In a wholly determined universe, we might think that we have volition, we might feel that we have volition. But, as with the remote control, we function solely within the laws of physics. Mind is just this mysterious matter that has somehow evolved [only as it ever could have evolved] to embody this illusion of choosing freely.
And now matter has evolved to the point where the minds of neuroscientists are compelled to discover how this works.
But: The only way they will come to understand why it works how it works is to discover the ontological nature of existence itself.
But, again: Whatever that might possibly mean.
In particular when we shift gears and explore the extent to which teleology is a factor too.
And, unlike the remote control, it does. Only it does so because it could not not have done otherwise. So it would seem this makes us both entirely different and entirely the same as mindless matter. Or the mindful matter of the shark and the octopus – they “choose” only as they have been programed genetically/instinctively/naturally to do so per the laws of matter embodied in the evolution of life on earth. Of which we are just the most recent incarnation.
But they are no less compelled to believe this, right? We get what we want or intend, but only because we are compelled to want and intend this instead of that.
If I am stuck because I fail to think this through properly, I am either able to freely choose to think it through in another way [the right way], or I am not. And, if I am not, that was never going to change.
But both aspects – in an enormously complex interplay of variables – are inherently intertwined organically [historically, culturally, experientially] in any particular community out in any particular world. To subsist and then to sustain the community, rules of behavior are vital, necessary. Our emotional reactions however are just one more manifestation of this in the mind of any particular individual in any particular context.
And it is here that I introduce the components of my own assessment: dasein, confliicting goods, political economy.
For me “conscience” is mindful matter that intertwines nature and nurture, id and ego, instinct and reason, consciousness, subconsciousness and unconsciousness, into a frame of mind such that, unlike any other matter before it, is able to make that mysterious leap from the world of either/or to the world of is/ought. If, in fact, even that is not just an illusion in a wholly determined world.
And this part…
“…there are feelings that arise ‘in the moment’ --senses of right and wrong, of guilt or sympathy–that, at least in my case, so happen to coincide with what most people call ‘moral’ and ‘immoral’”.
…is [for me] just subsumed in this part…
Yes, but, again, the actual guilt that I feel is just the embodiment of dasein. Had the variables in my life been very different – had, for example, I not been drafted and sent to Vietnam – I may well have never felt this guilt at all. Or I may well have felt inspired to hurt rather than help this person.
In other words…
Yes, but I always interject here to point out the crucial distinction between that which can be assessed as either true or false, and that which we believe “in our head” to be either one or the other but which we are not able to demonstrate empirically, materially [out in the world of human interactions that come into conflict] that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.
And that is the difference between the worlds encompassed by mathematics, science and logic and the worlds embodied instead in human value judgments, identity and political economy.
On the contrary, what I do here is to note the angst that I construe as being embodied in 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.
…and probe the narratives of those who argue that their own behaviors are not.
It is only to the extent that they come instead to see my own arguments as more reasonable that they are ever likely to feel this angst.
And yet, paradoxically, being entangled in my dilemma can also precipitate a liberating frame of mind. Why? Because to the extent that you are convinced that morality is just an existential contraption, is the extent to which you are not anchored to “doing the right thing”.
On the other hand, that is just right around the corner from the narcissistic sociopath isn’t it? With moral nihilism, you can go in either direction: might makes right or democracy [moderation, negotation, compromise].
With the objectivists, on the other hand, they start out with one or another rendition of right makes might.
All I can do here is to point out the many times in the past that I was in fact unable to dismiss the arguments of others – and found myself abandoning Christianity for one or another new objectivist frame of mind: Objectivism, Marxism, Trotskyism, democratic socialism, social democracy, liberalism.
And, come on, how could you ever possibly be certain that I don’t allow myself the opportunity to be persuaded by others?
You would have to be inside my head “here and now” and know with a degree of certainty what my motivations and intentions actually are. And “I” will be the first to admit that I don’t even know that for sure myself.
I don’t have to be persauded [nudged] that two chickens plus two more chickens equals four chickens. That is true objectively for all of us.
But suppose someone tries to persuade [nudge] me into believing that eating the chickens is immoral.
Unless I am misunderstanding your point here.
But what does this sort of “analysis” have to do with an actual particular abortion out in a particular context out in a particular world? The pro-choice folks come up with their incredibly easy answer and the pro-life folks then parry with their own.
Then what?
And how are the answers that they come up with any less embedded existentially in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?
Again, I can only assume that I am not really understanding your point.
Yes, Turd – like Satyr/Lyssa, James S. Saint, Jacob, AutSider, uccisore etc etc etc – is a run of the mill moral/political objectivist. And some of these folks stick God in there somewhere and some don’t.
But it still always comes down to the extent to which they are able to force their own moral agendas on others “out in the world” by acquiring the capacity to enforce particular laws and political agendas.
What they might think [in their head] about “morality” here at ILP is of little or no consequence to/for the rest of us, right?
And [from my frame of mind] the extent to which they cannot persuade me that their own value judgments are not subsumed in the manner in which I have come to understand the existential realtionship between identity, morality and power is the extent to which I am not likely to be “nudged” more in their own direction.
Sure, I will readily acknowledge that you are conveying something important that is just not within my grasp here and now. Or, on the other hand, I am conveying to you something equally important if elusive.
But it is as though you are arguing that the reason we choose to adopt various personas in our interactions with others – the games that we play – is what creates the interactions in the first place. As though to suggest that the reason the dominos topple over as they do is in order to create the design/pattern that we see on the floor.
“I” am a player but the play unfolds only as it ever could have. And then we discuss the extent to which the part that I play in it is a “delusion”.
To speak of something as reasonable is to suggest that it might have been spoken of in an unreasonable manner. But if it is spoken only as it ever could have been spoken then the idea of an unreasonable utterance seems, well, silly?