Substance/System/Structure

[CharleyH]

That's why any derived morality from a rational premise will fail.

I love your choice of words here, Cant.

"The greatest good for the greatest number"or "do no harm"-- neither can produce a workable moral guide nor encompass the human.

In my readings today, I came across a quote I had forgotten and I think I can post it in this instance: IT IS MAN’S HUMANITY THAT MAKES HIM INHUMAN. I forget who said it, but I think it a great paradox.

As for your remaining post? I agree to some degree, Cant. But what is moral or morality? Who defines these things? In the same book (Erich Fromm) I read that to a Buddhist killing a fly is reprensible, therefore immoral. IN NA culture, it is not. Why? Because we do not see a fly as a sentient being. I am getting away from the original post here, though. The little analogy has many greater implications though.

 

[Pure]

Small Correction

Nice thread; sorry I didn't notice it before.

It sounds like your man is into what some call 'dynamic systems theory' and 'nonlinear dynamics.' There are also some 'self organization' people like Stanley Kauffman, who are relevant.
In general, R denies a fixed human nature, and says it's in process always.

One small error
Roxanne’s attempt to define standards for objective moral absolutes based on Kantian rationalism rather than Randian ramblings is admirable, but still an exercise in futility. That has to do with the fact that despite Kant’s impeccable logic he was trying to impose a system on human nature and explain it within those confines.

This is not quite right. Roxanne is mostly a follower of Rand with a couple revisions due to Kelley and Adam Smith. Rand claimed to know the essence of human nature, and held that man's 'reason' was at the core; his prime and characteristic 'gift' from the life process. She acknowledged Aristotle as her precursor, but disliked Kant a lot. HOWEVER, being ignorant of Kant, pretty much, she re-invented some of his moral arguments, and even parroted a classic moral injuction of his 'treat all men as ends, and never as means only.' So I think Rox is likely following Rand, here, and NOT consciously borrowing from Kant, and certainly not, in her mind, correcting Rand, by drawing upon Kant.

I agree that Kant's efforts did not succeed, but his failures are not really the same as Rand's. He tried to abstract from human nature.
Rand tried to essentialize it, not unlike Aquinas. Hence Rand ends up with 'laws of nature,' much like Aquinas and the Pope.

Rand eventually moderated her egoism and broke the tradition of Smith, though i'm not sure if Roxanne is aware of this. Rand postulated 'rational egoism'. Each is to pursue his 'rational self interest.' This does not sound like Kant. Nor Smith. Rand becomes tinged with rationalism, however in holding that 'rational self interests' of various men do not ever conflict.

Here is a concrete illustration of differences from Peikoff, Rand's annointed philosophy prof: Kant held it was wrong to tell a 'white lie,' (telling your wife her new dress is beautiful, when it isn't). He went further, however: he claimed, that if you have a ax in your house, and an incensed and deranged person comes to your door, and asks "Do you have an ax, here?" it is wrong to lie to him. RAND, however, agrees only with the first case, and NOT with the second (the ax).

 

[CharleyH]

[/I]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ole Cantdog is on a roll tonight! Saul and Rombach, two idiots that make up their own words and terms and don't define them, are 'wonderfully slippery', with such asinine phrases as 'dynamic system of equilibrium', sounds like one of these tv evangelist's selling a book!

"...close reasoned analysis..." I suppose Candog meant a 'closed reasoning analysis', aka, 'reality' and of course, reality is an anathema to all relativists who are not quite sure they can prove their own existence...


what a total load of crap....


amicus....

I would certainly be interested in you defining anything real or ephemeral for yourself, or us, Ami. I am not certain I have seen an arguement from you here, yet. You knock Cant and others, but offer nothing in return? Shame on you.

 

[rgraham666]

Whilst pondering on this thread my mind dug up a book I read a while ago called The Cybernetic Samurai. It was an SF novel about an attempt to create an artificial sentience.

Note sentience rather than intelligence. I'm not sure I can explain the difference but I know the difference.

The creator based her algorithms on mathematical formulas that mimicked quantum behaviour. She had to do it in a private lab as the governments at the time hated quantum mechanics. Why? Because quantum mechanics was barely predictable, but not controllable.

The point I'm trying to bring up is that the 'rationalists' believe their systems can make the universe controllable. Since B always follows A in their systems, all things can be controlled, including people and society.

