back to the beginning: morality

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby aniceguy » Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:13 pm

bro i am serious look after yourself...have some whiskey, play with a dog or a cat...
aniceguy
Thinker
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:52 pm

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:48 pm

aniceguy wrote:bro i am serious look after yourself...have some whiskey, play with a dog or a cat...


And around we come full circle:

yap yap yap
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43721
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby aniceguy » Thu Oct 21, 2021 9:48 am

What are you even talking about lol you make zero sense
aniceguy
Thinker
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:52 pm

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Thu Oct 21, 2021 6:04 pm

aniceguy wrote:What are you even talking about lol you make zero sense


Okay, okay, you win:

CRAP! CRAP!! CRAP!!!



Note to SATIRE:

I'm begging you: TAKE HIM BACK!!!!
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43721
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby aniceguy » Thu Oct 21, 2021 7:10 pm

you are an old nutjob bro take your meds what does SHITTHYSELF or satyr have to do with anything right now???I take shits bigger than that whole forum, focus on yourself and your own shithouse.
aniceguy
Thinker
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:52 pm

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Thu Oct 21, 2021 7:42 pm

aniceguy wrote:you are an old nutjob bro take your meds what does SHITTHYSELF or satyr have to do with anything right now???I take shits bigger than that whole forum, focus on yourself and your own shithouse.


Pick one:

1] this is really clever
2] this is really insightful
3] this is really both
4] NONE OF THE ABOVE!!!!!



Extra credit:

What does any of this have to do with morality?

Seems rather childish to me. In fact, can you even imagine SATIRE allowing it at his own truly august venue KT?

On the other hand, there, in regard to morality and everything else, both polishyouth [I suspect] and I are met with this:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum



So, whatever we think of each other here [not much], at least we're not chickenshits.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43721
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby aniceguy » Thu Oct 21, 2021 7:51 pm

you are the same kind of chicken shit as the dickheads over there are because...you dont take people you disagree with seriously and you dont seriously allow for the possibility that they are right and you are wrong...and hence you simply dismiss these people and never even bother to take up a serious argument with them...just like the kook SATIRE and his puff side kick KVASIR.
aniceguy
Thinker
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:52 pm

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby aniceguy » Thu Oct 21, 2021 8:10 pm

anybody can pose as a genius if he simply runs away from real exchange and avoids having to show his true quality of mind and knowledge, any autistic dumbass can write pages of bizarre and seemingly deep and eloquent idiocies that sound and seem very intelligent and perceptive but it is when somebody comes and pushes a knife into your bullshit that is a deciding factor which either shows your real quality or reveals you as a pretentious and moronic charlatan with a giant chip on your shoulder or, alternatively, an insane kook spouting nonsense about philosophers you did not even bother to familiarise yourself in the most basic way and instead talking about them as some kind of mystery(the case with you)...somebody like the Bolshevik traitor from Canada simply runs away from every single intelligent person he comes across, bullies the fuck out of morons he comes across and then never stops bragging about them, to remind his homosexual buddies about his victories over them...
aniceguy
Thinker
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:52 pm

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Thu Oct 21, 2021 8:13 pm

a really really mean guy wrote:you are the same kind of chicken shit as the dickheads over there are because...you dont take people you disagree with seriously and you dont seriously allow for the possibility that they are right and you are wrong...and hence you simply dismiss these people and never even bother to take up a serious argument with them...just like the kook SATIRE and his puff side kick KVASIR.


Look, I've given you ample opportunity to be clever, insightful or both. So far, nothing even close.

And lines need be drawn.

Nail it on the next post or I'll be force to move on.


Nature to iambiguous:

You got that right.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43721
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby aniceguy » Thu Oct 21, 2021 9:28 pm

very simple and something you have ran from few times already: define, in your own words and without using being and dasein as words, what is dasein, in 5-20 sentences. my internet enemies tried to frame me as insane and angry lunatic, but this is a bullshit tactic that has no grounding in reality because there is no evidence on the internet of me being hostile to anybody who was not being a cunt to me...not one...the goonies want to pick fights with me and then cry that i do something about and, like typical Yank weaklings, turn the cat by its tail and play the victim and pathologize their opponent instead of simply doing their best to defeat him...
aniceguy
Thinker
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:52 pm

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:42 pm

Was Wittgenstein Wrong on Ethics?
Author: STUART W. MIRSKY
at the Serious Philosophy website

"Supposing that I could play tennis and one of you saw me playing and said 'Well, you play pretty badly' and suppose I answered 'I know, I'm playing pretty badly but I don't want to play any better,' all the other man could say would be 'Ah, then that's all right.' But suppose I had told one of you a preposterous lie and he came up to me and said, 'You're behaving like a beast' and then I were to say 'I know I behave badly, but then I don't want to behave any better,' could he then say 'Ah, then that's all right'? Certainly not; he would say 'Well, you ought to want to behave better.' Here you have an absolute judgment of value, whereas the first instance was one of relative judgment."

