back to the beginning: morality

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:48 pm

Recognizing Moral Identity as a Cultural Construct
Fanli Jia and Tobias Krettenauer at Frontiers In Psychology website

Like many other moral constructs, the moral identity concept is rooted in a Western cultural context that stresses an individually oriented morality.

Being a moral person results from a desire to be consistent with one’s moral concepts through which individuals are motivated to gain independence from social conventions.


Exactly! "I" construed by those in the West is in large part derived from the historical advent of capitalism. In particular, the consequences for human interactions derived from the Industrial Revolution where the "wage slave" became deeply engrained in such "scientific management" techniques as Taylorism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientifi ... management.

We now take all of that for granted of course. It's just the way things are. And yet historically there were any number of communities that revolved far, far more around "we". Around the community as a a whole. Around the village.

In fact there are still pockets of them around the globe. In the Amazon rainforest, for example.

Instead, there are those who try to argue that the "what's in it more me" mentality is predicated entirely on what Nature commands or [re those like Ayn Rand and the Libertarians] on what constitutes philosophically the most rational human interactions.

Capitalism becomes just another historical rendition of "social conventions". Indeed, let the workers try to gain "independence" from it when they get around to paying their bills at the end of the month.

In contrast, people from Eastern cultures consider a highly moral person to be societally oriented. In this moral orientation, people tend to define themselves in the context of collectivism and an interdependent self.


Right, tell that to the working class in China...now that the powers that be have embraced state capitalism as the political economy of choice.

Social relationships and group membership are linked to the motivation to adjust to the demands of others and to maintain harmony within one’s group. Being a moral person in Eastern societies may be more reflective of group norms than of an individual’s morality.


Still, in nations around the globe these days there will almost always be a complex intertwining of government policies that aim for something in the middle...not quite me and not quite we.

The welfare state it is often called.

And, as such, moral relativism thrives.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:52 pm

Recognizing Moral Identity as a Cultural Construct
Fanli Jia and Tobias Krettenauer at Frontiers In Psychology website

Confucianism provides further support of the societally oriented moral system in Eastern cultures. From the perspective of Confucianism, understandings of morality help to socialize individuals by encouraging them to suppress personal desires in social interactions and to eliminate “Xiao Wo,” personal-centered actions, by emphasizing “Da Wo,” societal-centered actions instead (Hwang, 1999). As a consequence of Eastern ideology, a highly moral person, “I,” is transformed into “we” and, consequently, feelings of society within the group are strengthened.


All this revolves around the age-old tug of war between "I" and we" in any particular human community. And, of course, the dramatic shift from "we" to "I" once capitalism shifted human interaction from "the village" to the "market".

After all, it's not for nothing that Confucianism itself is taking hit after hit in modern day state capitalist regimes like China. Or will someone here argue that "we" still prevails there today as it did back then. It's the historical, organic nature of capitalism that, in making competition rather than cooperation the main driving force in human interactions, everyone will be pitted against everyone else to see who and what prevails re supply and demand.

In cultures of old everyone had a place in the community and together the community would rise or fall. Today, it can be far more complex and convoluted. And that is because, for individuals, the options can increase dramatically. But among those options there is a better chance that in choosing this rather than that you have to take away the options of others.

Expressions like "dog eat dog", "survival of the fittest", "cutthroat competition", "every man for himself"...how often did they pop up in the time of Confucious?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jul 12, 2022 6:51 pm

Recognizing Moral Identity as a Cultural Construct
Fanli Jia and Tobias Krettenauer at Frontiers In Psychology website

Chinese education system employed Confucian values of effortful and respectful learning. Consequently, for 1000s of years, Chinese citizens were accustomed to giving, obeying, and following authority. Extended families with hierarchical relationships were also important in traditional Chinese society. Moreover, in the contemporary Chinese history, Cultural Revolution swept the nation in 1970s, driving Chinese to “nation-oriented” collectivism.


And now, whatever we can possibly learn about Chinese society today. Confucius and Mao meet Xi Jinping? A tightly controlled capitalist economy engendering a new set of freedoms for the individual meets a brand spanking new kind of repression from the state. It has to be.

