I personally think that without society and civilization there isn’t any need of morality beyond that of natural law.
(Morality is ineffective in the survival world of nature.)
I also believe that morality is a expression of enslaving others or having control over others in socio complex dependencies of society which is one of the reasons why I don’t believe in it.
To me there is only two things in the world and that is complete self sufficiency of freedom amongst nature in comparison with the corruption of society. If you eliminate the societal existance there is only self sufficiency of freedom.
What are other people’s thoughts about the subject?
[quote=“Paleo Boy, post:2, topic:247”][quote author=TheJoker link=topic=252.msg2379#msg2379 date=1181969111]
I personally think that without society and civilization there isn’t any need of morality beyond that of natural law.[/quote]
What do you mean by natural law?
[quote author=TheJoker link=topic=252.msg2379#msg2379 date=1181969111]
(Morality is ineffective in the survival world of nature.)[/quote]
So, you think that the world of nature is constituted soley by survival.
[quote author=TheJoker link=topic=252.msg2379#msg2379 date=1181969111]
I also believe that morality is a expression of enslaving others or having control over others in socio complex dependencies of society which is one of the reasons why I don’t believe in it.[/quote]
Just curious…do you believe that enslaving others is wrong?
[quote author=TheJoker link=topic=252.msg2379#msg2379 date=1181969111]
To me there is only two things in the world and that is complete self sufficiency of freedom amongst nature in comparison with the corruption of society. If you eliminate the societal existance there is only self sufficiency.[/quote]
If you eliminate societal existence, it’s a pretty lonely extistence. :D[/quote]
What do you mean by natural law?
Primal instinct,intuition and self preservation.
So, you think that the world of nature is constituted soley by survival.
Yes. What else would there be?
Just curious...do you believe that enslaving others is wrong?
I believe it is pointless,not necessary and self defeating.
Since I don’t believe in morality I think the oppressed should be able to fight back at will against their oppressors regardless of the consequences.
If you eliminate societal existence, it's a pretty lonely extistence. :D
To me society and community are very different atmospheres.
Society is more of a urban civilized atmosphere where community is more tribal or rural. I am not advocating the destruction of community.
I wonder, has any community of people lived like this?
Playing games, making love, gazing at the stars, telling stories, practical jokes, swimming, etc.
Funny, that’s usually not how the slavers view it.
Slaves usually fight back in the small ways they are able to. Sometimes there are even full-scale slave rebellions. But if you don’t believe in morality what does it matter to you what the oppressed do or don’t do?
[quote=“TheJoker, post:1, topic:247”]To me society and community are very different atmospheres
Society is more of a urban civilized atmosphere where community is more tribal or rural. I am not advocating the destruction of community.[/quote]
I wonder, has any community of people lived like this?
Playing games, making love, gazing at the stars, telling stories, practical jokes, swimming, etc.
Funny, that’s usually not how the slavers view it.
Slaves usually fight back in the small ways they are able to. Sometimes there are even full-scale slave rebellions. But if you don’t believe in morality what does it matter to you what the oppressed do or don’t do?
[quote author=TheJoker link=topic=252.msg2379#msg2379 date=1181969111]To me society and community are very different atmospheres
Society is more of a urban civilized atmosphere where community is more tribal or rural. I am not advocating the destruction of community.
[/quote]
So there are no tribal societies then?[/quote]
I wonder, has any community of people lived like this?
All organisms live like this.
Playing games, making love, gazing at the stars, telling stories, practical jokes, swimming, etc.
Believe it or not all those aspects are extensions of survival.
There is a necessity in all of them.
Funny, that's usually not how the slavers view it.
I am not a slave owner and I don’t care to dwell on what they think.
Slaves usually fight back in the small ways they are able to. Sometimes there are even full-scale slave rebellions. But if you don't believe in morality what does it matter to you what the oppressed do or don't do?
I consider myself enslaved so naturally I relate to those who are of a similar circumstance.
Class consciousness and all that.
So there are no tribal societies then?
Again I view tribes to be communal based and I understand the term society to be equated with civilization.
If all organisms already live like this, why post a thread called ‘The Entrapment of Morality’? No one would feel ‘entrapped’.
You can’t be serious, the Bushmen, Hadza, Penang, Efe Pygmies, etc do not live soley by ‘primal instinct’, ‘intuition’ and ‘self preservation’. There are other things going on in their lives besides those qualities. Get a grip.