The 'relativists' believe that the universe, is to a point, predictable but not that controllable. A does not always proceed B in their systems. So the universe is not controllable.

Which is why I prefer a 'relativist' or 'subjective' philosophy. Acknowledging the limits of your power and understanding is a good thing in my book.

 

[past_perfect]

Nice thread; sorry I didn't notice it before.

It sounds like your man is into what some call 'dynamic systems theory' and 'nonlinear dynamics.' There are also some 'self organization' people like Stanley Kauffman, who are relevant.
In general, R denies a fixed human nature, and says it's in process always.

One small error
Roxanne’s attempt to define standards for objective moral absolutes based on Kantian rationalism rather than Randian ramblings is admirable, but still an exercise in futility. That has to do with the fact that despite Kant’s impeccable logic he was trying to impose a system on human nature and explain it within those confines.

This is not quite right. Roxanne is mostly a follower of Rand with a couple revisions due to Kelley and Adam Smith. Rand claimed to know the essence of human nature, and held that man's 'reason' was at the core; his prime and characteristic 'gift' from the life process. She acknowledged Aristotle as her precursor, but disliked Kant a lot. HOWEVER, being ignorant of Kant, pretty much, she re-invented some of his moral arguments, and even parroted a classic moral injuction of his 'treat all men as ends, and never as means only.' So I think Rox is likely following Rand, here, and NOT consciously borrowing from Kant, and certainly not, in her mind, correcting Rand, by drawing upon Kant.

I agree that Kant's efforts did not succeed, but his failures are not really the same as Rand's. He tried to abstract from human nature.
Rand tried to essentialize it, not unlike Aquinas. Hence Rand ends up with 'laws of nature,' much like Aquinas and the Pope.

Rand eventually moderated her egoism and broke the tradition of Smith, though i'm not sure if Roxanne is aware of this. Rand postulated 'rational egoism'. Each is to pursue his 'rational self interest.' This does not sound like Kant. Nor Smith. Rand becomes tinged with rationalism, however in holding that 'rational self interests' of various men do not ever conflict.

Here is a concrete illustration of differences from Peikoff, Rand's annointed philosophy prof: Kant held it was wrong to tell a 'white lie,' (telling your wife her new dress is beautiful, when it isn't). He went further, however: he claimed, that if you have a ax in your house, and an incensed and deranged person comes to your door, and asks "Do you have an ax, here?" it is wrong to lie to him. RAND, however, agrees only with the first case, and NOT with the second (the ax).

Thanks, I was a little confused by her affirmation that she is no Randian. From the way she tried to approach absolutes it sounded quite Kantian to me - and that is the ilk I am more familiar with in my neck of the woods here anyway - Rand was shot down and marginalised here right from the beginning.

 

[CharleyH]

I don’t want to hijack a thread, or revive another, but I do feel that it might be interesting for some of you who have been entrenched in a debate that apparently cannot be resolved to get a slightly different perspective.

I must ask for your indulgence though, if some of the following is either plainly incomprehensible or offends your refined taste for the English language – which isn’t my own native tongue. Secondly, I will attempt to introduce some concepts of contemporaneous philosophy that apparently haven’t even been translated yet – which is pretty incredible in itself – I was stupefied when I discovered that the most eminent figure of current German philosophy, Heinrich Rombach (1923-2004), hasn’t even been mentioned in the English version of the Wikipedia as yet. Some of his concise and precise definitions are difficult to translate – so I will have to work with approximations and explanations rather than translations in some instances. That has to do with fact that German philosophers tend to make up words whenever they feel that the existing vocabulary doesn’t accurately transport the meaning they desire.

Roxanne’s attempt to define standards for objective moral absolutes based on Kantian rationalism rather than Randian ramblings is admirable, but still an exercise in futility. That has to do with the fact that despite Kant’s impeccable logic he was trying to impose a system on human nature and explain it within those confines.

Rombach, following the line of Heidegger and Husserl and using the existing tools of phenomenology, distinguishes between three prevalent models or approaches to describe reality and being itself.
Historically the oldest one is substance, followed by system and currently structure. His main work is called “Strukturontologie”, which could be translated as structural ontology (this however is currently used in an entirely different context by different disciplines).

Substance is the prevalent model of thought of antiquity and the middle ages – the attempt to reduce all things perceivable to their essence, their substance. To give an example, wheat is the substance or essence pervading all possible forms of its existence – be that as a seed, bud, ripe plant or flour – those would be mere appearances, attributes and permutations of the inherently invisible substance.