There's never been a capitalism quite like this before. Indeed, any number of authoritarian right-wing MAGA billionaires right here in America would just love to emulate it.

A very popular Chinese analogy of this national value states that “Chinese people are like bricks,” which means that all people have the same functions and that they are willing to be assigned throughout the society wherever ‘society’ needs them. Thus, Chinese people should attribute national and societal meanings to the concept of a highly moral person, based on the moral ideology that nation is the most basic and important source of collective identity.


Bricks in the great wall that is China. Sure, why not describe the Chinese people today in that manner. A place for everyone and everyone in their place. Only not as Confucius and Mao would have imagined the wall to be. A wall that is perhaps rapidly becoming the future of the global economy. A whole new take on the "I" and "we" relationship.

Take unions for example: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/how ... 0transport.

"The country boasts the biggest union in the world, the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU), a state-run body.

All unions in China are required to register with the ACFTU and have largely been confined to sectors such as manufacturing and transport."


Clearly, though, the CCP has reconfigured Communism as imagined by Marx and Mao into something altogether more dynamic. And, for some, altogether more profitable.

The crucial point being to recognize human identity [and morality] today as a political economy construct.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jul 20, 2022 4:04 pm

Moral Relativism and Moral Nihilism
James Dreier, David Copp

What Are Nihilism and Relativism?

Moral nihilism and moral relativism are metaethical theories, theories of the nature of morality.


And you know me: bring any "metaethical theory" you might have "down to Earth". Explore and examine it given situations that precipitate actual conflicts among flesh and blood human beings.

I start with the assumption that in a No God world the existential nature of morality and ethics revolves around the existential components of the life we lived...and continue to live.

Nihilism is the view that there are no moral facts. It says that nothing is right or wrong, or morally good or bad.


My own subjective understanding of nihilism starts with the assumption that in regard to our moral convictions there are facts that, in the either/or world, are applicable to all of us. Facts about abortion, facts about guns, facts about the role of government.

Nihilists believe that moral language is infected by a massive false presupposition, much as atheists understand religious talk. While nihilism is sometimes associated with the `anything goes' outlook that Nietzsche seems to be propounding in some of his writings, nihilists nowadays typically deny that their doctrine is a moral position. John Mackie, who called his own nihilism an “error theory,” was careful to insist that his was not a theory of what to do.


This nihilist believes that moral language reflects historical and cultural and personal biases that as children we are indoctrinated to believe and that [given a free will world] as more autonomous adults we are often profoundly influenced by. And that only the sociopaths tend toward an "anything goes, just don't get caught" frame of mind.

As for my own frame of mind being a "doctrine", I'm the first to admit that it is no less an existential assessment derived from my own constellation of experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge.

Next up: moral relativism.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jul 29, 2022 6:41 pm

Nietzsche and Moral Nihilism
Dr W Large

In popular culture, the philosopher Nietzsche is usually associated with moral nihilism. We might define nihilism as the absence of the highest values. Associated with moral nihilism is moral relativism. Moral relativism is the belief that all values, precisely because there are no higher values, are merely the expression of personal preference. Ironically, however, is it exactly this kind of moral viewpoint that Nietzsche is criticising. Rather than being a nihilist he is an anti-nihilist. Nihilism is a diagnosis of the decadence of Western culture, rather than a position that Nietzsche wants, and still less, wants us to aspire to.


First, of course, how I react to this conclusion may or may not be how you react to it. It all depends [as always] on how, over the course of our lives, we have come to understand the meaning of these words. Both in terms of our personal experiences and in terms of all the books and articles and sources of information we have come upon.

You tell me: What are the odds that yours overlaps mine?

In other words, in noting all of the elements in our lives that came together predisposing us to embrace one rather than another moral identity, we are acknowledging all of the other elements we did not come into contact with. How then are we to know the extent to which, had we encountered them, they might have had a profound impact on our value judgments today.