Ludwig Wittgenstein


There you go. What you ought to do when there are little or no consequences for others and what you ought to do when the consequences for others is considerably more significant. In the first context morality would seem moot. Playing tennis poorly or playing tennis well isn't likely to be seen as, say, a matter of life or death.

But in acting like a beast it can be. In the is/ought world there are any number of situations in which beastly behavior will be turned into a moral issue.

Now, as a moral nihilist, do I recognize this distinction? Sure. But I have thought myself into believing that in a No God world there is no necessary distinction. Some choose to be beasts [rooted in dasein] and there does not appear to be a philosophical argument able to encompass the distinction necessarily. It just then depends on whether any particular moral nihilist comes existentially to embody the behaviors of, say, a sociopath.

The ordinary uses of "good" he adds, have nothing to do with what it means to speak of being a good person. What seems to be at issue in that latter case is the application of some standard of goodness that presumes some thing, or things, that a person should do or be, that they are always good for persons without regard to any aim or objective we or they may have in mind. And here Wittgenstein finds the notion of goodness wanting.


Yes, and this "standard of goodness" changes over time historically, across the globe culturally, and, depending on the life any particular one of us as individual lives, can vary considerably for each of us.

That's why to me it would be interesting to note Wittgenstein's reactions to my own arguments regarding identity, value judgments and political economy. How wanting would he find them? Could he grasp and then empathize with the idea of being "fractured and fragmented" if the "good" is wanting enough.

Thus: Any Wittgensteinians here who what take it there?

There being here:

He offers only the possibility that what is thought good in this sense might be taken to be whatever a man finds to be good for himself in all cases, no matter what. But such things are a matter of personal inventory taking and must be highly personal to the individual, without any external standard that is applicable for all persons. Candidates he proposes for this type of goodness will be things like situations or conditions in which a person might feel utterly happy or content without reservation all of the times and in all the circumstances he has or can expect to experience such conditions, i.e., whatever is "absolute" for him will be so because of the way that person feels about it -- although there is no likelihood of generalizing such absoluteness to all.


Basically my point. The moral objectivist playing Kant. Only twisting it around such that everything that he or she feels is categorically and imperatively moral others are obligated to feel the same. In other words, instead of God being the font here the moral objectivist him or herself becomes the God.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43721
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby aniceguy » Tue Oct 26, 2021 5:03 pm

There you go. What you ought to do when there are little or no consequences for others and what you ought to do when the consequences for others is considerably more significant. In the first context morality would seem moot. Playing tennis poorly or playing tennis well isn't likely to be seen as, say, a matter of life or death.

But in acting like a beast it can be. In the is/ought world there are any number of situations in which beastly behavior will be turned into a moral issue.

Now, as a moral nihilist, do I recognize this distinction? Sure. But I have thought myself into believing that in a No God world there is no necessary distinction. Some choose to be beasts [rooted in dasein] and there does not appear to be a philosophical argument able to encompass the distinction necessarily. It just then depends on whether any particular moral nihilist comes existentially to embody the behaviors of, say, a sociopath.

reading this shit makes me think you are not much dumber than SATIRE, maybe when you were his age, you were actually sharper??? you denying morality is your own morality moron...morality is simply ones regulation of ones actions when they affect others and his/her belief in regards as what he should and should not do in this context. where do you get a god from? Christian morality is as valid as with or without God, if people accept it and Kants philosophical elaborations of what morality(or rather ethics or moral law) is and isn't aren't any less valid if you assume God exists or not...
aniceguy
Thinker
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:52 pm

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Tue Oct 26, 2021 6:23 pm

a mean mean mean guy wrote:reading this shit makes me think you are not much dumber than SATIRE, maybe when you were his age, you were actually sharper??? you denying morality is your own morality moron...morality is simply ones regulation of ones actions when they affect others and his/her belief in regards as what he should and should not do in this context. where do you get a god from? Christian morality is as valid as with or without God, if people accept it and Kants philosophical elaborations of what morality(or rather ethics or moral law) is and isn't aren't any less valid if you assume God exists or not...


Let's settle this:

Pick one...