Playing games, making love, gazing at the stars, telling stories, practical jokes, swimming, etc.
Bullshit.
Funny, that's usually not how the slavers view it.
But you just finished saying that enslavement is pointless, not necessary and self defeating. I pointed out that people who are slave owners see meaning, necessity and advantage in it. Your statement was offered as a fact, and as such it begs for explanation in light of this.
Slaves usually fight back in the small ways they are able to. Sometimes there are even full-scale slave rebellions. But if you don't believe in morality what does it matter to you what the oppressed do or don't do?
[quote=“TheJoker, post:1, topic:247”]I consider myself enslaved so naturally I relate to those who are of a similar circumstance.
Class consciousness and all that.[/quote]
Lots of people who are in similar circumstances do not relate to each other. There’s nothing ‘natural’ about it. It just sounded like you were advocating that slaves should fight back against their oppressors.
If all organisms already live like this, why post a thread called ‘The Entrapment of Morality’? No one would feel ‘entrapped’.
You can’t be serious, the Bushmen, Hadza, Penang, Efe Pygmies, etc do not live soley by ‘primal instinct’, ‘intuition’ and ‘self preservation’. There are other things going on in their lives besides those qualities. Get a grip.
Bullshit.
But you just finished saying that enslavement is pointless, not necessary and self defeating. I pointed out that people who are slave owners see meaning, necessity and advantage in it. Your statement was offered as a fact, and as such it begs for explanation in light of this.
[quote author=TheJoker link=topic=252.msg2379#msg2379 date=1181969111]I consider myself enslaved so naturally I relate to those who are of a similar circumstance.
Class consciousness and all that.[/quote]
Lots of people who are in similar circumstances do not relate to each other. There’s nothing ‘natural’ about it. It just sounded like you were advocating that slaves should fight back against their oppressors.[/quote]
If all organisms already live like this, why post a thread called 'The Entrapment of Morality'? No one would feel 'entrapped'.
You can't be serious, the Bushmen, Hadza, Penang, Efe Pygmies, etc do not live soley by 'primal instinct', 'intuition' and 'self preservation'. There are other things going on in their lives besides those qualities. Get a grip.
What you don’t understand is that every action of a creature revolves around survival even the emotions we expirience down to the slighest feeling of happiness.
If all organisms already live like this, why post a thread called 'The Entrapment of Morality'? No one would feel 'entrapped'.
The difference is that man has a acquisition of conceptual time, self love into narcissism,malice,greed, a constructed false moral determinism, a false sense of obligation, dominionism, highly complex forms of dependencies that are self defeating, and a overt use of synthetic prosthetics.
Man is alone in those regards and such realities is the things that seperates him from all other creatures.
Bullshit.
Do you care to explain that?
But you just finished saying that enslavement is pointless, not necessary and self defeating. I pointed out that people who are slave owners see meaning, necessity and advantage in it. Your statement was offered as a fact, and as such it begs for explanation in light of this.
I only explained my opinion of the subject I never once said anything about
factuality.
Lots of people who are in similar circumstances do not relate to each other. There's nothing 'natural' about it. It just sounded like you were advocating that slaves should fight back against their oppressors.
Are you implying that people of the same background don’t ever relate to each other?
A couple of posts back you spoke of slave rebellion.
Then by your own definition, emotions such as …“self love into narcissism, malice, greed, a constructed false moral determinism, a false sense of obligation, dominionism, highly complex forms of dependencies that are self defeating,” etc , would all revolve around survival. If you are truly saying that “every action of a creature, even the emotions” are connected with survival, then morality (and the emotions and actions associated with it) are also connected with survival. You can’t make a general categorical claim, then exempt whichever items in that category you want. Do you understand this? It’s basic logic.
Great, first you claim "all organisms live according to instinct, intuition and self preservation, then you say, “Man alone…” whatever
Bullshit.
It means I don’t believe you when you say that playing games, making love, gazing at the stars, telling stories, practical jokes, swimming, etc are “extensions of survival.” as you claim. It’s YOUR claim they are, so YOU explain how those activities are extensions of survival.
But you just finished saying that enslavement is pointless, not necessary and self defeating. I pointed out that people who are slave owners see meaning, necessity and advantage in it. Your statement was offered as a fact, and as such it begs for explanation in light of this.