And, of course, the irony that revolves around those who insist that, however one understands Nietzsche's own take on the relationship between nihilism and morality, it is nihilism itself -- given any rendition subscribed to -- that is responsible for the decadence that is sweeping our planet. It is the absence of a moral font [God or No God] that has created the conditions that sustain the amoral "show me the money" mentality of the global capitalists and the burgeoning spread of, among other dissolute elements, the sociopathic personality.

And if Nietzsche's Übermensch narrative is basically an attempt to supplant the "higher values" attributed to in God by attributing them to so-called superior mere mortals instead, how is that not just another attempt to make the part where in a No God world human existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless go away?

With "eternal return" thrown in as the alternative to oblivion.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Sun Aug 07, 2022 5:16 pm

Nietzsche and Moral Nihilism
Dr W Large

What is the cause and origin of nihilism in contemporary society? It is the continued destruction of all meaning and signification. It is the belief that nothing really matters any more, because nothing really has any meaning. We have no system of beliefs or values which could orientate us.


Again, suppose this could be demonstrated unequivocally to be true. How much would it matter to you? Wouldn't it depend on the extent to which "meaning and signification" in your life was construed as an essential, underlying foundation that you could anchor your life and death to. Otherwise [existentially] you can always find the things that bring you fulfilment and satisfaction from day to day to day meaningful and significant enough to shrug off that "ultimate" meaning stuff.

That is, until you come eyeball to eyeball with oblivion itself. Then a nihilistic perspective comes eyeball to eyeball with the limitations of nihilism itself. Nihilism only works on this side of the grave. Works in the sense that if you are not anchored to one or another objectivist font, your options increase dramatically. For some, all the way out to that ghastly sociopathic perspective: what's in it for me? End of story.

The old systems of belief, like religion and morality, still exist, but at best we only follow them half-heartedly, and at worst, think that they have no meaning whatsoever. They exist only the edges of our lives and consciousnesses.


Right, like this is necessarily applicable to all of us. Like there aren't still millions religious and moral fanatics "out there". And "in here" too. The moral monsters come from both ends of the spectrum here. Historically, for instance. Which are worse? The Hitlers or the Kissingers?

You tell me.

Still, for some of us...

...it isn’t just the world that doesn’t have any meaning anymore. We ourselves don’t have any meaning to ourselves. Why should we choose one course of action over the other? What does it really matter anymore, since no-one’s individual life really has any significance in the grand scheme of things as Michel Haar describes.


How to live with that? How to decide what to choose in a world where "in the absence of God all things are permitted"?

You tell me.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Ichthus77 » Sun Aug 07, 2022 5:20 pm

“Thy will be done…” — [unimposing]
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6041
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Mon Aug 22, 2022 5:58 pm

Nietzsche and Moral Nihilism
Dr W Large

Nothing is worth much anymore, everything comes down to the same thing, everything is equalized. Everything is the same and equivalent: the true and the false, the good and the bad. Everything is outdated, used up, old dilapidated, dying: an undefined agony of meaning, an unending twilight: not a definite annihilation of significations, but their indefinite collapse.


Nothing and everything. When, in actuality, over and over and over again, it's almost never either one of them in regard to connecting the dots between a philosophical assessment of nihilism like the one above and the existential parameters of the lives we live from day to day to day. Is it any wonder then that so many have little or no use for such abstract intellectual conjectures?

It would be quite absurd, therefore, to claim that this is what Nietzsche actually desires. On the contrary, he wants to diagnose how we got there. Our culture is like the character God in Philip Pullman’s Dark Materials trilogy: old and worn out, barely alive, and certainly nothing to really believe in anymore.


No, it appears that what Nietzsche was aiming to accomplish was to replace the God font with the "will to power" Übermensch font.

Whatever that means.

But that's my point. In the absence of the God font "up there" to settle conflicts of this sort, we mere mortals have managed to come up with any number of hopelessly conflicting secular narratives to take His place.

Is yours perhaps the optimal assessment?

