meta-ethics Branch of philosophical ethics concerned with the meaning of moral propositions and the grounds upon which moral judgments are to be justified. Meta-ethical theories typically offer an account of moral language and its uses together with an explanation of the logical relations between assertions of fact and value. from http://www.philosophypages.com/
For me, the addition of the prefix meta- to virtually any word is always going to cause a lot of excitement. It presupposes that we will be transported from the everyday world to take up at least a temporary residence in a far more interesting realm that exists beyond the appearance of the humdrum life of our daily routine.
I would like to live there forever.
Meta-ethics is an enormously important subject. One might even say THE most important of all branches (or meta-branches) of philosophy.
For how many times every day, every hour, every second, do we see two or more fools arguing about what is good, what is bad, what is right, what is wrong, and never realizing that their entire discussion is utterly futile. Why is it futile?
Because they have not taken the trouble to notice that each of them has a different interpretation of those words, good, bad, right, wrong, and so they will perpetually be, by definition, arguing at cross purposes. Their arguments will never meet, they will never engage.
However, this foregoing fact is not always enough to prevent the disputants from engaging, in the sense that they come to blows over their absurd excuses for argued debate. And we've seen that happen often enough too.
We are of course not talking here about politicians, who are nearly all crooks, and of whom the majority (close to all of them) are beneath contempt. At least we are talking about people who have some measure of sincerity, albeit of the foolish kind.
Notice how we gave simple words as the examples - good, bad, right, wrong. People mistakenly believe it to be the complicated words that give trouble, but this is not so. In fact, it is almost always the simple words that give trouble in this context, because everyone believes they know what those words mean.
Even if, all too frequently, they don't.
Nature or Idealism
I had been involved in many distractions, and was either unable or let's just say reluctant to write. School has of course taken up a great deal of time and of attention but there have been some adventures also. Perhaps I will get around to relating some of them at some later time, but not now I think.
It really is a question of how the writing goes when once it begins. With this kind of writing exercise or should I say project, one never knows at the beginning how it will turn out in the end. Decisions are made as and when they occur. For example, I have just been thinking that it might be a good idea to avoid as much as possible the use of punctuation, which tends to interrupt the flow of the message, and lead to a jerky prose style. However, naturally, one should never deliberately flout the rules of good grammatical style for a mere idea.
This leads on to the main point of this article. The conflict between nature and idealism. As many of you will know, I am a firm believer in nature over idealism. Of course, this needs to be explained, and again, of course, this is partly what this blog is all about, in its totality.
The reason it needs to be explained is because the words nature and idealism have almost as many different meanings as the number of people who use them. Fortunately however, there are not too many people who actually do use such words, because most people do not think. I mean they do not think at all. They react, they do as they are told, they follow the herd. This is an observable fact.
Back to the dichotomy. Nature/idealism. Actually, some one might argue that instead of nature it should be named naturalism, but I hate that word, I detest it. So nature/idealism. Now those readers who have any kind of background in the religions which revere the Book, that is, the Bible, as it's often called, will be aware that the foundational creation myth in that tradition is that of a Garden, wherein mankind, embodied in the persons of Adam and Eve, lived a life of pure joy and simplicity and innocence in a beautiful natural garden that was tended and cared for by God. However this was not to last, because of the introduction of ideas. Their idealism, their belief that they could think for themselves, their independence was what caused all the problems that came later. So mankind's idealism is the cause of all the world's woes. The placing of an idea above the teachings of nature.
As Europe descends once again into civil war, this time maybe the last and most enduring one of all, and America is on the brink of ceasing to exist as a nation, and these things happening as a result of the crass incompetence, treachery and stupidity of politicians in what are fondly believed to be "democratic" countries, it is a legitimate question to ask, is it not now time for each and every person to make the decision in their own life to return to nature, and to abandon once and for all the destructive adherence to ideas and ideologies which has led us to the situation we now are in.
It really is a question of how the writing goes when once it begins. With this kind of writing exercise or should I say project, one never knows at the beginning how it will turn out in the end. Decisions are made as and when they occur. For example, I have just been thinking that it might be a good idea to avoid as much as possible the use of punctuation, which tends to interrupt the flow of the message, and lead to a jerky prose style. However, naturally, one should never deliberately flout the rules of good grammatical style for a mere idea.