So you don’t believe your opinion to be a fact? Good, that makes two of us.
Lots of people who are in similar circumstances do not relate to each other. There's nothing 'natural' about it. It just sounded like you were advocating that slaves should fight back against their oppressors.
[quote=“TheJoker, post:1, topic:247”]Are you implying that people of the same background don’t ever relate to each other?
A couple of posts back you spoke of slave rebellion.[/quote]
I didn’t say or imply that people in similar circumstances NEVER relate to each other, I meant that often people in similar circumstances do not relate to each other. My co-workers, for example, relate and identify with our boss and his demands for productivity more than with the needs and aspirations of other co-workers. Slave rebellions would be an example of those times when people DO relate and identify with others in similar circumstances. Either way, there’s nothing ‘natural’ about it. “Naturalness” is a nebulous concept which people use in an attempt to ground an attitude or behaviour that they approve of in something more ‘real’ or ‘objective’ so as to sound and appear more ‘factual’. But my co-workers’ attitudes are just as real, natural and objective as mine or yours.
Then by your own definition, emotions such as …“self love into narcissism, malice, greed, a constructed false moral determinism, a false sense of obligation, dominionism, highly complex forms of dependencies that are self defeating,” etc , would all revolve around survival. If you are truly saying that “every action of a creature, even the emotions” are connected with survival, then morality (and the emotions and actions associated with it) are also connected with survival. You can’t make a general categorical claim, then exempt whichever items in that category you want. Do you understand this? It’s basic logic.
Great, first you claim "all organisms live according to instinct, intuition and self preservation, then you say, “Man alone…” whatever
It means I don’t believe you when you say that playing games, making love, gazing at the stars, telling stories, practical jokes, swimming, etc are “extensions of survival.” as you claim. It’s YOUR claim they are, so YOU explain how those activities are extensions of survival.
So you don’t believe your opinion to be a fact? Good, that makes two of us.
[quote author=TheJoker link=topic=252.msg2379#msg2379 date=1181969111] Are you implying that people of the same background don’t ever relate to each other?
A couple of posts back you spoke of slave rebellion.[/quote]
I didn’t say or imply that people in similar circumstances NEVER relate to each other, I meant that often people in similar circumstances do not relate to each other. My co-workers, for example, relate and identify with our boss and his demands for productivity more than with the needs and aspirations of other co-workers. Slave rebellions would be an example of those times when people DO relate and identify with others in similar circumstances. Either way, there’s nothing ‘natural’ about it. “Naturalness” is a nebulous concept which people use in an attempt to ground an attitude or behaviour that they approve of in something more ‘real’ or ‘objective’ so as to sound and appear more ‘factual’. But my co-workers’ attitudes are just as real, natural and objective as mine or yours.[/quote]
Then by your own definition, emotions such as ...."[i]self love into narcissism, malice, greed, a constructed false moral determinism, a false sense of obligation, dominionism, highly complex forms of dependencies that are self defeating[/i]," etc , would all revolve around survival. If you are truly saying that "every action of a creature, even the emotions" are connected with survival, then morality (and the emotions and actions associated with it) are also connected with survival. You can't make a general categorical claim, then exempt whichever items in that category you want. Do you understand this? It's basic logic.
What I mentioned are “perspectives” not emotions and they have little to do with survival.
It's basic logic.
I don’t believe in the man made concept of logic as man can not be in a state of certainty out of his expiriences and existance of being.
Great, first you claim "all organisms live according to instinct, intuition and self preservation, then you say, "Man alone..." whatever
Yes man is alone in the many constructed “perspectives” that he creates for himself outside of his emotions and survival.
It means I don't believe you when you say that playing games, making love, gazing at the stars, telling stories, practical jokes, swimming, etc are "extensions of survival." as you claim. It's YOUR claim they are, so YOU explain how those activities are extensions of survival.
They are all forms of selfishness.
So you don't believe your opinion to be a fact? Good, that makes two of us. :D
No it means I don’t like using the words facts but instead I choose to use words like interpretation,understanding, dialogue and necessity.
I didn't say or imply that people in similar circumstances NEVER relate to each other, I meant that often people in similar circumstances do not relate to each other.
Often and never are two completely different things.