The most dangerous side of this nihilism, however, is that in the end it becomes happy and satisfied with itself. Once we used to feel horror and terror at the fact that religion, morality and philosophy don’t really have any meaning, but now we’re quite happy to live in a world without meaning.


Says who? And those who do say so...what exactly are they intent on putting in its place? There are, of course, the amoral capitalists, the amoral sociopaths, the amoral libertines.

What of your own amoral foundation? What are you intent on doing with it?

And then the part here that always comes back around to God:

One example of this satisfaction is the death of God. Again we have to remind ourselves of the passage in the Gay Science, where Nietzsche writes of the madman who rushes into the marketplace and declares that God is dead. Many people read this as Nietzsche is simply celebrating atheism, but if we read this passage more carefully we can see that what it really describes is how the ordinary people don’t really care at all whether God is dead or not. This is what is truly terrifying. Not that God is dead, but that no-one even noticed that he had died:

"Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: ‘I seek God! I seek God!’ – As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, the provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? Emigrated? – Thus they yelled and laughed."


In our modern world of course this basically revolves around all of the millions upon millions of "lost souls" who spend their days mindlessly preoccupied with pop culture, social media, mass consumption, and the pursuit of celebrity.

God doesn't stand a chance there.

And, come to think of it, neither does philosophy. Or, rather, what's left of it these days.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Meno_ » Mon Aug 22, 2022 8:05 pm

Well I am not overly convinced biggy. When first started here at ilp, there was a mow long gone 'philosopher' here , and his name will come to me, but will defer that.

Anyway his comment was that I should have not abandoned my topic ' the psychology of philosophy - obviously a reversal to previous thinking that revolved around the opposite: the philosophy of mind. That goes way back in different forms, attaining an up to date immanent associations with modern philosophy.

The point is taken with something ironically coming up at this stage in my let's call it development: and understandingly not standing in contradiction but in a fallaciouness resembling the paradoxical.

But that's coming from a hungry cat chasing it's own tail, so again what i am doing here is what You are suggesting above. But let's rest that for a moment and settle the strands put forward at this present juncture ( situation or, context)


The 3 stages of psychology are well established, I don't need to go into that, but for my own sake, since I am just beginning to read it, having found it on an obscure shelf in an abandoned library .

The first is classical , the second existential and the third is that which approaches social , built behavioristic models.
There is the current one, which utilizes all the 3 approaches in a use whichever is a-pro-po. That classification relies heavily and parallels the construction of the ideas bottom up of the philosophical pre-requisite to the more and mire transcending gaps that reversely de-construct it's unified , essential idea.( re: the mind, which later became what it is perceived progressively: a machine which previously shadowed the brain: with which a presupposed identity held in for a very long time .

That the end result meant a forgone conclusion that some magical process was needed to replace the God head who basically tied up any reservations, that later on was reduced to infinite reps of experience, from the static notion of God the Father, into the Son , Who redeemed His Father's fracture.

The fracture stopped being a philosophical problem , at the point where no one idea worked to solve it by 'classic' psychology.


Next up:


Existential psychology, the age of analysis, psychoanalysis. Still using analogical or parallel modes of differentiating ideas and facts, leading to limits that no one theory could accommodate. Certainly 'fractures' were beyond that scope,and although reductionism led to paradoxical results, fractured were both symptomatic on more than one level.
The overcoming by pluralistic reduction below Christianity, led to the evil eye of Descartes' evil genius to reassert the will, the singular will which left the mode open to an open ending possibility, unacceptable to this , who saw concurrent rewidening of the goals of treatment, vis. pushing the trajectory of the transcendent requirements posed by a surpassed social requirement farther and farther behind

No winder the either/ or language of understanding could nit acclimate in a singular treatment plan. Every for shadow ING became measured by shades of Grey.

Behavior, observation could be it's own intrinsic plan, and the mind, the singular mind, had to become a machine, in order for memory to be reactivated in all levels to overcome it's own deficiency.

Only a memory approaching the Absolute could fix the problem necessary to repair the damage to a wirkeable extent.