1] Yap! Yap!! Yap!!!
2] Crap! Crap!! Crap!!!

Now, imagine this is a philosophical issue. You are obligated to choose the right answer or be deemed irrational.


Or, how about a moral/religious issue.

It's Judgment Day.

You are asked to choose one. But: if you choose the wrong one you go down instead of up.

A new thread perhaps?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43721
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby aniceguy » Tue Oct 26, 2021 6:38 pm

i am not gonna lower myself to a level of getting into petty fights with you you old fart, who the fuck do you think you are to limit the narrative as you like???the same old fart megalomania as the cunt SATIRE...you know the direction in which truth lies, others dont...
aniceguy
Thinker
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:52 pm

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Tue Oct 26, 2021 6:45 pm

a mean mean mean guy wrote:i am not gonna lower myself to a level of getting into petty fights with you you old fart


Let's settle this:

Pick one...

1] Yap! Yap!! Yap!!!
2] Crap! Crap!! Crap!!!

Now, imagine this is a philosophical issue. You are obligated to choose the right answer or be deemed irrational.


Or, how about a moral/religious issue.

It's Judgment Day.

You are asked to choose one. But: if you choose the wrong one you go down instead of up.



Then it's turtles all the way down.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43721
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby aniceguy » Tue Oct 26, 2021 6:48 pm

lol you are deranged
aniceguy
Thinker
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:52 pm

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Tue Oct 26, 2021 7:12 pm

a mean mean mean guy wrote:lol you are deranged


Let's settle this:

Pick one...

1] Yap! Yap!! Yap!!!
2] Crap! Crap!! Crap!!!

Now, imagine this is a philosophical issue. You are obligated to choose the right answer or be deemed irrational.


Or, how about a moral/religious issue.

It's Judgment Day.

You are asked to choose one. But: if you choose the wrong one you go down instead of up.



Then [for all I know] it's pinheads all the way down!!!
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43721
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby aniceguy » Tue Oct 26, 2021 7:53 pm

:o :-? :o :-? :-? :o :o
aniceguy
Thinker
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:52 pm

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Tue Nov 02, 2021 4:21 pm

Was Wittgenstein Wrong on Ethics?
Author: STUART W. MIRSKY
at the Serious Philosophy website

Ethical judgments, Wittgenstein suggests, have a quality of absoluteness to them, one that does not partake of one's particular goals, or objectives, which are themselves matters of fact and which thereby imply reasons that we might judge something to be better than something else. Ethical claims seem to demand adherence to a standard that is not entirely contingent on what we want or what the circumstances offer us, some reason or factor that makes them good in all cases, good in themselves.


In other words, the "psychology of objectivism". Ethical judgments must be absolute. Any suggestions that there might be variables "out there" that introduce even the slightest hint of ambiguity or uncertainty and the whole "world of words" intellectual contraption can come tumbling, crumbling down.

Goodness for it's own sake. Not what is good for you or me or us or them. That's morality for those mere mortals inside the cave. Instead, it must be a morality attached to God or defined into existence, say, Platonically.

The sort of morality you can think up by way of defining it into existence.

But there is no such state or condition, Wittgenstein says in his talk, that fills that condition of absoluteness -- although there are many bottom line experiences or states of affairs to which any of us might willingly assert what seems to us like an absolute commitment.


Again, that's why the "absolute" here must be -- can only be -- an intellectual contraption. That's the beauty of it. You think it up "in your head" and that need be as far as it goes.

So, when confronted with an actual existential context -- oh, I don't know, Mary agonizing over an unwanted pregnancy? -- it's not the theory that is brought down out of the intellectual clouds to Mary but Mary's agony itself yanked up into the didactic stratosphere of "theory". Indeed, Mary and her actual situation need not even be brought up at all.

We can go here instead:

"Six principal ethical philosophies can and should be used to analyze a situation. They are the categorical imperative, utilitarianism, hedonism, the golden mean, the golden rule, and the veil of ignorance. These are the principle theories that have survived from 2500 years of Western moral philosophy."

Mary who?

Speaking of such circumstances, in which we try to make "concrete" a notion of something that we take as absolutely good, he suggests:

". . . it is natural that I should recall cases in which I would certainly use these expressions [meaning 'absolute good' or what is said to have 'absolute value'] and I am then in the situation in which you would be if, for instance, I were to give you a lecture on the psychology of pleasure. What you would do then would be to try and recall some typical situation in which you always felt pleasure. For, bearing this situation in mind, all I should say to you would become concrete and, as it were, controllable. One man would perhaps choose as stock example the sensation when taking a walk on a fine summer's day. Now in this situation I am, if I want to fix my mind on what I mean by absolute or ethical value."