I believe people are often united by culture,community,religion and the trials of suffering from the general human condition. When you say people mostly never relate to each other I think you are being vague.
Either way, there's nothing 'natural' about it. "Naturalness" is a nebulous concept which people use in an attempt to ground an attitude or behaviour that they approve of in something more 'real' or 'objective' so as to sound and appear more 'factual'. But my co-workers' attitudes are just as real, natural and objective as mine or yours.
You don’t sound like a Anarcho Primitivist.
What exactly is your position?
There is a naturality to the world outside of civilization I assure you.
I would even challenge you to a debate and just like there is a naturality of the outside world there is also reality of delusion, deception and facade extended from human beings.
[b]Self Quote-[/b]The difference is that man has a acquisition of conceptual time, self love into narcissism,malice,greed, a constructed false moral determinism, a false sense of obligation, dominionism, highly complex forms of dependencies that are self defeating, and a overt use of synthetic prosthetics.
Man is alone in those regards and such realities is the things that seperates him from all other creatures.
Show me an emotion listed in that post that is apart of “perspective.”
Then that’s your perspective!! Malice, greed, self love into narcissism, a false sense of obligation, etc may all be ‘perspectives’ to you, but they are still mental states deeply embued with emotion. Have you never done anything with malice and felt anger? Never been greedy and felt covetous? Morality itself is infused with its own emotions: guilt, shame, blame, moral outrage, etc. Ever feel those emotions? You’re not making any sense.
It’s pretty obvious you don’t believe in logic.
How do you know this? Why do you believe this? So, if perspectives have nothing to do with survival and are unconnected to emotions, do they fall from the sky? Where do they come from?
Spin it with any words you want, if you didn’t have the least bit of conviction about what you were saying, you wouldn’t bother posting.There is a difference between interpretation and understanding. You make claims, state assertions, offer opinions, etc about morality, emotions, survival, etc… hoping to discuss them. You defend your claims and statements as if you believed them to be true–even in a weak sense of the word ‘true.’ Otherwise, why bother? I can offer my opnions on the tooth fairy, but it’s surely trivial and meaningless unless I was reasonably convinced they had at least some validity beyond mere opinion.
Exactly, that was MY point. Try to follow along.
WTF? I said often people do not relate to each other, not “mostly never”. (and ‘often not’ and ‘mostly never’ do not mean the same). You just said yourself “Often and never are two completely different things” Are you on drugs? And I could very well be mistaken in my belief, but I’m not vague about it. Please buy a dictionary.
(I’m almost afraid to ask…) Ok, what is an anarcho-primitivist supposed to sound like?
Are you er…certain? Do you believe this to be true? Or are you just throwing out half-baked “interpretations” and “opnions” that you yourself don’t really believe one way or the other?
Silly me, and here I thought we were already debating? Must be time for your medication…or maybe it’s time for my medication.
[quote=“Paleo Boy, post:12, topic:247”][quote author=TheJoker link=topic=252.msg2397#msg2397 date=1182026495]
What I mentioned are “perspectives” not emotions and they have little to do with survival.[/quote]
Then that’s your perspective!! Malice, greed, self love into narcissism, a false sense of obligation, etc may all be ‘perspectives’ to you, but they are still mental states deeply embued with emotion. Have you never done anything with malice and felt anger? Never been greedy and felt covetous? Morality itself is infused with its own emotions: guilt, shame, blame, moral outrage, etc. Ever feel those emotions? You’re not making any sense.
It’s pretty obvious you don’t believe in logic.
How do you know this? Why do you believe this? So, if perspectives have nothing to do with survival and are unconnected to emotions, do they fall from the sky? Where do they come from?
Spin it with any words you want, if you didn’t have the least bit of conviction about what you were saying, you wouldn’t bother posting.There is a difference between interpretation and understanding. You make claims, state assertions, offer opinions, etc about morality, emotions, survival, etc… hoping to discuss them. You defend your claims and statements as if you believed them to be true–even in a weak sense of the word ‘true.’ Otherwise, why bother? I can offer my opnions on the tooth fairy, but it’s surely trivial and meaningless unless I was reasonably convinced they had at least some validity beyond mere opinion.
Exactly, that was MY point. Try to follow along.