System is the basis of modern science and contrary to asking about the substance or essence of things, it is focussing on the function. A system can include the description of interaction and relationship. It is still the prevalent model of thought and pervades all disciplines of science and politics.

Structure is a comparatively new element in (western) philosophical schools of thought, although it can be traced back to the 13th century. Both system and structure are focussing on the function of the elements involved. However, system assumes that in a given set of circumstances (“if… then condition”) the outcome is predictable. In structure, the interaction of the elements constitutes structure, whereby it is entirely unpredictable how the elements develop in respect to the structure, or how the structure itself is going to develop based on the interaction of the elements. One example would be language and the use of a pause. It is impossible to predefine whether a pause is “just a pause” or whether it will serve to underline or even qualify what has been said. It is only possible to determine that in the very moment the pause is used. This shows that language can be seen as a structure, whereas a programming language for instance would be a system – the freedom of non-predefinition the elements have in structure is simply not given in code as a closed system.

I borrowed and translated parts of these definitions from an introduction to structural ontology by Thomas Diener to give you a rough idea what Rombach is attempting to introduce.

It is the idea of inter-dynamics and (relative) unpredictability. This of course is just the starting point for a very comprehensive and intricate web of thought he develops. I hope it will get a little clearer when I try to apply it to the question at hand.

One of the points discussed was the question of whether a transcendent ethical absolute is hardwired into human nature, which can be adequately deduced by logical reasoning. I would suggest that this is not the case, because human nature is nothing static, but a dynamic process in itself. One element certainly is rationality, the second irrationality (emotions), a third transcendence (intuition), and the fourth interaction based on social constructs and biological imperatives. The interplay between those elements and their almost infinite variety of subsets form a structure, which in itself is transitory, unpredictable but still not random or chaotic.

I would uphold that human nature is nothing we can reduce to a logical abstract, but constitutes an individual dynamic process we undergo. In other words – human nature is nothing we are born with, but something we constantly form, define and discover in the duration of our life. We render our own interpretation of human nature by living, experiencing, expressing, and interacting with others. One could say however, that this is not an entirely active process. It would be equally permissible to say that it is the other way round – namely that whether we want that or not, human nature is asserting itself by itself – and a certain confluence of elements in play can induce a limited subset of possible outcomes. Even that parts of the structure themselves can be “frozen” by choice or circumstance – which would then become a system. Structure bereft of dynamic formative interplay of the elements is a system. System is by definition closed, structure open and dynamic. A structure can include one or several closed systems, a system can never include a structure.

Human nature is not being, it is becoming.

Confused? It’d be a first if I managed to make myself clear from the outset. So instead of rambling on now, I’d rather have some feedback on where you need clarification or see contradictions. Please forgive me if those answers aren't rapidly forthcoming, as their formation might include an non-predefined number of cigarettes, cups of coffee and deliberately slow cogitations on a stroll around the block.

I have indulged and now I am asking, or telling you: What kind of REAL philosophy or opinion do you have that Wikipedia does not offer? You quote alot, and I can certainly answer to it as many here can, yet now where is your opinion? I prefer to answer to your opinion because it's more important to me - otherwise we will all go back and forth quoting people we don't wholly believe in.

 

[past_perfect]

Whilst pondering on this thread my mind dug up a book I read a while ago called The Cybernetic Samurai. It was an SF novel about an attempt to create an artificial sentience.

Note sentience rather than intelligence. I'm not sure I can explain the difference but I know the difference.

The creator based her algorithms on mathematical formulas that mimicked quantum behaviour. She had to do it in a private lab as the governments at the time hated quantum mechanics. Why? Because quantum mechanics was barely predictable, but not controllable.

The point I'm trying to bring up is that the 'rationalists' believe their systems can make the universe controllable. Since B always follows A in their systems, all things can be controlled, including people and society.

The 'relativists' believe that the universe, is to a point, predictable but not that controllable. A does not always proceed B in their systems. So the universe is not controllable.

Which is why I prefer a 'relativist' or 'subjective' philosophy. Acknowledging the limits of your power and understanding is a good thing in my book.

Yeah - and A must remain A and B must remain B, otherwise the whole system breaks down.

