Sunday School December 10th 2017
December 14, 2017 at 7:33 pm #6736
@davis – the moral philosophy I’m putting together. It turns out to be exceedingly powerful. It’s kind of on a level of building a house – takes a while, but not forever. http://yellowgrain.co.uk/ That’s it, the writing up is still in progress, but the basics are all in my head. This is a religion in the form of a logical scientific philosophy. It’s the kind of philosophy that everyone can enjoy, understand (certainly in its basics) and also, add to.
Okay. So here is the question Simon. Why should I bother reading this webpage?December 14, 2017 at 8:33 pm #6737
@davis – “Why should I bother reading this webpage?”
– no-one’s forcing you. Take it or leave it.December 14, 2017 at 9:06 pm #6739
Davis, we need the masses out there to expand their self and philosophical horizons. (You are in a minority whom are relatively far ahead in that regard.)
December 14, 2017 at 10:05 pm #6743
- This reply was modified 10 months, 1 week ago by PopeBeanie. Reason: fricken mobile pos fixes, and senior-moment brain-fart deodorization
- This reply was modified 10 months, 1 week ago by PopeBeanie. Reason: edit 'optional reason' for clarity: deodorization/sanitization
- This reply was modified 10 months, 1 week ago by PopeBeanie. Reason: dammit! should be who or whom?
Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator
When we attempt to make rational pronouncements on how humans should best interact with each other we are engaging in a philosophical debate that has more to do with ethics than with morality. I will admit that books about morality and about ethics sit on the same shelf.
Aristotle considered ethical behaviour as something that was to be continually improved upon. He saw this as virtuous (his 4 Cardinal Virtues) and thought (and taught) we should strive for perfection. This would lead us to become “well beings” and that would allow for us to, as you call it, “flourish”.
Once you introduce the concept of “Perfection” in a conversation about morality you are dealing with absolutes. This renders the conversation futile as there are no absolutes. Morality is relative. However philosophical ethics leads to better conversations and in turn can lead to an increase in “wellbeing-ness” (my term). It allow us to be a continuous work in progress where new understandings and experiences can make us wiser and allow us to pass on the wisdom of our knowledge to others. We never aim for perfection as we can never be perfect. If we just aim to be the best we can be then that is enough.
I find very little wisdom and even less attempts at any ethical understanding of humanity in religious text. They may have help some people to move a few steps forwards but overall I find them to be of no use. Reading philosophy and engaging in dialogue is the best way forward. That and then thinking about the discussion. Religious thinking and absolutes get us nowhere.December 15, 2017 at 9:06 am #6746
“Aristotle considered ethical behaviour as something that was to be continually improved upon.”
– I’d agree with that, and it’s definitely a central issue. I’d say it’s an emergent property of a successful system, and interestingly, the act of identifying it amplifies it – the identification is part of the successful system.
– Ayn Rand said, a virtue is a policy for achieving one’s goals.
– the reason I gave it the name “Perfect Compassion” is because the well being of the situation is fully maximised, i.e. within each individual, and this has to lead to it being maximised as a whole. I could have called it “maximum compassion” – that might be a good name too – but Perfection is in a class of its own, as is, maximum possible compassion. There’s something special about both those concepts.
“It allow us to be a continuous work in progress where new understandings and experiences can make us wiser and allow us to pass on the wisdom of our knowledge to others.”
– I agree, and this process is actually part of the maximising quality that “The Healing Principle” has. I think that is a fairly rubbish name, that only covers one aspect of the full biological imperative; however, I couldn’t think of a better one.
“I find very little wisdom and even less attempts at any ethical understanding of humanity in religious text.”
– if it’s approached with an enquiring open mind, it turns out to be blazingly successful, if we concentrate on the universal Jesus / Sufi aspect. By contrast, moral philosophy continues to scratch sadly around in the dust.
“Reading philosophy and engaging in dialogue is the best way forward.”
– I agree 100%, and that’s the good thing about the internet. If it wasn’t for the internet, this would never have been possible.
I just saw this, but haven’t had a chance to look at it: some people reckon that morality can be programmed into a computer, which implies a good understanding of morality.
Apparently this is state-of-the-art. I’ll make some observations:
1. the Prisoner’s Dilemma has nothing to do with anything in my opinion.
2. the whole thing is very “machiney” in that they have to recreate standard human instincts in a machine.
3. for humans, a completely philosophical and factual approach will do the job, because it allows for simultaneous conceptions at multiple levels, and from multiple perspectives, just like in mathematics.December 15, 2017 at 10:58 am #6747
Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator
Maybe the term “Optimum” would be better than “maximum” or “perfection”?? It leaves space for growth and improvement rather than implying that there is an ideal to be reached or a specific end point in sight. Optimum would indicated a continuous journey that always allows for change. It will maintain a sense of relativism to a time and place and do away with absolutes.December 15, 2017 at 11:10 am #6748
I understand, but I think Perfection is something inspiring to aim for. Also, Optimum is kind of a jargon scientific word.December 15, 2017 at 11:34 am #6749
Optimum is a mouthful as well, whereas Perfect trips off the tongue.December 15, 2017 at 12:45 pm #6750
“The Golden Rule is a successful part of the psychopath’s morality whom I have interviewed – which shows that it can be a cognitive process and doesn’t need emotional empathy – just a good will.”
– she understands logically that one person is the same as another. She’s also got eyes to see. That’s got to be a good starting point. I would guess that she doesn’t do a worse job than most of us.May 13, 2018 at 9:11 am #9145
“We are all part of some coalition”
– this is also useful when thinking about groups or just internal politics.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.