Of course that is basically my point in regard to dasein. And in particular "I" in the is/ought world.

I mean, who knows, Wittgenstein himself might even have "gotten" me.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43721
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Tue Nov 09, 2021 4:46 pm

Was Wittgenstein Wrong on Ethics?
Author: STUART W. MIRSKY
at the Serious Philosophy website

Wittgenstein here makes clear just what his conception of ethics, as it is done by philosophers, is: It's to discover whatever is so good that we cannot conceivably deny it and so will make it the object of all our actions, to obtain and preserve that goodness in ourselves.


Again: our conception of ethics.

And since these are often completely detached from the ofttimes grim, grimy reality of actual human interactions, we can "discover" that almost anything at all can be defined into existence as a good or a bad action. Wonderfully in sync with the notion that in the absence of God all things can be rationalized. And not just conceivably.

For example, what have you concluded to be conceivably moral. Or immoral.

But an ethics, which tries to explain and justify our behavioral choices as securing some absolutely good state or condition, must, he suggests, finally be an entirely personal matter, i.e., it must be about the relation of one's behaviors to one's own ultimate "goods." But, being so personal, there is nothing here, he thinks, to argue about, no, not even to discuss, because it is expressive of one's personal tastes as it were, even granting that some personal tastes may be superior in some unarticulable sense to some others (at least as some may feel about the things they acknowledge absolute commitment to).


And how is this not basically just another way of rooting faith in dasein? Your moral and spiritual narrative becomes absolute because it is basically predicated only on your own life...a life that leads up to what you believe because what else would it lead up to? Then it just becomes the extent to which you admit to yourself that it is but a leap of faith, or you go further and convince yourself that you believe it because it is in fact true. And if what you believe about God is unequivocally true then what you believe about your value judgments necessarily flows from that.

And since you cannot be inside the head of someone who thinks like this, what possible arguments could you come up with to change their minds. It's not impossible but highly unlikely. Especially given that the belief itself is more about how it makes you feel [comforted and consoled] than in how you are able to defend it "intellectually".

In his own case, he seems to reach for the religious attitude:

". . . in my case, it always happens that the idea of one particular experience presents itself to me which therefore is, in a sense, my experience par excellence . . . (As I have said before, this is an entirely personal matter and others would find other examples more striking.) I will describe this experience in order, if possible, to make you recall the same or similar experiences, so that we may have a common ground for our investigation."


There it is. You have your own personal experiences in connecting the dots between morality and immortality. Others may have more or less similar experiences but they never truly overlap such that you can intertwine them philosophically into an objective truth.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43721
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Wed Nov 17, 2021 5:02 pm

Was Wittgenstein Wrong on Ethics?
Author: STUART W. MIRSKY
at the Serious Philosophy website

Instead of picking out some rather mundane notion of happiness or even happiness as the state of being purely contemplative, as some philosophers have suggested and as we might ordinarily anticipate, he makes, instead, a spiritual reference:

"I believe the best way of describing it is to say that when I have it I wonder at the existence of the world. And I am then inclined to use such phrases as 'how extraordinary that anything should exist' or ‘how extraordinary that the world should exist."


And it's not just in regard to ethics that this frame of mind is entirely reasonable. Even the self in the either/or world is confronted with the sheer mind-boggling mystery of existence itself. It's just that when confronting moral conflagrations we are reminded that the extraordinary existence of matter has somehow culminated [on this planet] in minds able to think and feel and contemplate questions like this. And be confronted other minds doing the same in which, in regard to conflicting goods, there does not appear to way a way to know for certain what the most rational and virtuous of behaviors even are.

He goes on:

"I will mention another experience straight away which I also know and which others of you might be acquainted with: it is, what one might call, the experience of feeling absolutely safe. I mean the state of mind in which one is inclined to say 'I am safe, nothing can injure me whatever happens."

But, he reminds us, this is a feeling never borne out by reality for we are never as safe as all that, given our human condition. About these states or conditions in which we may find ourselves and in which he himself has found himself he adds:

"And there the first thing I have to say is, that the verbal expression which we give to these experiences is nonsense!"


In other words, the gap between words and worlds when we attempt to convey mental, emotional and psychological states that simply don't lend themselves to either/or conclusions. Safety is ever and always situated out in particular worlds that are always subject to any number of circumstantial combinations contained in a human condition ever subject in turn to contingency, chance and change.

