Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Self v Public

Expand Messages
  • alcyon11
    Trinidad, This seems to mean that ethics and morals can be universal. Perhaps our values are just prejudices and rationalizations, and I for one think it might
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Trinidad,

      This seems to mean that ethics and morals can be universal. Perhaps
      our values are just prejudices and rationalizations, and I for one
      think it might be okay that values could be universal. This would in
      no way threaten my individuality. What threatens my individual
      perspectives is the world as it now exists. I suggest that philosophy
      is not a farce but rather an honorable quest for these universal
      values which would end the insanity of war, that war which is waged
      within our relationships and within our world. Solomon, Wyatt and
      yourself all make valuable contributions to this quest. Ask the right
      questions, and you might find the right answers. Thank you.

      Mary Jo

      <Ehtics, if they are to exist at all must be formulated to promote
      lasting communication in human language. They must permeate,
      vindicate, and make permanent, an everlasting potential for human
      discourse in language.> - Trinidad


      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "cribprdb" <trinidad@i...> wrote:
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "C. S. Wyatt" <existlist1@t...>
      > wrote:
      > > From Robert Solomon, University of Texas, Dept. of Philosophy
      > Chair
      > > (as opposed to couch or sofa):
      > >
      > > Existentialism is forced to be centrally concerned with problems
      > of
      > > justification. In self-consciousness one holds all given values
      > > suspect. How much of reason might be no more than our reason, the
      > > anonymous consensus of "the public?" How many of our values might
      > be
      > > no more than relics of dead authority or products of our
      > weaknesses,
      > > our fears of isolation, failure, or meaninglessness? How many of
      > our
      > > values are prejudices, how much reason mere rationalization?
      > >
      > > --
      > >
      > > We are forced to create our own morality, while hoping it is
      > > universal, yet knowing it cannot be because we are always
      > ignorant. We
      > > are imperfect, our reason flawed, our logic suspect. Yet, we
      > persist
      > > in trying to develop morals, create ethical systems derived from
      > > morality, and then revise these endlessly.
      > >
      > > Why, if Camus called it intellectual suicide, do we risk
      admitting
      > > that our morality and ethics are never going to be universal? If
      > we
      > > admit that, are we not admitting the purpose of philosophy is a
      > farce?
      > >
      > > --
      > >
      > > Any thoughts? Other than the passages nearly gave me a migraine?
      > >
      > > - CSW
      >
      > What each of us are here, respectively and individually, is a
      > specifically organized relative logical system of observation. We
      > have yet to prove anything else about ourselves. We speculate a
      > sense of respective individual human identity from the apparent
      > interaction and contact between respective similar relative systems
      > that are our human counterparts. Our sense of personal identity
      > comes from our potential for communication relative system to
      > relative system. Though there may be diverse terminology describing
      > this state, it is the intellectual jumping off place for religion
      > and existentialism. Religion posits a pre-existing relative system
      > from which the human system was either born or created.
      > Existentialism posits an accidental occurrence of the human
      relative
      > system. Both ideas miss the point. Both ideas exit into mysticism.
      >
      > Because both religion and modern existentialism miss the point, no
      > sociologically efficacious ethics can be formulated to operate
      > within the system. The scientific communities' empirical
      > experiential methodology of hypothesis and conclusion cannot
      provide
      > a truthful basis for the formulation of ethics. Modern natural
      > science is for the most part a consensus of observations of a
      > relative system already in existence and already mastered. If it
      was
      > not mastered it would not exist. The obvious purpose, and the
      > obvious cause, of the existence of the infinitely complex
      > interaction of relative logical systems that make up this human
      > family is lasting communication. If lasting communication is the
      > prime cause and greatest goal of the human condition, then mystics
      > are not romantic daring explorers of the unknown, but rather the
      > greatest criminals of our age. Ehtics, if they are to exist at all
      > must be formulated to promote lasting communication in human
      > language. They must permeate, vindicate, and make permanent, an
      > everlasting potential for human discourse in language.
      >
      > Finally, the greatest attribute of the unknown is that the more you
      > know of it the greater it becomes. This is indicative of our very
      > nature. Our capacity for knowing is a treasure not a disease.
      >
      > Trinidad
    • C. S. Wyatt
      ... What a great, well-worded, incredibly thought-provoking post. I appreciate this so much that I had to say so in public. Our opinions might not be in
      Message 2 of 5 , Mar 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "cribprdb" <trinidad@i...> wrote:
        > Finally, the greatest attribute of the unknown is that the more you
        > know of it the greater it becomes. This is indicative of our very
        > nature. Our capacity for knowing is a treasure not a disease.
        >
        > Trinidad

        What a great, well-worded, incredibly thought-provoking post. I
        appreciate this so much that I had to say so "in public." Our opinions
        might not be in complete agreement, but what a great contribution to
        the discussion.

        - C. S. Wyatt
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.