This leads on to the main point of this article. The conflict between nature and idealism. As many of you will know, I am a firm believer in nature over idealism. Of course, this needs to be explained, and again, of course, this is partly what this blog is all about, in its totality.
The reason it needs to be explained is because the words nature and idealism have almost as many different meanings as the number of people who use them. Fortunately however, there are not too many people who actually do use such words, because most people do not think. I mean they do not think at all. They react, they do as they are told, they follow the herd. This is an observable fact.
Back to the dichotomy. Nature/idealism. Actually, some one might argue that instead of nature it should be named naturalism, but I hate that word, I detest it. So nature/idealism. Now those readers who have any kind of background in the religions which revere the Book, that is, the Bible, as it's often called, will be aware that the foundational creation myth in that tradition is that of a Garden, wherein mankind, embodied in the persons of Adam and Eve, lived a life of pure joy and simplicity and innocence in a beautiful natural garden that was tended and cared for by God. However this was not to last, because of the introduction of ideas. Their idealism, their belief that they could think for themselves, their independence was what caused all the problems that came later. So mankind's idealism is the cause of all the world's woes. The placing of an idea above the teachings of nature.
As Europe descends once again into civil war, this time maybe the last and most enduring one of all, and America is on the brink of ceasing to exist as a nation, and these things happening as a result of the crass incompetence, treachery and stupidity of politicians in what are fondly believed to be "democratic" countries, it is a legitimate question to ask, is it not now time for each and every person to make the decision in their own life to return to nature, and to abandon once and for all the destructive adherence to ideas and ideologies which has led us to the situation we now are in.
Freedom of Choice - Does It Exist?
I was asked to write something about the subject of "Freedom of Choice." I have taken rather a long time to get around to doing it, though, so I guess the original request is now forgotten, but here it is anyway.
This whole question of Free Will and Determinism has been discussed many times throughout the centuries since it was first debated and codified by the great philosophers of Ancient Greece. So I won't waste time rehearsing the different arguments pro and con. These can easily be found by googling Free Will Determinism. All I will say is that I believe the Ancient Greek thinkers were wrong since they based their argument on a false premise. No, I need to change that. The Ancient Greeks were not wrong, since they were talking about the appearance of things (how it seems to us that things are) but those who followed the ancients, who interpreted their thinking, are the ones who got it wrong, and distorted the sublime Greek view into the mundane "flat-earth" reduction that we have today as our basis for our viewpoint of reality. It is this distortion which causes the pathological problems which are all too often the accompaniment to any examination of the debate, and indeed many or even most of the ills of our society (wars, economic disasters etc) are the result of this wrong-headed thinking about free will.
In one sense, then, there is and can never be any free will. By the same token, there can never be any determinism either. It's like when you see a character in a play on stage or in a movie. The character appears to have free will, as he or she makes choices, but in reality the character's choices and words and actions are completely fixed and determined beforehand by the writer of the script. Every time the play or movie is run, the words are the same.
So there is no free will, only determinism? No, because the choices have been made by the writer. The character has their every move determined by the writer, and the character is in a sense, a projection of the writer. The writer is wearing a mask. This is the persona. The mask is assumed by the writer, who thus creates his/her own reality.
Thus, everything that we do or be or are, is the determined result of our own free choices. But it is only a cause of confusion when or if we ourselves absurdly to choose to confuse the ego self (the persona) with our real self (our inner being).
This whole question of Free Will and Determinism has been discussed many times throughout the centuries since it was first debated and codified by the great philosophers of Ancient Greece. So I won't waste time rehearsing the different arguments pro and con. These can easily be found by googling Free Will Determinism. All I will say is that I believe the Ancient Greek thinkers were wrong since they based their argument on a false premise. No, I need to change that. The Ancient Greeks were not wrong, since they were talking about the appearance of things (how it seems to us that things are) but those who followed the ancients, who interpreted their thinking, are the ones who got it wrong, and distorted the sublime Greek view into the mundane "flat-earth" reduction that we have today as our basis for our viewpoint of reality. It is this distortion which causes the pathological problems which are all too often the accompaniment to any examination of the debate, and indeed many or even most of the ills of our society (wars, economic disasters etc) are the result of this wrong-headed thinking about free will.
