyone else that you encounter exists?

Well, maybe you can help convince me to change my post-Enlightenment era materialistic thinking by explaining the concept of multiple I's as you understand it.

If I had a complete, or an intermediary understanding of it I would, but that is a separate topic, and I have only recently been dabbling in the Work. It would be much better for you to read his works, or read The Gurdjieff Work by Speeth as a starter before you dig into Georges written Work.

You apply this standard to humans killing innocent humans. What about humans killing animals? Also, can animals killed by humans be innocent animals?

The likely reason you ask this question is because you believe that humans and animals are on the same level. That philosophy is not even worth commenting on. However, I will say that the mistreatment of animals is wrong, but to kill an animal for food or clothing to keep oneself warm is not bad. I am not into hunting, but I will not condemn it, only if the killing is purposly done in a manner to torture the animal.

Relativism doesn't need to lead to apathy. One can still believe in values and abide by them. Just because one accepts difference in others' conception of morality doesn't mean that they must leave thee actions and opinions of others unchallenged.

It need not, but it often does. Because the question then becomes, by what right do you have to challenge another, afterall, his views are just as valid as yours. And again, where do your values come from? What are they based on?

[Armanen]

Re: My interesting philosophy...

John Locke's "A Second Treatise on Government." Chapter 2.

Do you want to provide the quote(s). The 2nd Treatise is about natural rights, which Locke is basically taking from Natural Law.

[jgk3]

Re: My interesting philosophy...

There are good and bad drugs. Good drugs are called medicine, and you both should have picked up on the fact that that is not what we are discussing.
The point still remains that man ought to treat his body well as much as possible. Regardless of what Jesus may have or may not have done. And who are we to say that it was not for that specific event which Jesus did so. Either way, the point is moot because as I said, alcohol consumption in moderation is fine, it is not ideal, but we do not live in an ideal world and never will!

Ok, ideals aside, do you feel that smoking pot in moderation is also "fine", in the same way as drinking alcohol in moderation is "fine"?

I agree. There are moral grayzones, and this is indeed where one needs to have some sort of internal moral compass, if you will, that directs them toward making the good decision. And this is why I believe moral relativism, as it is understood by most people, the premise that you think/do as you will and it is correct, I think/do as I will and that is correct, xxxo thinks/does as he wills and it is correct, etc. is bs and harmful to society. Again, I realize that there are many grayzones and there is no simple cookie cutter formula to solve these issues at all places and times. However, where does one draw the line and say no, this is not correct, it is not good, it is bad or even evil? And if you say this, where do you draw your inspiration for knowing something is good or bad/evil from?

I don't place a judgment of "correct"-ness or "incorrect"-ness on the non-uniformity of our actions and moral codes. You must find what is right for yourself, the layout of metaphysical truths you must abide by is your choice. Believing there is some exteriorized, universal law of what is good and bad, and advocating that all who don't abide by it are "harmful" to society and thus can be tallied to "bad" in your system of good/bad judgment is but one possible layout, one you have chosen, not because it is a provable law of the universe, but because those are the patterns you personally recognize as true of the universe. Building a community along common principles of what is good and bad can only truly happen if all its members recognize the same patterns in exactly the same way, and that is not the case in society. We constantly find members of it which do not agree with one another, whether in argument or action, about what is right, so instead, leaders impose what is right using manmade laws that can stand independently of our differences of opinion, and use a form of policing to ensure that the community abides by such principles.

Metaphysics may depend on the physical world in order to be understood just by those who see themselves as primarily material. And based on your questions above it seems you do or may believe that time and space do not exist separate from the mind. Am I correct? Also, since mankind is material, (except the soul), has been brought up to think materially, and furthermore, since the majority of the world, but especially Western World, has been dominated by the ideas of the materialistic philosophies dating from the Enlightenment, it is very hard to discuss metaphysics and take ourselves, the material selves, from the discussion. I'm reading up on Gurdjieff, both his work, and analysis of them, and I am slowly coming to the conclusion that it indeed is possible, but very difficult, to think of ourselves immaterially, and as multiple I's as Gurdjieff calls it.

Well, maybe you can help convince me to change my post-Enlightenment era materialistic thinking by explaining the concept of multiple I's as you understand it.

Well, if you have a gun or some other device that can kill another person, and this person has done no harm either to you nor anyone else, it would be evil to kill him. This stands true regardless of what era/time and place you find yourself.

You apply this standard to humans killing innocent humans. What about humans killing animals? Also, can animals killed by humans be innocent animals?

Relativism leads to apathy, which leads to horrors. So next time you see women being stoned for not wearing a hijab, or a man sexually abusing a child, just describe it, because you know, according to him, that is not immoral. As a people who have suffered Genocide not less than 100 years ago, the last thing we need to be is relative and apathetic.

Relativism doesn't need to lead to apathy. One can still believe in values and abide by them. Just because one accepts difference in others' conception of morality doesn't mean that they must leave thee actions and opinions of others unchallenged.

[Tali]

Re: My interesting philosophy...

Show me one serious religion or philosophy that says, it is ok to kill, rape, torture, steal, abuse, etc.

John Locke's "A Second Treatise on Government." Chapter 2.

[KanadaHye]

Re: My interesting philosophy...

In Christian theology, this is known as original sin. Whether you choose to believe it literally, the Garden of Eden story, or if you choose the esoteric route, that we all have the propensity to do great good, and great evil, is another question.

And colors are relative to one another as well. But when you see a yellow shirt, are you really going to explain it to me by saying it is mixture of other colors as well as its place on the color wavelength? Likewise, if you see a man steal anothers wallet, are you going to say to me, well he could have beat him to death before stealing it (that would be more evil), or he could have let the man know after he stolen the other man's newspaper instead (less evil). Whichever way you choose to describe it to me, the point will remian that what the theif did was wrong.

Original sin shifts the blame on our ancestors. So we are free from the guilt, or more correctly... we are cursed because of their actions.

Is doing what is right---> good and what is wrong---> evil? If a child isn't taught the difference between right and wrong and they do something wrong, they aren't evil, they are just innocent. Also, who decides what is right and what is wrong? What's right for someone might be wrong for someone else depending on the values they were raised with.