WTF? I said often people do not relate to each other, not “mostly never”. (and ‘often not’ and ‘mostly never’ do not mean the same). You just said yourself “Often and never are two completely different things” Are you on drugs? And I could very well be mistaken in my belief, but I’m not vague about it. Please buy a dictionary.
(I’m almost afraid to ask…) Ok, what is an anarcho-primitivist supposed to sound like?
Are you er…certain? Do you believe this to be true? Or are you just throwing out half-baked “interpretations” and “opnions” that you yourself don’t really believe one way or the other?
Silly me, and here I thought we were already debating? Must be time for your medication…
;D[/quote]
Then that's your perspective!! Malice, greed, self love into narcissism, a false sense of obligation, etc may all be 'perspectives' to you, but they are still mental states deeply embued with emotion. Have you never done anything with malice and felt anger? Never been greedy and felt covetous? Morality itself is infused with its own emotions: guilt, shame, blame, moral outrage, etc. Ever feel those emotions? You're not making any sense.
They are extensions of civilization and society.
Had these perspectives been extensions of nature one would think that nature would have the cure to these conflicts but the fact of the matter is that it doesn’t and that leaves us with only one option that being the source of these conflicts is created ones of human beings.
Emotion is natural but the list of perspectives I have mentioned are not as they are only rooted through man’s constructs alone.
It's pretty obvious you don't believe in logic.
So what? I am firm believer in my expiriences and myself.
Where is your substance of logic beyond that of uncertainty?
How do you know this? Why do you believe this? So, if perspectives have nothing to do with survival and are unconnected to emotions, do they fall from the sky? Where do they come from?
Points up a couple of posts back.
Spin it with any words you want, if you didn't have the least bit of conviction about what you were saying, you wouldn't bother posting.There is a difference between interpretation and understanding. You make claims, state assertions, offer opinions, etc about morality, emotions, survival, etc.. hoping to discuss them. You defend your claims and statements as if you believed them to be true--even in a weak sense of the word 'true.' Otherwise, why bother? I can offer my opnions on the tooth fairy, but it's surely trivial and meaningless unless I was reasonably convinced they had at least some validity beyond mere opinion.
Fair enough.
(I'm almost afraid to ask...) Ok, what is an anarcho-primitivist supposed to sound like?
Well for one they don’t throw words around like that of logic as if it was the arcane word of God.
Are you er..certain? Do you believe this to be true? Or are you just throwing out half-baked "interpretations" and "opnions" that you yourself don't really believe one way or the other?
It is called the natural symbiosis of life.
You should look it up in biology or nature studies.
Silly me, and here I thought we were already debating? Must be time for your medication....
I am not impressed.
I have debated hundreds of people like yourself and it never ceases to amaze me.
No they aren’t. All peoples all over the world have what you call “perspectives”, including noncivlized hunter gatherers, and even you.
You are becoming less and less understandable.
And by “natural” you mean whatever mental states you deem desirable. All other mental states (such as perspectives) are deemed “unnatural”.
So? So are schizophrenics.(not that I’m implying you are a schizophrenic). Without logic how do you know what a “false constructed moral determinism” is? Or a “false sense of moral obligation”? Without being able to weigh the validity of different interpretations of experience there is little to prevent you from believing that your experiences can never fail to be true.
Couldn’t find it.
I wasn’t. But you are free to believe whatever you want about what I said. Logic is a necessary, though not sufficient, part of debate. You cannot adequately explain your opnions nor be taken seriously without some sense of coherence to your arguments. That’s probably why I have difficulty with some of your comments.
[quote=“TheJoker, post:11, topic:247”]It is called the natural symbiosis of life.
You should look it up in biology or nature studies.[/quote]
Ok…
symbiosis
“The living together in permanent or prolonged close association of members of usually two different species, with beneficial or deleterious consequences for at least one of the parties” --Penguin Reference Dictionary
So “there is a naturality outside of civilization” in what you refer to as symbiosis.
No they aren’t. All peoples all over the world have what you call “perspectives”, including noncivlized hunter gatherers, and even you.
You are becoming less and less understandable.
And by “natural” you mean whatever mental states you deem desirable. All other mental states (such as perspectives) are deemed “unnatural”.
So? So are schizophrenics.(not that I’m implying you are a schizophrenic). Without logic how do you know what a “false constructed moral determinism” is? Or a “false sense of moral obligation”? Without being able to weigh the validity of different interpretations of experience there is little to prevent you from believing that your experiences can never fail to be true.