One of the better examples for dynamic interplay would be a game of soccer (or many other teams sports for that matter).
Let's say two teams meet which aren't equally matched, one has superior players as far as skill and tactical ability is concerned, has the home advantage, a track record of 15 wins in a row and all the confidence in the world. The other team is struggling, has mediocre players, a striker which hasn't scored for several games and lost the last 7 games. The game would be the structure, the elements the individual players with their subsets of skill and confidence, the coaches, the umpire, the spectators and so forth.

With all probability, the first team would win - if you calculated it mathematically. But now the dynamic interplay starts. First fifteen minutes, the first team dominates the second, as expected, but doesn't score. Then all of a sudden, one of the midfielders of the second team gives a good pass, the striker scores and ends his "curse" and all of a sudden the dynamics of the game change completely. The second team uses the confusion of the first to score again. Two down, the superior team is "not getting into the game", although they try to put pressure on the first. Half time comes, the coach of the first team gives them a good earful and they come back into the game with renewed vigour. However, the bad defense of the second team is now taking over the impetus from their striker's recovery and outdoes itself to keep the score until the end.

I could have gone on for ages to make clear, that the structure of the game is influenced by the elements and at the same time the elements change the structure - in a highly unpredictable manner - one goal for the first team, and the entire game might have changed completely again. Does that illustrate some of the concepts involved here? How can something like that be put into a system?

 

[past_perfect]

I have indulged and now I am asking, or telling you: What kind of REAL philosophy or opinion do you have that Wikipedia does not offer? You quote alot, and I can certainly answer to it as many here can, yet now where is your opinion? I prefer to answer to your opinion because it's more important to me - otherwise we will all go back and forth quoting people we don't wholly believe in.

I think Rombach has developed a model that describes being and reality better than anything I have come across so far. It is simple, logic and takes parts of the human experience into account with an ease and power I have never encountered before - in other words: This could be the beginning of the western philosphy of the 21st century, as it is convergent with discoveries in other areas - or even simpler: it works. I hope that was what you were after?

 

[CharleyH]

I think Rombach has developed a model that describes being and reality better than anything I have come across so far. It is simple, logic and takes parts of the human experience into account with an ease and power I have never encountered before - in other words: This could be the beginning of the western philosphy of the 21st century, as it is convergent with discoveries in other areas - or even simpler: it works. I hope that was what you were after?

I have not read him. What is the human experience? How is he inherantly different than all others before him? I am interested in YOUR assessment of what you have read EDIT TO ADD: and what you think in your own assessment of reading his theories.

 

[past_perfect]

I have not read him. What is the human experience? How is he inherantly different than all others before him? I am interested in YOUR assessment of what you have read EDIT TO ADD: and what you think in your own assessment of reading his theories.

Well, this is going to be a little difficult, because as I mentioned before, so far I have only introduced this first underlying concept. I would not do him justice if tried to explain any of his other more complex concepts like "von selbst" which would translate as "by itself", "reines Geschehen" which would translate as "pure happening" (sounds like a sixties thang without an explanation, doesn't it? ) in detail and in the same order he chose without thinking of the best possible way to do that.
As it is almost one o'clock in the morning here, I would fail miserably if I attempted to do that now.
So, would you be so kind to let me off the hook for now? I can appreciate that it must be a little disappointing...

EDIT: Human experience - please see what I have written about human nature in the very first post. I will elaborate.

 

[Oblimo]

Amusing, to me, to be called obtuse and trollish when the utmost obfuscation has been attempted by the usual suspects, (add Oblimo).

Dude, I was defending you.

I am morbidly curious, though, about your gripe of logical positivism. What's your take on it?

 

[amicus]

…And the ‘snow job’ continues…

I never intimated that the usual suspects were stupid, well, not often; I usually praise their intellect and the glib replies to anyone advocating reason and rationality.

I suppose I must now include Past_Perfect as one of the ‘usual suspects’, although I doubt he/she will appreciate the honor.

My effort to identify the discussion as teleological appears to have fallen upon deaf ears, thus I offer another approach for those who seek to understand the reason and the motive behind the assault against reason and rationality.

I have a small advantage over those who have not read the works of Heinrich Rombach…one of my professors in college, who later became a good friend off campus and whom I had the pleasure of interviewing on my television program, was a former Luftwaffe pilot during World War Two who migrated to America and taught at the University of Washington and the University of Hawaii.

It was at the latter where I met him and it was he who introduced me to Goethe and essentially, German Philosophy in general. As I recall, and it has been nearly 40 years ago, he dismissed Rombach as a secondary intellect, feeding off the works that had gone before his time.