That Absolute Memory is what consists of God's perfected plan, which the machine is only beginning to bring to light.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13265
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Mon Aug 29, 2022 4:50 pm

Nietzsche and Moral Nihilism
Dr W Large

How can this famous scene..."the passage in the Gay Science, where Nietzsche writes of the madman who rushes into the marketplace and declares that God is dead"...be a declaration of atheism, when the people that the madman announces the death of god to are in fact already atheists? No, this is not what Nietzsche thinks is significant for us understand. The truth of this passage comes a little later, when the madman tells them that it us who have killed God: ‘We have killed him – you and I’.


Well, he is a madman, right? And, obviously, if there is no God, mere mortals can only "kill" Him by acknowledging that we are abandoning that which we ourselves brought into existence. And once we go down that route we are confronted with, among other things, grappling with why, in our heads, we brought Him into existence in the first place. And [of course] what there might possibly be to take His place.

And we all know what Nietzsche "thought up" here in his head. And look around...there are plenty of fulminating fanatic objectivists in the secular camp. All insisting that, in the absence of God, their own particular "ism" is the next best thing.

Thus...

And yet, even though we are the murderers of God we still have no idea of what a universe without God, without any values really means, because as such we still cling to the ideal world even though it is absent. It is not enough to negate values, because then all you are left with is negativity, and negation is dependent on the very thing that it negates. I say that I don’t believe in God, but paradoxically this non-belief is just as much dependent on the idea of God, as the belief in God is, for without the idea of God how would it be possible to be an atheist. We have to get beyond both the belief and non belief. We have to get, to use a title to one of Nietzsche’s books, Beyond Good and Evil.


In other words, for each and every one of us as unique individuals...whatever that means?

What does it mean to you? For me of course whatever it does come to mean for each of us will revolve around dasein. Suggesting that, once again, in a No God world, there does not appear to be a way to determine what it ought to mean...pinning down the most rational assessment of what in fact it does mean.

Philosophically? Politically? Naturally?

The real source of nihilism is negation, and therefore to understand nihilism we have to understand negation, or what Nietzsche we call negative will to power. There two sources of values for Nietzsche in the world: reactive and active. Nihilism in all its forms is reactive, and this is precisely the reason why Nietzsche’s philosophy cannot be nihilism, for it is against reactive will to power that it is written.


Your negation or mine? Mine still comes back to No God. No God and no transcending font. No transcending font and no Judgment Day. No Judgment Day and we mere mortals, utterly lacking in both omniscience and omnipotence, are on our own.

But: if we can invent religion, we can invent Humanism too. Our own Reasons. Our own Vices and Virtues.

As opposed to theirs.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Ichthus77 » Mon Aug 29, 2022 5:42 pm

If you negate it back down to bedrock and build up from there, do you ever reach bedrock, or go deeper into the groundless until it gazes back through the eyes of the whipped horse in Plato’s Republic?

Let’s pivot that one round the dao (bedrock, rejected cornerstone) and see what the whirlwind leaves us.

“And why can’t you decide for yourselves what is right?”
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6041
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Mon Aug 29, 2022 5:57 pm

:lol:

No, seriously.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Ichthus77 » Mon Aug 29, 2022 6:03 pm

balderdash
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6041
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Mon Aug 29, 2022 6:21 pm

See, I told you origami and Meno and Ecmandu and her are the same person.

That every thread is The Corner to them.

Why should the philosophy board be any different?


Note to Magnus:

Ban them? 8)
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Ichthus77 » Tue Aug 30, 2022 3:28 pm

Biggy, I apologize that all of our previous discourse lacked reflective distance, or indifference, and allowed feeling-loaded presuppositions to cloud our Golden Rule judgment in properly examining the issue at hand.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6041
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Aug 30, 2022 4:08 pm

iambiguous wrote:Note to Magnus:

Ban them? 8)


Absolutely. Maybe issue a warning or two first, see how they react. But if they persist . . .
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6117
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Tue Aug 30, 2022 4:25 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Note to Magnus:

Ban them? 8)


Absolutely. Maybe issue a warning or two first, see how they react. But if they persist . . .


