I am saying that virtues are a result of innate moral grammar.
I do think that our conceptual understanding is based off of our instinctual one. We can’t see things from a non-human perspective so why bother with it?
Blah, blah. You can’t escape having a conceptual framework for approaching reality. Saying you don’t ascribe to any “isms” is a bold faced lie and you know it. Why engage in dishonest tactics? Your post involved post-modern thought and tactics. Why not call a spade a spade?
Destruction of the ego is fine. What happens after is more important though. As for the rest, you are engaging in moving goalposts.
I was arguing against your notion of judgment calls and how people are wont to disagree. That is all. I do agree with both your unified stance on the instinctual and the conceptual as well as your notion that many people consider them to be separate entities.
Sure, that is one of the many problems with both virtue ethics as well as the unified concept of virtue. However, I do not think these problems are insurmountable, largely due to context. What is our goal in classifying all emotions as the same thing? Will this help us understand how to better be emotional? The unified concept of virtue is almost exclusively coupled with the mean. There needs to be a balance between the different virtues. Too much or too little of any given virtue renders it a vice. It is a pedagogical tool more than anything else.
And I agree that discussions of virtue ethics often make it seem like virtue is some thing out there. That is largely because of its age – most of the thinkers who form the basis of virtue ethics did think that virtue was out there as some absolute standard. Indeed, this continues into the present as most virtue ethicists are Christian and they treat virtue as a proxy for God. Being an atheist, I disagree with this analysis but I will admit that it makes the whole project a lot simpler
I might argue that statement applies to the whole of society as a matter of fact.
…I was under the impression that “bothering with it” was philosphy in this respect.
Me:
You:
NOTE: I’m the person I was referring to. We all have concesptual perspectives, for that reason I can’t agree with allowing myself to be labeled by your interpretation of these ‘isms’. Would you call someone that knows nothing of Christianity a ‘Christian’ simply because he has similar values or concepts? In the same sense, I have little understanding of “Post-Modernism” and what it encompasses. I’m not claiming to be a scholar, just attempting to be a thinker…
Glad ya put the smiley on that one - Philosopher kings – dictatorship of the brainy oligarchy – a time honoured tradition from Palto’s republic to Lenin’s Rusia
– leadership record - poor
Where I strongly agree with you though is that political (miss) leaders tend to fill the gap where people fail to envision their own future
…There’ll always be candidates for leader when there are so many excellent followers!
I’d disagree that philosophy demands a non-human perspective. Putnam and his rejection of the existence of a God’s eye view is an example.
I think you are embracing exceptionalism as an intellectual doctrine here. If someone embraced values and concepts that line up with Christianity, I’d have no qualms about describing them as Christian. If they are Christian, wunderbar! I’ve put them in the proper box and can proceed from there. If they are not Christian, they can explain their deviation from that position despite their seeming similarities. That is great for me, since I learn about a school of thought that is new to me! If they are ignorant of Christianity, great! I’ve pointed them towards a system of thought which is sympathetic to their views. That looks like it is winners all around to me.
It looks like we’ve got options two and three here. I get to learn about your perspective, that is great. And you, well, I dismissed your position as being Derrida-esque claptrap. That is because I wipe my ass with Derrida, he worthless. But that is my perspective. Maybe Derrida would work for you, check him out. Or some secondary/tertiary lit on him. If he works for you, great.
And don’t take the gruff exterior (and interior) personally. When I first joined ILP, I got my face shoved in the dirt. I thought I knew my shit but I most certainly did not. When I got pounded on, I figured that out and did my best to rise to the occasion. Now I know more than the fuckers who shoved my face in the dirt. Or at least I fancy I do, you know what a bitch perspective is. Stick around and keep plugging away and you’ll see me for the amateur I am. Then you can slap others around and the cycle will complete itself.
Let’s bring it back to the originators of philosophy: it is all about agon (ἀγών), you know?
So you could be talking a sort of Nietzschian/Epicurian ethics where a “good life” (in the very general sense and taking you’re point about good and evil and who defines it etc) springs out from an excess of great/heroic/happy feelings?
So marality is based on doing/achieving/moving rather than restriction and prohibition and means begin to predefine ends if they are courageous and “take on” life directly?
Its something I’m kind of in to myself - if I understand you right. Sometimes all the Aristotealian talk of tempering everything, the golden mean etc is a bit depressing…or a bit too normative or something
…well, believe it or not, I didn’t disagree with a single statement here. In fact, i admire your perspective in a way now. I say this because, while having some clear-cut opinions like any other person, you seem to remain fairly open minded and cognizant of the value of perspective. It just seems to me that so many people get caught up in obsessive categorization and dogmatic principles that they loose sight of the “individual” and the underlying will(s) that comprises “humanity”. So much is focused on the societal aspect being that we have been trained to view the world in such a way, and thnkers are subsequently drawn to unnecessarily lumping concepts into labels and categories.