It is not Past_Perfect that I wish to refute here, not even Rombach, but an entire line of dead end philosophies that reject reason as a basis for the acquisition of knowledge.

I note, in passing, that a smattering of the ‘usual suspects’ seem quite happy to collaborate with Past_Perfect, as it suits their needs in terms of a relativistic, non absolute view of existence.

What we have here, is a ‘dialectic’ of no uncertain heritage, as the wikipedia paste will show.

The point being, when you digest it all, is that if you agree to a ‘dialetic’ of a certain genre, you are locked in to the parameters of the dialectic.

In this case, it is the dialectic of anti reason in favor of subjectivism and relativism, an open ended, no holds barred assault against the human mind.

You, of course, have a choice. My only purpose is to clarify the issue so that you at least know the choices you have.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectics#Marxist_dialectics

Marxist dialectics

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels believed Hegel was "standing on his head", and endeavoured to put him back on his feet, ridding Hegel's logic of its orientation towards philosophical idealism, and conceiving what is now known as materialist or Marxist dialectics. This is what Marx had to say about the difference between Hegel's dialectics and his own:

"My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of 'the Idea,' he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of 'the Idea.' With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought."

Nevertheless Marx "openly avowed [himself] the pupil of that mighty thinker" and even "coquetted with modes of expression peculiar to him".
Marx wrote: "The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel's hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell."

In the work of Marx and Engels the dialectical approach to the study of history became intertwined with historical materialism, the school of thought exemplified by the works of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. (Marx himself never referred to "historical materialism.") A dialectical methodology came to be seen as the vital foundation for any Marxist politics, through the work of Karl Korsch, Georg Lukács and certain members of the Frankfurt School. Under Stalin, Marxist dialectics developed into what was called "diamat" (short for dialectical materialism). Some Soviet academics, most notably Evald Ilyenkov, continued with unorthodox philosophical studies of the Marxist dialectic, as did a number of thinkers in the West. One of the best known North American dialectical philosophers is Bertell Ollman.

Engels argued that all of nature is dialectical. In Anti-Dühring he contends that negation of negation is "A very simple process which is taking place everywhere and every day, which any child can understand as soon as it is stripped of the veil of mystery in which it was enveloped by the old idealist philosophy." In Dialectics of Nature, Engels states, "Probably the same gentlemen who up to now have decried the transformation of quantity into quality as mysticism and incomprehensible transcendentalism will now declare that it is indeed something quite self-evident, trivial, and commonplace, which they have long employed, and so they have been taught nothing new. But to have formulated for the first time in its universally valid form a general law of development of nature, society, and thought, will always remain an act of historic importance."

Marxists view dialectics as a framework for development in which contradiction plays the central role as the source of development. This is perhaps best exemplified in Marx's Capital, which outlines two of his central theories: that of the theory of surplus value and the materialist conception of history. In Capital, Marx had the following to say about his dialectical methodology:
"In its rational form it is a scandal and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors, because it includes in its comprehension an affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable breaking up; because it regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its transient nature not less than its momentary existence; because it lets nothing impose upon it, and is in its essence critical and revolutionary."

At the heart of Marxist dialectics is the idea of contradiction, with class struggle playing the central role in social and political life, although Marx does identify other historically important contradictions, such as those between mental and manual labor and town and country. Contradiction is the key to all other categories and principles of dialectical development: development by passage of quantitative change into qualitative ones, interruption of gradualness, leaps, negation of the initial moment of development and negation of this very negation, and repetition at a higher level of some of the features and aspects of the original state.
[edit]

Critiques of dialectic

Many philosophers have offered critiques of dialectic, and it can even be said that hostility or receptivity to dialectics is one of the things that divides twentieth-century Anglo-American philosophy from the so-called "continental" tradition, a divide that only a few contemporary philosophers (among them Richard Rorty) have ventured to bridge.

One philosopher who has attacked the notion of dialectic again and again is Karl Popper. In 1937 he wrote and delivered a paper entitled "What Is Dialectic?" in which he attacked the dialectical method for its willingness "to put up with contradictions" (Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge [New York: Basic Books, 1962], p. 316). Popper concluded the essay with these words: "The whole development of dialectic should be a warning against the dangers inherent in philosophical system-building. It should remind us that philosophy should not be made a basis for any sort of scientific system and that philosophers should be much more modest in their claims. One task which they can fulfill quite usefully is the study of the critical methods of science" (Ibid., p. 335).

