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

bravegnoobee states:... .

Expand Messages
  • NEFILIM001@aol.com
    ...Sartre understood individual free will and didn t need science to know it. However, when many people are stripped of or abandon a belief system,
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 29, 2005
      "...Sartre understood individual free will and didn't
      need science to 'know' it. However, when many people are stripped of
      or abandon a belief system, science can give meaning or explanation.
      Having to make important decisions in a void of information is almost
      impossible. ..."
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~

      You are truly a brilliant thinker/writer; you express yourself quite
      precisely and you research your 'stuff' well. I thank ExistList for producing
      the 's p a c e' into which the many contributors such as yourself can
      share your UniversalUnderstandings. I enjoy reading and considering all
      Existential 'wordpersonship' as much as I enjoy penning my own. We need only to
      remind ourselves to reRead, spellCheck and reThink what we say--if/when we are
      'serious'...because once we key the 'e n t e r' button--the words are
      final (excepting follow-up corrections), as it were.

      Has anyone explored the "moral philosophy": Deontology? "The view that
      morality either forbids or permits actions." The idea that, "lying is wrong,
      even if it produces good consequences." Immanuel Kant developed and
      introduced this 'categorical imperative.'
      Deontological theories are in contrast to such ideas/ideals such as
      Utilitariarianism. "Certain actions are either forbidden or wrong per se." Kant
      also advanced the idea of a Catagorical(ist) Imperative: "Act so that the
      maxim [determining motive of the will] may be capable of becoming a universal
      law for all rational beings."
      We understand that the theory of Utilitarianism holds, "that 'the good'
      is whatever yields the greatest 'utility': happiness, pleasure,
      preference-satisfaction, etc. But it is always a naturalistic conception of an
      individual's good." {{In that Good is defined as: "Whatever yields the greatest
      utility.}}
      When Jeremy Bentham and others of his 18th century era proposed the
      then contemporary (noting the prerequisite ideas of ancients such as Epicurus)
      theory of Utilitarianism, it held that, "the good is whatever brings the
      greatest happiness to the greatest number of people." [Surely we must all recall
      how much FUN we had in undergraduate Philosophy class 101 with theories such
      as these:::smiling::: :-) .] In a sense Utilitarianism is rather opposed to
      the understanding of the virtue ethics of 'deonotology'.
      Where Utilitarianism gets into 'trouble' is when the CommonSense
      morality comes into play. Take an example from a 'situation': A raging storm has
      passed through one's own thriving hamlet, and three persons are flailing away
      in the swirling river. Two local 'strangers' and one's own wee child...(!/?)
      Will not most persons opt to save their own child, even though, "saving the
      strangers...since two people have more total potential for future happiness
      than one."
      John Stuart Mill, a staunch Utilitarian, is famous for arguing, "not all
      forms of happiness are of equal value...'It is better to be Socrates
      unsatisfied, than a pig satisfied.' "
      I am an older, and tired(er) hand at this by now. (But) when I was in
      undergraduate school I wished nothing else but to gather with friends and
      PHILOSOPHIZE the afternoon AND night; INTO the moring -- away! All well and
      good, since one thing we were careful of: Not any one nor another of us were
      'necessarily' RIGHT/WRONG; but rather we all had equal rights to say what we
      understood, so-long-as-we-could-BackUp (with some
      justification)-what-we-uttered... ! [[The group of Discussion(ees) in the opening scene, in Plato's
      Republic--were our heros!!!! :-)]]

      {Power to The(ernest)Word(s)},
      Frank



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.