In one sense, then, there is and can never be any free will. By the same token, there can never be any determinism either. It's like when you see a character in a play on stage or in a movie. The character appears to have free will, as he or she makes choices, but in reality the character's choices and words and actions are completely fixed and determined beforehand by the writer of the script. Every time the play or movie is run, the words are the same.
So there is no free will, only determinism? No, because the choices have been made by the writer. The character has their every move determined by the writer, and the character is in a sense, a projection of the writer. The writer is wearing a mask. This is the persona. The mask is assumed by the writer, who thus creates his/her own reality.
Thus, everything that we do or be or are, is the determined result of our own free choices. But it is only a cause of confusion when or if we ourselves absurdly to choose to confuse the ego self (the persona) with our real self (our inner being).
Comments in Chinese
I've been getting quite a few comments on this blog recently that are written in Chinese. This seems strange to me, because the blog posts are written of course in English, so you would expect the comments to be posted in the same language.
Not that I mind really. People are entitled to post in any language they want, so I don't wish to curtail that freedom. It just seems odd.
Presumably whoever it is doing the commenting is able to read English, so it begs the question of why they don't comment in kind.
Am I missing something?
I could put it into Google Translate, but I can't really be bothered. Besides, the experiences I've had in translating Chinese into English have usually left me feeling none the wiser for taking the trouble. I'm told that the Chinese language is somewhat pictorial, and the rendering in English looks very strange.
Is it spam? Maybe...
Not that I mind really. People are entitled to post in any language they want, so I don't wish to curtail that freedom. It just seems odd.
Presumably whoever it is doing the commenting is able to read English, so it begs the question of why they don't comment in kind.
Am I missing something?
I could put it into Google Translate, but I can't really be bothered. Besides, the experiences I've had in translating Chinese into English have usually left me feeling none the wiser for taking the trouble. I'm told that the Chinese language is somewhat pictorial, and the rendering in English looks very strange.
Is it spam? Maybe...
The Power of Authority
Many of us do not have a clue what to think.
Not so very long ago there was a widespread belief that the Moon was made of green cheese. Then this was dispelled when American astronauts went there, at enormous expense, and brought back some rock. So we believed that it was not made of green cheese after all, but of rock. Because they brought the rock back, that was a proof.
Simple, isn't it?
Well, not quite. I don't know about you, but I've never actually seen the rocks they brought back with them. I've seen pictures of them. That's not quite the same thing, is it? And even if I did see them, how do I know that these rocks I see were in fact the ones that came from the Moon? Or even that there were any at all?
This brings us to the Power of Authority. You could ask, why should I disbelieve that the rocks are real? Well of course, they are real rocks, but the question is, are they real moonrocks? Perhaps I should not disbelieve they are real. After all, they were brought back by NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, a respectable organisation of the United States government. They would not lie to me, would they? Why should they lie?
This argument is very powerful. Why indeed should I be skeptical? The scientists at NASA have a professional duty to tell the truth about their findings, so why should they lie?
But I think we now see that the situation is not as simple as we may have imagined. Because my acceptance that the rocks in question actually came from the Moon, hinges on one thing only. My trust in the organisation NASA and its team of scientists. Their integrity. Only on belief and trust, not on proof in any rigorous sense of that word.
Nothing has been proved to me by science. I have not been given access to the Moon rock, to conduct any analyses of it. And most of us would be unable to perform any analysis even if we had. So we accept the authority of the scientists.
Accepting the authority of the government and of the scientific community is something that we are all constrained to do, for that reason. And it works fine, doesn't it?
Until we find out that those authorities have told us even so little as only one lie.
As soon as that happens, then everything the government and the acientists have told us is thrown into doubt. The Power of Authority is lost.
Not so very long ago there was a widespread belief that the Moon was made of green cheese. Then this was dispelled when American astronauts went there, at enormous expense, and brought back some rock. So we believed that it was not made of green cheese after all, but of rock. Because they brought the rock back, that was a proof.
Simple, isn't it?
Well, not quite. I don't know about you, but I've never actually seen the rocks they brought back with them. I've seen pictures of them. That's not quite the same thing, is it? And even if I did see them, how do I know that these rocks I see were in fact the ones that came from the Moon? Or even that there were any at all?
