But what doesn’t change here is this:
The gap that still does exist between all of the things that we speculate about on all of the threads created here and the manner in which the conclusions arrived at either do or do not fit into the very ontological nature of existence itself.
Thus someone like James S. Saint can insist that regarding the “physics of psychology”, this…
…reflects what is true.
My point though is always to make that crucial distinction between what he believes here “in his head” to be true and what he can actually demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe “in their heads” in turn.
So, does he? Or, for that matter, do I myself in regard to my own contributions here?
We also do this by trying to learn about who we are, exploring our selves individually and our psyches, what makes us “tick” , what our relationships to others consist of and how we relate to others.
Yes, but to what extent is the philosopher then able to transcend the parts rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy? In other words, in order to arrive at a frame of mind said to reflect the optimal or the only rational understanding of human interactions that come into conflict over value judgments. And that is the part I zero in on.
With respect to issues like abortion there are any number of questions in which there clearly are answers. And the answers are apllicable to all of us. Again, the world of either/or.
Let alone provide answers to questions that revolve around the existential relationship between identity, value judgments and political economy.
It’s all a process. We turn on the light by discussion. How can one size fit all when we all come from different “places” but don’t we get closer to the truth when we begin to see shared ethical and moral values, and when we’re able to see the validity and right reason when it comes to some ethical and moral decisions - for instance the abortion issue? When it comes to human beings, can there actually be one absolute truth or can there only be a meeting of the minds, mutual agreement on what is considered to be valid and just reasonable?
But when we actually bring speculation like this down to earth and assess its applicibility/relevance to an issue like abortion, we soon bump into all of the conflicting renditions of what it means to “turn on the light”, to get “closer to the truth”, to share “valid and right reasons”.
That’s why I always advocate democracy and the rule of law [moderation, negotiation, comnpromise] over might makes right or right makes might. But that doesn’t make this…
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
…go away. So I come to places like ILP in order to explore the narratives of those who profess not to be entangled in it.
…once you come to believe that questions of this sort don’t have answers that are applicable to all, this increases your own options considerably. Why? Because your behaviors are not tied [re your “conscience”] to “doing the right thing”.
I’m not sure I grasp what you’re saying here. Can you elaborate a bit more and/or give me an example? Your statement kind of raises a red flag for me but since I’m not really sure what you’re speaking about, I’ll wait for you to explain.
It [u][b]should[/u][/b] raise a red flag! It basically revolves around the assumption that in a Godless universe human behaviors are “beyond good and evil”. Or, as someone once suggested, that, in the absence of God, all things are permitted. Why? Because all things can be rationalized.
And then there is the mentality of the sociopath. He starts with the assumption that in a Godless universe morality revolves solely around self-gratification.
All behaviors are then permitted providing that you don’t get caught doing something that others don’t approve of. And provided that if you are caught you are willing and able to endure the consequences – the punishments of those who do not subscribe to this frame of mind.
Or the nihilistic agenda of those who own and operate the global economy today. Doesn’t it basically revolve around 1] show me the money 2] what’s in it for me and 3] I’ve got mine, Jack.
What might seem “satisfactory” to me here and now is no less a particular frame of mind entangled existentially in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. Most folks however manage to convince themselves that when they feel that their own behaviors are “satisfactory” they are “for all practical purposes” close enough to having done the “right thing”.
But isn’t it true that we can only take a thing so far? We have taken the time to think things out, to weigh all the pros and cons, to see what consequences may come from going this way or that way, and when that bell goes off in our heads - a “yes”, we simply take that best path and then just let go. We are only human and we cannot foresee all the consequences. Random things happen but again we weigh all things conscientiously and then take the plunge.
Yes, but folks all along the political spectrum come to different – conflicting – conclusions regarding the part where the bell goes off. And the part where they find the right path.
Then what? Again, the option [as I see it] is generally a very, very complex intertwining of might makes right, right makes might and democracy.
There is an “ought” attached to means and an “ought” attached to ends.
By ought, do you mean what is necessary to do, what you must do, what you see fit to do?
Ought to because it is the right [moral, ethical] thing to do.