In chapter 12 of volume 2 of The Open Society and Its Enemies (1944; 5th rev. ed., 1966) Popper unleashed a famous attack on Hegelian dialectics, in which he held Hegel's thought (unjustly, in the view of some philosophers, such as Walter Kaufmann[1]) was to some degree responsible for facilitating the rise of fascism in Europe by encouraging and justifying irrationalism. In section 17 of his 1961 "addenda" to The Open Society, entitled "Facts, Standards, and Truth: A

Further Criticism of Relativism," Popper refused to moderate his criticism of the Hegelian dialectic, arguing that it "played a major role in the downfall of the liberal movement in Germany, . . . by contributing to historicism and to an identification of might and right, encouraged totalitarian modes of thought. . . . [and] undermined and eventually lowered the traditional standards of intellectual responsibility and honesty" (The Open Society and Its Enemies, 5th rev. ed., vol. 2 [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966], p. 395).

Edward de Bono has made noting the flaws of dialectic a major part of his work. He acknowledges that it has a valuable place in thinking, but that design is often a necessary tool to address it's shortcomings.
~~~~~~~~~~

You might ask yourself, why Past_Perfect, Oblimo, Pure, Cantdog and a host of other anti reason advocates are so adamant in their quest to dismiss reason and rationality. You might also ask why the old Amicus devotes time to refuting their assertions.

Those are questions you will have to answer for yourself. But rest assured, their motives are not beneficial toward learning and knowledge and understanding, but pander to chaos and although they will deny, to Nihilism, the meaninglessness of life in general.

While it may not seem germaine to most, one strong man can corrupt a village or a tribe and lead it astray. They are the pukes that always get their 'ducks in a row' and fulfill the requirements,(since they are without principle), and occupy the tenured seats of academia so as to corrupt yet another generation with their evil, while the common masses support their own destruction.

Heed my warning; these people are armed and dangerous and a full threat to civilization.

amicus...






Amicus the intolerable…

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I haven't read the thread because I'm under the gun with work deadlines right now, but I was asked to weigh in on Aristotle here, presumably because you've picked Ami's carcass clean and need some fresh meat to feed on. I wish I had the knowledge to authoritatively weigh in, but I don't. I know enough about Ari to know that I'm with him on the important essentials, but not nearly enough to hold forth on the issues. A lot of my info comes second hand through the man who I suppose is my primary "guru" these days, Charles Murray, who combines a great soul with a rational mind. Here are some tidbits that amount to me channeling Murrary who is channeling Aristotle:

"I proceed from the view that accomplishment in the arts and sciences is one manifestation of a characteristic of human nature discussed at length by Aristotle in books seven and ten of the Nicomachean Ethics . . ."

(The next items on my reading list. - R.A.)

Murray focuses on purpose, autonomy, and transcendental goods.

Purpose: "The belief that life has a purpose and that the function of life is to fulfill that purpose." (See my signature below for what Murray, Ari and I believe to be your purpose in life.)

Autonomy: "The belief that individuals can act efficaciously as individuals."

Transcendental goods: "A sense of goodness, truth, and beauty, all in the classical sense." '

Throughout history until a few decades ago, the meaning of life for almost everyone was linked to the challenge of simple survival. Staying alive required being a contributing part of a community. Staying alive required forming a family and having children to care for you in your old age. The knowledge that sudden death could happen at any moment required attention to spiritual issues. Doing all those things provided deep satisfactions that went beyond survival.

Life in an age of plenty and security requires none of those things. For the great majority of people living in advanced societies, it is easily possible to go through life accompanied by social companions and serial sex partners, having a good time, and dying in old age with no reason to think that one has done anything significant.

If you believe that's all there is--that the purpose of life is to while away the time as pleasantly as possible--then it is reasonable to think that the purpose of government should be to enable people to do so with as little effort as possible. But if you agree with me that to live a human life can have transcendental meaning, then we need to think about how human existence acquires weight and consequence.

For many (in creative professions), the focus of that search for meaning is bound up with vocation--for some, the quest to be rich and famous; for others, the quest to excel in a vocation one loves. But it is an option open to only to a lucky minority. For most people--including many older people who in their youths focused on vocation--life acquires meaning through the stuff of life: the elemental events associated with birth, death, growing up, raising children, paying the rent, dealing with adversity, comforting the bereaved, celebrating success, applauding the good and condemning the bad; coping with life as it exists around us in all its richness.