Ah, a cartoon character to make your point!

On the other hand, how long would Thor himself last in a forum moderated by you? 8)
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Ichthus77 » Tue Aug 30, 2022 6:00 pm

Fricken!!!! I haven’t seen Thor yet. Ok whatever I’m never coming back here.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6041
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby MagsJ » Tue Aug 30, 2022 6:07 pm

_
Does she mean back to this thread or to this forum?

Let’s hope she means 'this forum'. ;)

Is the clue in the topic title.. :-k
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25047
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Meno_ » Tue Aug 30, 2022 6:19 pm

This is the advent of reactions of those vested in negativity and disbelief against those trying to adhere to It.(Faith)

No disrespect, like a sacrificial lamb, in order to save Others, I surrender and leave this here. No , such needs no singular toleration especially one sourced to Dasein.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13265
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Thu Sep 08, 2022 5:34 pm

Nietzsche and Moral Nihilism
Dr W Large

The real source of nihilism is negation, and therefore to understand nihilism we have to understand negation, or what Nietzsche we call negative will to power. There two sources of values for Nietzsche in the world: reactive and active. Nihilism in all its forms is reactive, and this is precisely the reason why Nietzsche’s philosophy cannot be nihilism, for it is against reactive will to power that it is written.


Once again, another "general description intellectual contraption": The "negative will to power", "active or reactive will to power."

You tell me how the author's point here is applicable to your own life. Note for me a set of circumstances in which some would insist on acting/reacting one way, while others will be equally adamant it is, instead, another way altogether.

And then, nestling down all the more in a scholastic assessment...

Nietzsche’s critique of morality is that in fact it is secondary. Morality presents itself as a disinterested objective valuation of the world, but underneath it is just another form of will to power: the desire for self preservation, even if that means dominating others.


Given what actual historical, cultural and uniquely personal/interpersonal context? And, given what particular understanding in such contests, of where to make a distinction, to draw the line between "I" and We"? Morality here as a "disinterested objective valuation of the world"? When on Earth has that ever been the case? All of this [to me] precipitates profoundly problematic narratives from each of us as individuals. What you construe to be a "desire for self-preservation" or "dominating others" or what I do? Or what others here do?

Again and again and again: given what context?

All morality is hypocritical, not because it is false or wrong, which would be too simplistic, since all human beings live by values, even if the supreme value in our age might be to value nothing, but because it presents itself as though it were not of this world, above petty politics and striving, objective and absolutely true.


Now this, even as a "general description intellectual contraption", certainly seems rational and realistic to me. And, indeed, by focusing in on a "situation" -- something fiercely debated "in the news" -- I think it is reasonable and realistic for one to subscribe to "situational ethics".

That, in other words, it is the moral objectivists among us who embrace their own dogmatic value judgments as though they did float above the world encompassed in the actual history of human interaction to date.

Just note your own God, your own Ideology, your own School of Philosophy, your own assessment of Nature.

Then in your own "world of words" define and defend them as the One True Path.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Fri Sep 16, 2022 6:36 pm

Nietzsche and Moral Nihilism
Dr W Large

Nietzsche is not criticising values in general, but reactive values, and it is these values that have led to the nihilism of the West. Having negated the world, and seen nothing positive in it, it has ended up with the ultimate negation of destroying itself.


Got that? Okay, then explain it to us in regard to your own behaviors of late.

From Oxford Reference websIte:

German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (and after him French philosopher Gilles Deleuze) used these categories to describe two different ways of acting and—by extension—being in the world. An action (which may be a thought, feeling, or practice) is active when it takes something as its object; conversely, it becomes reactive when it is made the object of someone or something else. Thus, if we feel sad (or happy) and we do not know why we feel this way, then we are reactive; if, however, we can discover the reason we are feeling this way, we can convert reactive forces into active forces. Reactive is not the same as negative and should not be thought of as intrinsically bad; it is, rather, the usual state of things. It is, however, a limiting state of things, because it separates us from what we can do—if we are sad for no apparent reason, and we do not seek out the cause, then we are prevented from forming an appropriate response to that cause, and our power to act is reduced. We are reacting when we could be acting, and more problematically still we are using our reaction to excuse our lack of action. Nietzsche generally refers to this state as ressentiment. Therefore, the challenge for both philosophy and life, according to Nietzsche, is to overcome the reactive state of things and become active, thereby constantly enhancing our power to act.