Couldn’t find it.
I wasn’t. But you are free to believe whatever you want about what I said. Logic is a necessary, though not sufficient, part of debate. You cannot adequately explain your opnions nor be taken seriously without some sense of coherence to your arguments. That’s probably why I have difficulty with some of your comments.
[quote author=TheJoker link=topic=252.msg2397#msg2397 date=1182026495] It is called the natural symbiosis of life.
You should look it up in biology or nature studies.[/quote]
Ok…
symbiosis
“The living together in permanent or prolonged close association of members of usually two different species, with beneficial or deleterious consequences for at least one of the parties” --Penguin Reference Dictionary
So “there is a naturality outside of civilization” in what you refer to as symbiosis.
Now I know why you call yourself theJoker[/quote]
No they aren't. All peoples all over the world have what you call "perspectives", including noncivlized hunter gatherers, and even you.
Examples?
I hope you know that I judge civilization to be anything with private property and agriculture.
You are becoming less and less understandable.
Let’s see if you can understand these quotes below.
[b]All good and evil arise from the human will-from it's unconscious or conscious willing. Nature itself does not give rise to whatever makes life hateful or virtue difficult.
Complaints about providence arise only because humans misjudge it’s plan according to illusory notions of the good or because they have perverted the natural order with their depravity.[/b]
[b]If nature, wholly apart from the human will , were responsible for the this failure, ( Conflicts.) humanity would have little or no right to complain.
But the complaint can properly arise that the human powers still lack what is owed to them- their true completion- if the fault lies in these powers thmselves. For a demand for the just distribution of rewards is meaningful only if the distributor is capable of giving the reward.
Nature in itself, wholly apart from reason’s legislation, certainly cannot respond to the human complaint; it cannot distribute what it is incapable of giving.[/b]
Richard L. Velkley.
And by "natural" you mean whatever mental states you deem desirable. All other mental states (such as perspectives) are deemed "unnatural".
Points to previous post.
So? So are schizophrenics.(not that I'm implying you are a schizophrenic). Without logic how do you know what a "false constructed moral determinism" is?
Or a "false sense of moral obligation"? Without being able to weigh the validity of different interpretations of experience there is little to prevent you from believing that your experiences can never fail to be true.
Intuition and Instinct.
symbiosis
"The living together in permanent or prolonged close association of members of usually two different species, with beneficial or deleterious consequences for at least one of the parties" --Penguin Reference Dictionary
So “there is a naturality outside of civilization” in what you refer to as symbiosis.
You start a thread called ‘The Entrapment of Morality’. Yet your opening post does not explain what you mean by this title. In fact it says nothing about entrappment and only a little about morality.
You assert morality is unnecessary beyond natural law, and that it is ineffective in the survival world of nature.
First, there are different interpretations and uses of the term ‘natural law’, which, ironically, is essentially an ethical theory. Hobbes uses it one way, Thomas Aquinas another way, the ancient Greek Stoics used still another version of it, and so on. Judging from the idiosyncratic way you toss around terms, I assume you have your own personal made-up version of natural law. Second, you introduce the notion of ‘the survival world of nature’ thus implying a dichotomy between it and its presumably opposite: a nonsurvival world of nonnature?
You then cite these conjectures as two reasons why you don’t believe in morality. It isn’t clear whether you mean you don’t believe in moral standards or that you simply make no moral judgments of your own.
In later posts you state that emotions, intuitions and instincts are ‘natural’ while any other mode of consciousness is “Man’s constructs” which basically are “extensions of society and civilization”. Quite apart from the stupid gendered language you use is the facile distinction between what is ‘natural’ and what isn’t natural, an utterly arbitrary categorization. "Self love (wouldn’t this be an emotion?) into narcissism, malice, greed, a constructed false moral determinism, a false sense of obligation, dominionism, "etc are all lumped under “perspectives” for no apparent reason. You just make up categories to dump your theories into. Again, ironically, moral judgments themselves are infused with emotions. Even the rationalist Kant saw this much. So by your own lights, morality must be ‘natural’.
Added to this, is your aversion to logic (or at least to noncircular logic), another of “Man’s constructs”.
When I became perplexed about not being able to understand some of what you were saying, you trot out some quotes from Richard L. Velkley who is simply repeating the same old nature/culture dichotomy.