. . . Aristotle was right. Virtue is a habit. Virtue does not flourish in the next generation because we tell our children to be honest, compassionate and generous in the abstract. It flourishes because our children practice honesty, compassion and generosity in the same way that they practice a musical instrument or a sport. That happens best when children grow up in a society in which human needs are not consigned to bureaucracies downtown but are part of life around us, met by people around us.

 

[amicus]

A lovely image in your avatar space Roxanne, I know that painting...


amicus...

 

[CharleyH]

……

Hic - up

 

[amicus]

Gee,Charlie...you had some very interesting insights and questions on another thread....hickup?

oh well...

amicus...

 

[CharleyH]

Gee,Charlie...you had some very interesting insights and questions on another thread....hickup?

oh well...

amicus...

LOL.

Edit to add: Doesn't one get tired of the same old- same old- same old?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

LOL.

Edit to add: Doesn't one get tired of the same old- same old- same old?

Apparently not, since everyone here (including, ahem, yourself, and yours truly) keep coming back for more. No one forces anyone here to do it . . .

 

[Guest]

Apparently not, since everyone here (including, ahem, yourself, and yours truly) keep coming back for more. No one forces anyone here to do it . . .

You forget her love for BDSM.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You forget her love for BDSM.

Hmmm, I wrote one BDSM story myself, although it's not my specialty . . .

 

[Pure]

Charley Doesn't one get tired of the same old- same old- same old?

the ole 'in and out'? no!

yours truly,

Rocken Rolle

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[elsol]

Newbie: Intelligensia... German Intelligensium.

Amicus: Oh... another idiot.

CharleyH: Oh... another educated idiot.

Pure: Intelligensium really means Intelligentia

Amicus: You're all idiots...

I believe it's now my turn....

ElSol: All of your positions are equally valid.

Next will be Amicus:

Amicus: ElSol... you relativist idiot!

ElSol: That's relativist Catholic idiot to you, old man! And my mom would agree with you... so you're valid point has valid support!

(What do you want from me? I had a DB maintenance cancelled only after I'd drunk the necessary coffee... I'm hyper and I'm bored!)

 

[past_perfect]

I have a small advantage over those who have not read the works of Heinrich Rombach…one of my professors in college, who later became a good friend off campus and whom I had the pleasure of interviewing on my television program, was a former Luftwaffe pilot during World War Two who migrated to America and taught at the University of Washington and the University of Hawaii.

It was at the latter where I met him and it was he who introduced me to Goethe and essentially, German Philosophy in general. As I recall, and it has been nearly 40 years ago, he dismissed Rombach as a secondary intellect, feeding off the works that had gone before his time.

…

This is actually quite funny. That is what I was trying to explain before - in European philosophy, you do acknowledge the work that has been done before and build on it. That's the way new models are build in almost every discipline of science. Goethe was a great mind, but he wasn't a philosopher. I am not sure whether you understand the concept and precepts of philosophy at all.

As to the question whether Rombach is an original or secondary, that is something everyone would have to decide for themselves. I am beginning to understand what cantdog meant when he spoke of an sysephean effort. And thank you for including me in "the usual suspects". Considering who else might be in that group, I will see it as a matter of distinction.

 

[past_perfect]

Newbie: Intelligensia... German Intelligensium.

Amicus: Oh... another idiot.

CharleyH: Oh... another educated idiot.

Pure: Intelligensium really means Intelligentia

Amicus: You're all idiots...

I believe it's now my turn....

ElSol: All of your positions are equally valid.

Next will be Amicus:

Amicus: ElSol... you relativist idiot!

ElSol: That's relativist Catholic idiot to you, old man! And my mom would agree with you... so you're valid point has valid support!

(What do you want from me? I had a DB maintenance cancelled only after I'd drunk the necessary coffee... I'm hyper and I'm bored!)

Great So let me dispel one myth before it takes hold here - I have been accused of being intelligent before, but nothing could be further from the truth. Ok, I read a book or two and have been known to use words on occasion. But that's about it. I might be able to reason my way out of a paperbag, but I think it's infinitely more funny to just blow it up.

So in real life I usually ask people whose eyes glaze over during one of my discourses to forget about it, go home and meditate on the phrase: "Why try to explain the world when you can throw a brick at it" every time they masturbate.