Thus:
Once you have managed to convince yourself of a particular end [it’s the right thing to do] then you just calulate what you ought to do in order to achieve it. That then precipitates titantic arguments about which particular ends justify which particular means. But at least most are certain of the ends involved.
That’s just not an option for me. Well, not “here and now”.
You asked the question: “How ought I to live”. Are you speaking of ethical questions here? That’s what I thought at first but now I’m not sure after having read the above. Are you speaking of anything that a person might desire to do, any path he may take to further his life?
Explain this to me a little further.
Okay, I’ll try. On other threads, mr reasonable and I would go back and forth about this very distinction.
He is convinced that playing the stock market is something that he ought to do because in playing the stock market it affords him the opportunity to live a particular lifestyle. Once that is settled “in his head” he can then focus on what he ought to do in order to be successful at it.
But others argue that playing the stock market is something which ethical men and women ought not to do. Why? Because it is linked to the capitalist political economy which they have come to conclude is an exploitative system that must be overthrown and replaced with something else. Socialism for example.
Very different “oughts”, right?
But it really comes down to the distinction that I always make between that which we believe to be true [or claim to know as true] “in our heads” and that which we are able in turn to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe.
It’s probably just me but I’m having difficulty seeing much of a distinction here. Can you shed more light on the above.
Take capital punishment.
Suppose you believe that Texas has executed more prisoners in recent years than any other state in the union. Is this true? Well, you can google it: mic.com/articles/51647/kimberly … .M4ODSzJ9U
And if you suspect that this is all [or mostly] fabricated there are any number of sources in the criminal justice system that you can go to in order to get the facts. And, given this, I’d suggest that all rational men and women are obligated to believe it.
But suppose you believe that capital punishment is wrong. That it is immoral and not reflective of a civilized people.
How would you go about demonstrating that all rational human beings are obligated to believe that it’s true?
Here you bump into this: deathpenalty.procon.org/view.res … eID=002000
Both sides accumulate particular political prejudices that, from my point of view, are largely rooted in dasein. They come to embody conflicting goods such that both sets of arguments can be deemed reasonable – given an initial set of assumptions.
Thus both sides make arguments that the arguments of the other side can’t and don’t and won’t make go away.
Finally, what counts out in the real world is which side has the actual power to enforce a particular moral/political agenda.
What do YOU mean here by “brought down to earth”?
That, with respect to the relationship between personal identity, value judgments and political power, any analysis accummulated by those who probe ethics philosophically must be integrated existentially into the world that we live in – a world in which conflicts over the relationship between “I” and “evil” and “politics” are everywhere.
I watched a movie the other night which brought home the question to me: "How ought I (or one) to live? It’s called Never Let Me Go. It was about children who were created to be genetically-engineered organ donors to serve their Originals, the ones which they were “cloned” after. It reminded me of nazi Germany.
I saw that movie too. In fact, I included my own reaction to it in my film thread:
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=179469&p=2366290&hilit=Mark+Romanek#p2366290
And, yes, most of us will react to it disapprovingly. Just as most of us will react to Nazi Germany disapprovingly. I know that I do. But I also have no illusions that this reaction is anything other than an existential contraption. There are, after all, many, many others who would not react disapprovingly at all.
Thus how would the philosophers go about constructing an argument able to demonstrate that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to react to either context in The Right Way?
My only point is that one way or the other it all appears to really be “beyond good and evil”.
That’s how I would sum the movie I saw. At the same time, there has to be some code by which we live, some way in which we could and would see the true horizon beyond good and evil. Peering through that ambiguity to make sense of what would cause the least harm and the greatest amount of good. We all have different answers to that.
My own reaction to “codes of behavior” is, first of all, to note all of the different renditions that have appeared over the centuries. And then to note that “serious philosophers” have yet to actually sink their analytic assessments into these conflicting and contradictory rituals, customs, folkways, mores, laws etc., in order to yank out a frame of mind that is able to be demonstrated as the optimal point of view.
And those that tried [like Kant] ever and always alluded to one or another transcendent moral font. Which most called God. Or “the Gods”.