This brings us to the Power of Authority. You could ask, why should I disbelieve that the rocks are real? Well of course, they are real rocks, but the question is, are they real moonrocks? Perhaps I should not disbelieve they are real. After all, they were brought back by NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, a respectable organisation of the United States government. They would not lie to me, would they? Why should they lie?
This argument is very powerful. Why indeed should I be skeptical? The scientists at NASA have a professional duty to tell the truth about their findings, so why should they lie?
But I think we now see that the situation is not as simple as we may have imagined. Because my acceptance that the rocks in question actually came from the Moon, hinges on one thing only. My trust in the organisation NASA and its team of scientists. Their integrity. Only on belief and trust, not on proof in any rigorous sense of that word.
Nothing has been proved to me by science. I have not been given access to the Moon rock, to conduct any analyses of it. And most of us would be unable to perform any analysis even if we had. So we accept the authority of the scientists.
Accepting the authority of the government and of the scientific community is something that we are all constrained to do, for that reason. And it works fine, doesn't it?
Until we find out that those authorities have told us even so little as only one lie.
As soon as that happens, then everything the government and the acientists have told us is thrown into doubt. The Power of Authority is lost.
The Decline of Religion in the West - Should We Be Worrying About It?
Anyway, to the actual discussion of a religious theme.
I was struck recently by a discussion, or more accurately, a whole raft of discussions of the type which surface from time to time, in which some people were lamenting the decline in the moral compass and the ethical leadership of the church (or Church, depending on how you want to describe it).
The argument goes that, at least in the West, the breakdown of social and moral values is a result of the failure of the church, not only to keep its congregations in their seats, but also to offer clear guidelines of behaviour etc to the ignorant populace (that's us) based on the revealed truths of scripture and the wisdom handed down by tradition.
It's a great shame the church does not get its act together, because if it did, there would not be so much trouble in the world.
According to another school of thought, there is a slightly massive flaw in the above argument.
If we suppose God to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all those other all-things that have been attributed in the past, then, in one sense, it doesn't matter at all what we do or think or say, because it will all work its way into God's Divine Plan anyway. And even if it didn't, at any point in history, God can simply say, "Right OK, that's enough. Stop whatever you're doing, because from now on, we're doing it my way!"
So there's no mileage to be gained in worrying about declining congregations or declining moral values in society, since it's not up to us anyway. The True Believer, then, can just get on with the business of rejoicing about the fact that, however things may look, the world we see is the absolute perfection of the best of all possible worlds.
Followers of the first view would respond that maybe that is so, but that's not what God intended us to do at all. We're supposed to work towards bringing about the Kingdom of Heaven through the exercise of our own free will, and if that means we have to worry a bit, that's just the way things are.
Of these two factions, I have to say I lean rather towards the second one (don't worry about it), but only because I enjoy just having a good time rather than getting into a major stress all the time. But I do accept that's not a particularly defensible philosophical viewpoint.
As to which one of the above two factions is correct, I don't really have a clue, so I'll leave it for you to decide.
I was struck recently by a discussion, or more accurately, a whole raft of discussions of the type which surface from time to time, in which some people were lamenting the decline in the moral compass and the ethical leadership of the church (or Church, depending on how you want to describe it).
The argument goes that, at least in the West, the breakdown of social and moral values is a result of the failure of the church, not only to keep its congregations in their seats, but also to offer clear guidelines of behaviour etc to the ignorant populace (that's us) based on the revealed truths of scripture and the wisdom handed down by tradition.
It's a great shame the church does not get its act together, because if it did, there would not be so much trouble in the world.
According to another school of thought, there is a slightly massive flaw in the above argument.
If we suppose God to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all those other all-things that have been attributed in the past, then, in one sense, it doesn't matter at all what we do or think or say, because it will all work its way into God's Divine Plan anyway. And even if it didn't, at any point in history, God can simply say, "Right OK, that's enough. Stop whatever you're doing, because from now on, we're doing it my way!"
So there's no mileage to be gained in worrying about declining congregations or declining moral values in society, since it's not up to us anyway. The True Believer, then, can just get on with the business of rejoicing about the fact that, however things may look, the world we see is the absolute perfection of the best of all possible worlds.