I doubt anything useful or interesting can emerge from this thread. We are simply going round and round. Thanks for wasting my time though.
You start a thread called ‘The Entrapment of Morality’. Yet your opening post does not explain what you mean by this title. In fact it says nothing about entrappment and only a little about morality.
You assert morality is unnecessary beyond natural law, and that it is ineffective in the survival world of nature.
First, there are different interpretations and uses of the term ‘natural law’, which, ironically, is essentially an ethical theory. Hobbes uses it one way, Thomas Aquinas another way, the ancient Greek Stoics used still another version of it, and so on. Judging from the idiosyncratic way you toss around terms, I assume you have your own personal made-up version of natural law. Second, you introduce the notion of ‘the survival world of nature’ thus implying a dichotomy between it and its presumably opposite: a nonsurvival world of nonnature?
You then cite these conjectures as two reasons why you don’t believe in morality. It isn’t clear whether you mean you don’t believe in moral standards or that you simply make no moral judgments of your own.
In later posts you state that emotions, intuitions and instincts are ‘natural’ while any other mode of consciousness is “Man’s constructs” which basically are “extensions of society and civilization”. Quite apart from the stupid gendered language you use is the facile distinction between what is ‘natural’ and what isn’t natural, an utterly arbitrary categorization. "Self love (wouldn’t this be an emotion?) into narcissism, malice, greed, a constructed false moral determinism, a false sense of obligation, dominionism, "etc are all lumped under “perspectives” for no apparent reason. You just make up categories to dump your theories into. Again, ironically, moral judgments themselves are infused with emotions. Even the rationalist Kant saw this much. So by your own lights, morality must be ‘natural’.
Added to this, is your aversion to logic (or at least to noncircular logic), another of “Man’s constructs”.
When I became perplexed about not being able to understand some of what you were saying, you trot out some quotes from Richard L. Velkley who is simply repeating the same old nature/culture dichotomy.
I doubt anything useful or interesting can emerge from this thread. We are simply going round and round. Thanks for wasting my time though.[/quote]
Natural law can be considered a teleological sequence in evolution describing functions,goals and intentions towards all life.
We could also describe it as a holism where the larger existance holds more sway then the intricate parts that comprise it. ( Humans only being one part.)
[b]Albert Camus begins by describing the absurd condition: much of our life is built on the hope for tomorrow yet tomorrow brings us closer to death and is the ultimate enemy; people live as if they didn't know about the certainty of death; once stripped of its common romantizations, the world is a foreign, strange and inhuman place; [u]true knowledge is impossible and rationality and science cannot explain the world: their stories ultimately end in meaningless abstractions, in metaphors. "From the moment absurdity is recognized, it becomes a passion, the most harrowing of all."[/u]
It is not the world that is absurd, nor human thought: the absurd arises when the human need to understand meets the unreasonableness of the world, when “my appetite for the absolute and for unity” meets “the impossibility of reducing this world to a rational and reasonable principle.”
He then characterizes a number of philosophies that describe and attempt to deal with this feeling of the absurd, by Heidegger, Jaspers, Shestov, Kierkegaard and Husserl. All of these, he claims, commit “philosophical suicide” by reaching conclusions that contradict the original absurd position, either by abandoning reason and turning to God, as in the case of Kierkegaard and Shestov, or by elevating reason and ultimately arriving at ubiquitous Platonian forms and an abstract god, as in the case of Husserl.
For Camus, who set out to take the absurd seriously and follow it to its final conclusions, these “leaps” cannot convince. Taking the absurd seriously means acknowledging the contradiction between the desire of human reason and the unreasonable world. Suicide, then, also must be rejected: without man, the absurd cannot exist. The contradiction must be lived; reason and its limits must be acknowledged, without hope. However, the absurd can never be accepted: it requires constant confrontation, constant revolt.
While the question of human freedom in the metaphysical sense loses interest to the absurd man, he gains freedom in a very concrete sense: no longer bound by hope for a better future or eternity, without a need to pursue life’s purpose or to create meaning, “he enjoys a freedom with regard to common rules”.
To embrace the absurd implies embracing all that the unreasonable world has to offer. Without a meaning in life, there is no scale of values. “What counts is not the best living but the most living.”[/b]
