13025Re: In your opinion...
- Jul 29, 2012--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Artur Jochlik" <arturjochlik@...> wrote:
>This is a real Hegelian answer. For him there is no moral and rational authority beyond an ethical life, and an individual human decision is never rational founded for itself but in life, that is, its 'rationality' will come out in the future development and consequences. With this Hegel is in contrast to Kant who of course is the favourite of intellectual abstractions in practical (moral) and theoretical philosophical thinking
> --- In email@example.com, Bruce Merrill <merrillbp@> wrote:
> > Well, Artur, we differ.
> > Which is the essence of philosophy, to differ?
> > I take that philosophy should be helpful, in regard to confusions that are
> > engendered by living... And from that standpoint, the failure of philosophy
> > (i.e. the asocial-social tribe of arguing philosophers) to arrive at any
> > identifiable wisdom in regard to morality, in particular, is lamentable,
> > and so embarrassing. Since morality is that part of philosophy which is the
> > most relevant to the question: How to live?
> But there is no single answer to such a hazy question. The proper content of the answer differs exceedingly from one person to another. And I doubt that there is even some sort of "essence" in all that countless answers - that essence will only be true with the restriction of the present time and place. And that is because the human race itself is changing - what was trully good for Homo erectus isn't necessary good for us. Furthermore, what is trully good for Eskimo isn't necessary good for us.
> It is not the individual who establish his values, but the state. Even so, states differ from one another. When you ask "why?" you are no longer in the domain of ethics. Ethics do not have a basis on their own.
> Philosophy is very helpful thanks to the suggestion that there is no one road that leads you to the purpose, no single purpose that the man pervceives, and no single perceiver who sees the road. When rulers understand this there is also room for peace that they can achieve. But there is no golden rule for eternal peace itself.
> A good example comes from a joke that is popular in my country due to the change of State Pension age:
> - How to live, mister Prime Minister? How to live!
> - Briefly.
> And what answer did you expect since we know nothing about that man who was asking the question? The demand for a golden rule is always very common.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>