Followers of the first view would respond that maybe that is so, but that's not what God intended us to do at all. We're supposed to work towards bringing about the Kingdom of Heaven through the exercise of our own free will, and if that means we have to worry a bit, that's just the way things are.
Of these two factions, I have to say I lean rather towards the second one (don't worry about it), but only because I enjoy just having a good time rather than getting into a major stress all the time. But I do accept that's not a particularly defensible philosophical viewpoint.
As to which one of the above two factions is correct, I don't really have a clue, so I'll leave it for you to decide.
Philosophy of Religion - Meta-Discussion Following Extreme Hibernation
The Official Line is that I've been hibernating, in case you wanted to know. And yes, I know that the -hiber- part of the word hibernating gives the unmistakable clue that it takes place in the winter, and it's now well and truly into spring, at least in my part of the world.
I guess I'm just a late riser.
Hope you all didn't miss me too much. And if you did, well, your waiting is now at an end. I'm writing again. As to how long I'll continue to write... that's, as they say, in the lap of the gods.
Speaking of which, and as it's almost Easter Day, I thought I would have another go at a religious theme for a blog post.
I have to say that I approach this task with a deal of trepidation, because the last time I tried this, I found myself in the centre of a massive storm debate on BlogCatalog where there was lots of ranting and raving (not, I hasten to add, by me) and accusation piled on accusation etc etc between the proponents of Creationism on the one side, and those of Evolution on the other. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing was about the extent of it, if memory serves.
Anyway, what happened was that the discussion got so huge and ponderous and rather personal amongst some of the combatants, that the moderators at BlogCatalog lost patience with the whole business and zapped the entire thread into instant oblivion! Such is the internet. Now you see it, now you don't.
Of course, this led to some people posting on other threads about how the hosts were abusing their power, suppressing free speech etc etc but by this time everyone was more or less played out and exhausted so they didn't really get anywhere with their protests.
If I remember rightly, it all started with me writing a re-hash of the Ontological Argument of St Anselm or some such old philosopher of the Middle Ages,and posting the question, "Does God Exist?" A fair question you would have thought, but apparently too emotive for modern minds to wrestle with and at the same time avoid the kind of explosions which can bring an entire community to the brink of civil strife.
You might have imagined it to be such an impossibly and hopelessly dull subject, completely disconnected with anything much in the real world (or should I say, the "real" world) that nobody much would have been tempted to join it, at least with any great degree of enthusiasm. But apparently this was not the case, and a more exciting and indeed violent debate could hardly have been wished for.
Until its sudden destruction. A metaphor for our times, perhaps?
But I digress.
I guess I'm just a late riser.
Hope you all didn't miss me too much. And if you did, well, your waiting is now at an end. I'm writing again. As to how long I'll continue to write... that's, as they say, in the lap of the gods.
Speaking of which, and as it's almost Easter Day, I thought I would have another go at a religious theme for a blog post.
I have to say that I approach this task with a deal of trepidation, because the last time I tried this, I found myself in the centre of a massive storm debate on BlogCatalog where there was lots of ranting and raving (not, I hasten to add, by me) and accusation piled on accusation etc etc between the proponents of Creationism on the one side, and those of Evolution on the other. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing was about the extent of it, if memory serves.
Anyway, what happened was that the discussion got so huge and ponderous and rather personal amongst some of the combatants, that the moderators at BlogCatalog lost patience with the whole business and zapped the entire thread into instant oblivion! Such is the internet. Now you see it, now you don't.
Of course, this led to some people posting on other threads about how the hosts were abusing their power, suppressing free speech etc etc but by this time everyone was more or less played out and exhausted so they didn't really get anywhere with their protests.
If I remember rightly, it all started with me writing a re-hash of the Ontological Argument of St Anselm or some such old philosopher of the Middle Ages,and posting the question, "Does God Exist?" A fair question you would have thought, but apparently too emotive for modern minds to wrestle with and at the same time avoid the kind of explosions which can bring an entire community to the brink of civil strife.
You might have imagined it to be such an impossibly and hopelessly dull subject, completely disconnected with anything much in the real world (or should I say, the "real" world) that nobody much would have been tempted to join it, at least with any great degree of enthusiasm. But apparently this was not the case, and a more exciting and indeed violent debate could hardly have been wished for.
Until its sudden destruction. A metaphor for our times, perhaps?
But I digress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)