I can’t say I agee with your response on the example inovlving Christianity 100%, but only because I few Christianity as a foul, detestable institution. Being a Christian, or believing in Jesus Christ, is far different from the concept of “Christianity” to me now. Perhaps it’s due to maturity in my thought process, or just my particular perspective on the matter, I’m not totally sure. But to put it simply: I view “a Christian” as an individual that has made a personal choice of faith (not disagreeable whatsoever), however I can’t help but view “Christianity” as an institution now, rather than the description of a belief system. The concept has been so over-used, misused, and abused that it has little to do with the respective system of belief anymore. The idea has become a veritable scape-goat, or excuse, for every imaginable evil and yet it has become a standard for the moral foundation of much of the world. I don’t blame the individual Christian, but I will absolutely place blame on those that turned “Christianity” from idealism into a motive and excuse that seems to require little to no explanantion. Therefore, I couldn’t personally agree in that I would never direct someone toward “Christianity” because they have similar views. My interest in categorizing couldn’t even justify it for me. (Please note: The same goes for almost all organized religion in my opinion, with the exception of a few - though I do view Christianity as one of the most disturbing).
Anyway, I am admittedly green in respect to the many disciplines of philosophy. Few subjects interest me more though, so I ask questions and debate to help myself understand (not so much just for the sake of debate). I can’t say I really came here thinking ‘I know my shit’, as I have abnormally little self esteem, but I will say that I thought I had something interesting to bring to the table. I try not to limit the scope of my consideration when examining the variables that comprise any philosophical question. I will also admit, however, that I have recently started to ponder many of my own theories regarding the primal, instinctual, animal part of “humanity” upon which our conceptual worlds are built. So I know my interest in a discussion may stray a bit from my attempts at “open-consideration” (yes, I made that up) in the interest of trying to incorporate and thus examine my theories through a given discussion. You seemed to notice that little trisquit right away and I’m almost compelled to commend you for it.
I don’t know if you meant to say you no longer think of my position(s) as Derrida-esque, or if you were just stating that you dismissed my opinions for that reason. Either way, whatever floats your boat man. I’ve read a little on him and, while his concepts and subjects he addresses seem interesting, I just found his language to be strangely inflated and difficult to follow in that some of his tenants seemed so overly analyzed that they actually became generalized (if that makes sense). Analytical philosophy seems to loose much of it’s luster once one is forced to consder perspective at the same time…in my opinion.
Thanks for the advice though, and no offense taken anymore. I always found it curious how the egos of philosophers and thinkers clash even though they basically seek the same end (ex. Plato and Diogenes). I guess it boils down to your scope of consideration though.
In all honesty, I’d be curious to learn your perspective on many things, even if you find mine ‘banal’ and so easily dismissable.
Yeah, I think it is a delicate tight-rope. People need to have firm opinions and beliefs so that they can develop them into a practice, but people also need to be willing to recognize those beliefs may be wrong. ILP has been great for me in finding out which of my beliefs are wrong, people love to challenge that stuff. Granted, I’ve got my silly pride so it normally takes me a week or two to realize that I was wrong. You know how that is.
I dunno. I don’t think we can very easily separate a Christian from the Christian institution. Even Gnostic heretics recognize each other and can fluently swap ideas around with each other. I agree that it is a wide umbrella. Protestantism alone spreads things out and if we want to include all manner of heretical sects forget about it. But I don’t know about misused or abused since those seem to suggest that Christianity is a fundamentally good system. I’m not sure I’d want to give that as a premise. But for my money, even if someone is part of a philosophical system that I find hateful, well, at the very least if I have put them in that box I can proceed to ignore and/or be a dick to them. For example, I don’t much care for post-modernism. As you’ve experienced, when I think someone is a pomo I become an incredible dick towards them
Sounds like a pretty good starting point to me. Stick around, argue things out and it will flesh itself out more. Good stuff all around. I think you’ve got an interesting angle, keep rockin’ it. I imagine we’ll argue again in the future but I suspect we’ll also find plenty of points of agreement.
Nawww, I just thought I saw a certain slant to your thought and it is a slant I find objectionable (I figure “banal” cuts deeper than “wrong” because, well, “wrong” validates whereas “banal” dismisses) so I was just being a dick. Plus butting heads is fun, part of why I come to this site is to argue. As for Derrida’s language, since his whole stueck is that language doesn’t work he purposefully uses obtuse language and meaningless words to validate his position that one can never fully communicate what they are thinking. To me, that is cheating. It is like saying drunkenness doesn’t exist and to prove it I serve all the guests at my party non-alcoholic beverages.
