whilst watching the nationalism on tv yesterday (queen’s jubilee - for those non-uk domiciles), the person sitting next to me made a comment relating to the ‘rainbow of wishes’ parade, and a little picture of a mercedes sign, which the person next to me thought was meant to be the cnd sign (campaign for nuclear disarmament). i made a fleeting comment about the cnd, and bertrand russel, and the reaction from this person next to me was (to my experience) extreme and unnecessary.
it dawned on me later in the day- who is a philosopher, who are my ubermen and uberwomen. and the distinction became very clear.
such people are those whose beliefs are separated from their assumptions.
for example, one assumpition of mine is that conflict is a bad thing. and my belief that follows on from that is a belief in liberalism. (a bit general, i know).
one belief my mother has (one that i share) is that cassiobury park is beautiful and fascinating in the summer. you could say this is based on the assumption that creation and movement are goods things, and also the assumptions that she has concerning the change in seasons, and the following change in the nature of nature.
i know that this idea can be easily wittgensteined. but his philosophy of language, linking elements of language with the elements of the world, is a philosophy which is all but inaccessible to those who don’t actively ‘do’ philosophy.
as with before, and my own theory on perfection as an extension of socialism (see ‘perfect world’, on phil. forum), the way of aiming for perfection for all people was by (somehow) encouraging people to see the world, from birth to death, in terms of perfect or imperfect, instead of good and evil. this was supposed to persuade people to look at themselves a bit harder, and hence not develop a perfection, a realisation of their own personality, which dominates over that of another person. it’s marxism but not so obsessed with money, property and class.
the advantage of the belief/assumption axis, is that unlike the perfect/imperfect one, it is clear, understandable, and not requiring the ability to read a stuffy, incomprehensible thesis. also belief/assumption mean what they say, unlike perfect/imperfect, where not only are the definitions fluid, but an idea of motion, movement, progression is needed for a full and sincere understanding of the concept.
what do you all think out there? am i waffling? it certainly makes sense to me.
(assumption - belief) does not = (good - evil) or (right - wrong) but
(assumption - belief) = (good - what is my ‘objective’) or (good - right, but potentially wrong).
the advantage over perfect/imperfect being that the idea of movement, and progression is included by stealth.
?