My point is that a value judgment, relating either to moral and political issues or to personal likes and dislikes, is rooted by and large in dasein.
Or, rather, the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein “here and now”.
It’s just that with some particular propensities, there is very little in the way of conflicting goods. And one is able to pursue the things they like [like music] with litle or no fear that the political power of others will come into play.
Each individual context is entirely unique from different points of view.
Thus when you note…
…my reaction is that, yes, given the particular trajectories of particular lives some will find themselves predisposed toward the conservative/rightist narrative, others the liberal/leftist narrative.
They are both able to make points that the other side is not able to simply dismiss. It all comes down to the initial assumptions one makes about “the human condition”. But how is this not in turn embedded existentially in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts ever and always evolving of time given the persistence of contingency, chance and change.
My point is always that there does not appear to be a way, using the tools of philosophy, to pin down that which it is said that all truly rational human beings are obligated to think and feel about all of this.
Philosophy is not mathematics in that it cannot be objectively demonstrated to the satisfaction of absolutely everyone
There are always going to be alternatives to any proposition so universal agreement is virtually impossible to guarantee
when you’re involved in a very serious and urgent political battle for the hearts and minds of the people, you gotta propagandize everything, including art. it’s especially because jazz music is relaxed, playfully experimental, quick and free spirited that it was condemned by these parties. these folks were too rigid to understand jazz and tried everything they could to demean it. even went so far as to say some silly shit like jazz has racially inferior origins. but that’s not how it works. the logic of music is already present and waiting to be realized by whoever happens to be in the right circumstances to discover it. had historical circumstances been different, the eskimos may have been the first people to recognize the language of jazz.
anyway jazz critics aren’t telling us anything other than: damn this music is difficult and i’m too much of a dummy to comprehend it, so it sucks. it’s a lack of loftiness of spirit and quickness of feet. the free flow of the improvisation requires greater speed and dexterity than perhaps any other genre of music, save some stuff from the classical period. jazz critics are simply dull. a different kind of listener who is unable to hear a more sophisticated language.
lounge jazz, on the other hand, is absolute bourgeois garbage …
Well, in regard to the either/or world – things that seem to in fact be true for all of us – the tools of philosophy hold their own with the tools of science.
Something is either noted logically and rationally regarding a thing that we can know or it’s not. And this can then be demonstrated one way or the other.
At least until we go down really deep and explore what actually does unfold regarding the interaction of human biology, human perceptions, human conceptions and human behaviors. How they all fit together…ontologically? Teleologically?
My aim on this thread is always to distinguish between [b][u]I[/b][/u] in the either/or world and “i’” in the is/ought world.
It is in the is/ought world that the components of my own moral philosophy – nihilism – kick in.
But: as no more than an existential contraption. Which I then presume is apllicable to others as well.
The Jews were the first to encode ethics and connect them to an abstraction they called ‘god’, making the enforcement of these collective rules of conduct a personal matter of conscience.
They weaponized shame and guilt, they did not invent them, as many Degenerates want to believe.
This made neurosis inevitable - see Ecmandu.
Shame and guilt broke him.
Shattered him to pieces.
Law is made for the human individual, not the individual made for the law.
According to the Unified Theory of Ethics, the only obligation we have is to be good and to do good.
To be good one is to be so devoted to ethics as to develop a good positive moral character, with all that implies, and to form habits that put those character traits into practice.
Then, should an emergency arise, the good habits take over. And then one tends to do ‘the right thing.’
The rights we have are spelled out in The U.S. Constitution, in the United Nations Charter, and in Franklin Roosevelt’s “Second Bil of Rights.” {Study all three}!!
]Also we have a right to Autonomy and to Liberty, and to Social Justice …with all that implies. With each right goes a corresponding responsibility.
That is some of what the Unified Theory teaches: we are to deeply devote ourselves to Ethics/Morality, and to educate and sensitize our conscience to it. Then we won’t go wrong - or will be less likely to do so. (As to what is meant by that, see the References listed below, become familiar with their contents; thus know WHY you are ethical, as ell as knowing-how.
Insofar as our relationship to government, we are to be civic-minded, to stay as well-informed as possible, to be sure to exercise our franchise to vote; and to vote ONLY for those we can have some confidence in that they share our values - our moral principles and standards …or at least some of those standards. (Be sure to check out the thread by Yours Truly, which claims to spell out what is an accurate description of “a good government” at the Forum on Government, Politics, and Economics.)
Law is made for the human individual, not the individual made for the law.
According to the Unified Theory of Ethics, the only obligation we have is to be good and to do good.
To be good one is to be so devoted to ethics as to develop a good positive moral character, with all that implies, and to form habits that put those character traits into practice.
Then, should an emergency arise, the good habits take over. And then one tends to do ‘the right thing.’
The rights we have are spelled out in The U.S. Constitution, in the United Nations Charter, and in Franklin Roosevelt’s “Second Bil of Rights.” {Study all three}!!
]Also we have a right to Autonomy and to Liberty, and to Social Justice …with all that implies. With each right goes a corresponding responsibility.
That is some of what the Unified Theory teaches: we are to deeply devote ourselves to Ethics/Morality, and to educate and sensitize our conscience to it. Then we won’t go wrong - or will be less likely to do so. (As to what is meant by that, see the References listed below, become familiar with their contents; thus know WHY you are ethical, as ell as knowing-how.
Insofar as our relationship to government, we are to be civic-minded, to stay as well-informed as possible, to be sure to exercise our franchise to vote; and to vote ONLY for those we can have some confidence in that they share our values - our moral principles and standards …or at least some of those standards.
You may wonder: What is a good government?
When the science of Ethics is applied to political theory we arrive at this description of the concept “a good government”:
A good government is one which continuously improves the quality-of-life of its citizens, and facilitates the inhabitants in its jurisdiction to help one another; it especially encourages them to have a concern for the less-fortunate among us, and to give them a helping hand to rise up a rung, or a step up, on “the ladder of opportunity.”
In other words, we are to teach the less-fortunate your ‘success secrets.’ And a good government would help us to do that.
If we have a skill in an area that is useful to society then we are to give the less-fortunate tutoring ad training in that area if they show an interest in it, and are willing to apply themselves to it. And a good govt. would facilitate in some way our doing just that …maybe by compensating us for our time spent in the training. In this way we would relieve poverty.
The ultimate good govt. aim is to acquire a very-democratic, waste-free, and a scarcity-free social order. A social order that is not only efficient but also effective …one which cares about people, values them highly, and lifts them up. The use of referendum questions - ballot initiatives - to determine policy would be used much more widely than it is at present.
“Law is made for the human individual, not the individual made for the law.”