Verbal expressions "in the moment" when the next moment or the moments down the road may be anything but the same.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43721
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby promethean75 » Wed Nov 17, 2021 5:04 pm

Where's the part about W tho?
promethean75
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5708
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm
Location: at the fringe with Novatore

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby promethean75 » Wed Nov 17, 2021 5:11 pm

Oh wait, those quotes are W's? Never seen that before. Read a lecture once where W said something along the lines of: 'no values exists in the world, and if they did, there would be no value to that fact.' Something like that anyway.
promethean75
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5708
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm
Location: at the fringe with Novatore

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Thu Nov 25, 2021 7:02 pm

Was Wittgenstein Wrong on Ethics?
Author: STUART W. MIRSKY
at the Serious Philosophy website

"And there the first thing I have to say is, that the verbal expression which we give to these experiences is nonsense!"

Here is his rejection of the ethical inquiry in a nutshell for he tells us it is, finally, about things which are without sense. There is no possibility, he suggests, of speaking meaningfully about such feelings, other than to assert that we have them, though we cannot put them into words which are readily intelligible to others.


And yet, come on, let's be blunt: it's a moot rejection.

And that is because even if one accepts that both ethical inquiries and speaking meaningful of them are essentially -- ontologically? teleologically? epistemologically? logically? -- nonsense and are ultimately unintelligible in communicating them to others, that doesn't make the real world go away.

Having ignored certain more mundane feelings of goodness (e.g., feeling contemplative, being in a general state of contentedness, etc., which some ancient philosophers had proposed as the right candidates for an ethical standard or objective to be aimed at), albeit without explicitly dismissing them (since he grants that some among his audience may have these as their "absolutes") he offers his personal candidates which, he is convinced, lack articulability because they seem to kick up in us contentless questions and assertions. These, he seems to suggest, are no more absolute than what others feel as absolute for themselves, though he does seem to believe that there is a great depth and admirablility to having such thoughts or feelings, even if we cannot talk meaningfully about what having them is like or involves. And this is part of his sense of their absoluteness, of course!


These?

We'll need a context of course. For, say, your own "these"?

In other words, in regard to your own "mundane feelings of goodness...e.g., feeling contemplative, being in a general state of contentedness, etc.," what should we all conclude is moral or immoral behavior in that particular context?

And even in regard to Wittgenstein's own "candidates" here, same thing: if you share his admiration for their great depth in human interactions how does that in itself translate into objective morality in this context?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43721
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby promethean75 » Thu Nov 25, 2021 8:22 pm

https://youtu.be/TDwMQqLfdjg

Here's what I think. W's non-cognitivist approach actually re-grounded ethics into an ordinary-language based philosophy, thereby saving ethics from the monolithic tyranny of systems like kantianism and Christianity.

Technically his concern was with logical consistency and meaningfulness, so his dispute is with cognitive objectivists who claim that ethical statements are 'truth-apt'... so that one might say that the statement 'he is a bad person' is a statement of fact just like 'the earth orbits the sun'.

What he did, (ludwig) wittingly or not, was demolish all prior moral systems from virtue-ethics to deontology to consequentialism, which, incidentally, are anachronisms of ancient ruling-class philosophy all the way back to Aristotle.

W was an ethical revolutionary who with comrade Rosa Lichtenstein, redefined morality and put it back into the environment of everyday, ordinary communal language, free of the metaphysical nonsense put together by traditional philosophers and theologians. Right. For Plato and Aristotle the 'good man' was the man who recognized the objectivity of 'virtue'... but the idea of 'virtue' was already laden with preconceived notions of what it meant for different people; virtue for the aristocrat was to rule... for a citizen, the modest role of obedience to the state and an acceptance of one's 'lot' in society. You see where this is going. With Kant, something similar; a priori 'imperatives' that must be followed for one to be moral.

The first thing the working classes need to be freed from are these institutions and ways of thinking about morality, so that the tyranny of the system can be defeated. Really, the whole vein from Plato to modern protestantism is laden with such restrictions.

In a word, W gave us courage to NOT behave ourselves, and to NOT be afraid of defying the hegemonic authority of the ruling-classes.

I don't think he knew he did this, tho. He didn't think of himself as a revolutionary, although his work absolutely strengthened the revolutionary cause, if only by accident.

The... uh, moral of the story, is that it is up to the working classes to change and redefine their way of life so that they may once again ground morality in ordinary-language and collective activity free of the class based antagonisms that traditional philosophy had created - beginning with those idiots in ancient Greece who thought they were hot shit and could order everybody around.
promethean75
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5708
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm
Location: at the fringe with Novatore

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users