Does that clear things up for you?

Of course, it's preposterous to criticize "values in general" because human interactions without values amounts to no interactions at all. We all value different things. We have to. Otherwise what would motivate any behaviors at all.

Instead, the truly dramatic elements throughout human history revolve by and large around interactions in which we mere mortals clash over what some insist we ought to value while others insist that we ought not to value those things at all, but other things.

Then, staying up in the clouds of abstraction...

Active and reactive values describe the relations of dominance and subordination. What is reactive is always a response to what is active. It subordinates itself to more dominating forces. But it is important to realise that this subordination is not an absence of power. It is just as much an expression of power, Nietzsche believes, to dominate as subordinate oneself. In the second case, one obtains power by accommodating and regulating oneself to the status quo. This is exactly how the power of modern societies operates. It is the power of adaptation and utility, and those who are better adapted have more power, and those who refuse to adapt, conform and fall into line, have little or no power. Be like everyone else, or else! This is the motto of our societies, and our schools and universities are nothing but machines to produce this submission.


On the other hand, around the globe there must be hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of very different social, political and economic contexts where this "general description intellectual contraption" can, to any particular individual, mean practically anything.

That's why I ask, "what's it mean to you?" given a specific situation where you are either active or reactive in choosing your behaviors.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Ichthus77 » Fri Sep 16, 2022 11:30 pm

In order to be 100% proactive, you have to be omniscient, otherwise the unforeseeable will inevitably occur for which you will be unprepared. That explains some of my behavior these days, anyway. Maybe Nietzsche had a small, predictable world? Who am I to say? He was turned by something with which he was probably familiar (a horse being whipped), no? I can’t ever remember him talking about that experience in anything I’ve read so far. Point me?
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6041
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Tue Sep 27, 2022 4:40 pm

Nietzsche and Moral Nihilism
Dr W Large

Because our societies, or perhaps society itself, is essentially reactive, it is much harder to describe what active forces are. One thing that we do know is that they must be first, because without active forces, there would not be any reactive, for what would they be reacting against?


How about this then: "we'll need a context."

Someone noting what they construe to be an example of an "active force" in society today. The pandemic? MAGA/QAnon? BLM? The war in Ukraine?

Lots of reactions to them of course. But what never changes is that, however we distinguish action from reaction here, there are almost always going to be fierce conflicts regarding the right actions to take and the right reactions to them.

Me: dasein. You? Let's explore it.

This is the first step away from nihilism.


Or, in fact, towards it. Depending on whether the discussion revolves more around ends or means.

For nihilism says that what is first is negation. But this is precisely how reactive forces speak: negate! What is active, on the contrary, is what is creative, what imposes forms and dominates. Its first word is not negate, but create, and what one must first create is oneself beyond the reactive forces of society.


Again, though, given what context? For some, what they deem to be active behaviors others deem to be reactive behaviors to their own active behaviors. We create, you negate. Each side has their own set of accusations regarding things like "politically correct", "woke", "cancel culture", "fake news." And it's not for nothing that these fanatics embrace objectivism in regard to the ends and nihilism in regard to the means. Just follow the news for a few weeks.

Again simply to negate society, and the values implicit within it, is not enough, for this is to be dependent on the values of the very society one despises, and have negated it all that one is left with is a black hole. The point is to create new values that leap beyond the negative values of society. This is what Nietzsche calls the ‘Dionysian power’.


And how is this all that far removed from the thesis/anthesis generating a new synthesis becoming the new thesis folks? Hegel as the idealist, Marx as the materialist. Action/reaction all the way down.

Ever and always predicated on objectivism.

But then that's where "I" come in, isn't it?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46390
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron