On the simplicity of moralists.

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Recent developments in the greater philosophical community have given way to an area of study in which the majority of its participants find the belief that, “There are moral underpinnings in all philosophical and sociological writings” to be something of an archaic nature that is only prescribed by simpletons who cannot see the world for what it really is. When one is pre-emptively declared to be a laughing stock of a highly academic field, he encounters considerable difficulty when attempting to convey his ideas to the whole.

It is thus necessary for such a philosopher to take a step back from the use of his methods, and to craft explanation for both the use of his methods, and for the reasons why rhetoricians move so quickly to silence such methods.

I come from a philosophy department that, rather than getting bogged down in whether a writing was from “early, middle, or late Plato,” would rather begin by taking a chance; accepting a premise. The premise that is taken is derived from the writings of Plato and Aristotle: that man is an inherently moral creature who is governed by something greater than himself. The department understands what is would be like to read authors without accepting any premises. The absurdity is shown in the reading of Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy. If one allows himself nothing other than the inherent truth that he exists, then all other “certainties” that come from such a standpoint will be relative.

This is not to say that the acceptance of the premise “man is an inherently moral creature who is governed by something greater than himself” is an arbitrarily selected premise, or that it is the fulfilment of some sort of “longing” for a morally governed universe that is a result of man’s fear of the unknown. It actually makes the most sense to view the universe in this way, as the idea is more in tune with man’s senses than those of the relativist.

On the relativists’ attempt to decry the “moralist” as a simpleton:

A world in which absolute morals exist requires the existence of a higher force, or a lawgiver. The methods through which this force brings about beings who are able to understand and obey its laws are not important. In this universe, it is still possible that life started because a lightning bolt struck into a puddle of water of some uninhabited planet, and charged proteins in such a way that they became animated and began to self replicate. (Doesn’t it seem strange that in this freak accident, which is how relativists tend to explain the origin of life sans God, that these one-celled organisms had the inherent capacity for mutation and change? But I digress…). It seems that relativists get hung up on the idea that all of this occurred randomly, and in a universe that had no set beginning. A universe without a beginning would require no conscious prime mover, as matter would be the “absolute” that governs all other activity. It would be necessary for this universe to expand and contract ad infinitum, as it could not diffuse outward infinitely without something “creating” new matter.

Supposing that man’s sense of the finite is not faulty (which makes more sense), and that the universe occurred with a beginning point and will end with an ending point, a conscious prime mover, which would be the repository for all other created things, must exist. The mind who wishes to see the universe as a continually expanding and contracting entity does so on faith, as he is unable to step outside of the universe and watch it replaying itself over and over. Because we have now ascribed the term “faith” to the relativists, who claim to be the paragons of objectivity, they are now levelled with the moralists, but at a disadvantage. The moralist believes that his sense of time is a reflection of how the universe actually works, and thus has no problem accepting the rule of a governing authority that is greater than himself. By seeing this, it is obvious that the relativist “wants” the universe to exist as a continuous entity, separate from authority, so that he is free from judgment. However, in doing so, he renounces his perception of time as an accurate measuring tool for “how things really are,” yet seems to have no problem explaining the “real” motives of human activity.

It is through my training to see the moral underpinnings of such writings that I see that one who renounces his perception does so to create a moral loophole. Because the pointing out of this loophole is inconvenient for the relativist to get around, he does much better to gain popularity by claiming the moralist is an “old-fashioned” simpleton whose ideas have long since expired. This frees the relativist from a tremendous amount of argumentative inconvenience and the initiative to change his views.

On the non-objectivity of those who must renounce the value of human perception:

It is in this way that Kierkegaard explains, “The aesthetic has exiled himself from human discourse.” The man of the aesthetic (not ascetic) life, the life of immediacy, free of moral obligations, must renounce his senses to accept the premise that he lives in a universe that is governed by nothing. In doing so, he has muted himself from speaking on any other matters.

The aesthetics are still talking.

On the fallacy that those who subscribe to the idea of the moral universe do so out of fear of the unknown:

It is by seeing that the man who looks for moral underpinnings in all discourse is simply accepting the validity of his given perceptions that his views become much more respectable and grounded in reason. The relativist can certainly propose the infinitely fluctuating, never-certain universe, atop from which he spews his various and passion-driven pontifications, but what are those ideas worth when one has renounced human perception as some “conveyor of flux” whose grasping of ideas is inadequate?

A man who trusts his perception of the finite is not one who is driven by the fear of the unknown. If anything, he is the most sane of the lot. He experiences beginnings and ends and, within those finite parameters, holds a sense of purpose. The relativist must agree that his sense of purpose is merely an outgrowth of random chance, and should thus cease all other inquiries. His tendency to pursue such inquiries in order to demonstrate his “fitness” as a mate (and thus propagate his genes) demonstrates his fear of the unknown, and his inability to accept his temporality.

Now that the tables have been thoroughly turned, I can begin anew.

2

In creating a well-reasoned argument for my methods, I see the bias of the board members here. This argument, while not entirely unassailable, is solid, and demonstrates how moralists are anything but “old-fashioned” or obsolete.

The general academic snobbery that exudes from this community is what causes threads like this to receive no responses. People want juicy threads that explain man in an entirely causal manner, as these are the arguments that harmonize with their passions.

In seeing the inconvenience of a thread like this one, in which a moralist finally tires of the potshots that his inferior-minded contemporaries take at him, the opposition refuses to respond, hoping that their lack of response will create the message, “That is such mindless drivel that I will not bother to respond.”

Well, I do not buy that for a second. I would appreciate if some person who hated morals, or at least wanted, wished, and hoped that morals were an arbitrary construct; would try his hand at this discussion.

We don’t get anywhere when you’re all a bunch of cowards who pretend that difficult arguments aren’t worth responding to. Satyr is a pro at this, and I will continue to call him out, and he will continue to exude his “indifference,” thinking it will somehow make his masculinity even more prominent.

However, these points demand a response other than, “Only a simpleton holds such ideas,” as I have thoroughly demonstrated that there is nothing “simple” about the moralist. As far as I’m concerned, the ideas of this brief thread completely shatter the utilitarian view of human beings that is found in posts by Satyr and Mastriani, and they would do well to defend themselves if they actually cared about their views.

Pretend to not care. I care not. I know that an excellent discourse would emerge if someone around here had enough masculinity to step away from his passion-driven beliefs and REALLY see how the world works. It takes no courage to call the theist a “believer in leprechauns.” However, that same statement also requires no thought.

3

Although Satyr, and probably a few others, have already pointed this out, you’re grounding your position in a philosophy that died out about 500 years ago. You’re placing a stable essence beneath the flux of phenomena. Here’s your most telling sentence … (my bold).

You’ve shot yourself in the foot while saying ‘to step away from his passion-driven beliefs and really see how the world works’. You’re more or less saying there is a stable essence beneath the flux of phenomena while at the same time admitting that the human being is passion, a chaos of drives, a mish-mash of emotions, an ineffable organism. All you’re doing is trying to ‘freeze’ human activity by making moral evaluations about their activity; you’re placing a stagnant semiotic symbols onto chaotic phenomena.

Stop reading Plato and Aristotle for anything other than historical purposes, and read anything post Nietzsche to grasp today’s ‘reality’.

4

No thanks.

The latest is very rarely the greatest.

Popular opinion doesn’t make something true. People tend to hate authority and will say anything to do away with it.

5

Outside of all of this flux, there must ultimately be something that is stable that allows for the existence of the very laws that allow matter to come together for any duration whatsoever.

In assuming that this flux extends outwardly ad infinitum, you have made an absolute contention. I am saying that my “old-fashioned” point of view is not destroyed by science, but is rather enhanced by it, as the scientific community reaches ever-closer to universal laws.

I go about this inquiry with no specific “wants” in mind. I don’t necessarily “want” this universe to require a stable essence. I am merely saying that is has to be that way. It doesn’t take a strong rhetorician to convey ideas about the necessity of an underlying stable essence, but it takes a clever deceiver to get people’s heads into the clouds and to consider a universe that does not require one (the universe where man cannot say anything else, since his perception of time is worthless). The latter is exactly how Kierkegaard’s Seducer works.

If you insist upon making yourself unable to say anything other than, “It appears to be this way…” then continue with your current methods. What are they worth? Absolutely nothing. You have missed the aim of your existence.

It is much better to use common sense and assume that man has a telos, or an end, from which other arguments can grow and work. This “we’re uncertain of everything” club has been overdone. To assume that man has an end is much easier and more solid than assuming there is some ulterior motive behind all human actions. There is no point in needlessly depressing ourselves with fiction.

Or we could begin with the end that is prescribed by a person and distill down his arguments to see if they make sense. The world makes no sense when one assumes that everything is in continuous flux, and that there is no greater purpose for anything. If this principle were universally agreed upon, then all pursuits other than those of immediate fulfillment would become empty. And even the immediate fulfillment of wants or the acquisition of power would eventually become empty, and they would become empty for one’s successors, etc.

Since this behavior would actually cause a devolution in man, the idea that “there is no greater purpose for human existence” is probably false. A purpose-driven being cannot be completely causally explained. Once scientists have the ability to stick something in my brain and put the picture I am thinking of up on a screen, I will accept that man is nothing but animated matter. But not before that day.

Those who argue that man is merely an animated machine in a continuous flux ought to remain silent until absolute proof is found for this claim. Otherwise, their ideas may poison such a large portion of the population to “live for the moment” that the human race may not live long enough to find out.

Every time in the future, when something fascinates you, I want you to think to yourself, “My feeling of fascination is just a bunch of chemicals and atoms colliding around in my brain, it is meaningless.” If you want to stick to your guns, then you have to do this, or admit that you are not thorough in your beliefs.

6

Thanks for the nicely formed argument, and interesting read.

The tone gets a little confrontatory. I suppose that is intentional.

Considering the state of human knowledge at this point in time, I don’t find the positions mutually exclusive, so I don’t get the animosity.

7

So you’re connecting the ‘coming to together of matter’ with morality. I fail to see how ‘matter making our existence possible’ somehow demands that we have moral imperatives.

Why should I have to judge my worth by comparison to an external guide of some description? My life has worth because I will it to be so.
You seem to think that for anything to have value there must be some static form of guidelines for it to be judged by.

All you’re doing is shifting your resposibilities. Nevermind abstract concepts from without to imbue your life with some meaning, make a decision yourself and take responsibility for your life and how you desire to live it. In the end, it is you, and only you, who knows what’s best for you, and not some abstract guideline, or some moral imperative created by the state or some other external force of some description.

Positing your own meaning on this rock does not mean your life is ‘empty’. It can be greatly rewarding knowing you’ve made conscious decisions to live your life according to your own inclinations.

8

Saying that it is noble to imbue one’s life with meaning without having some sort of stable essence by which to judge it is just like making any other absolute judgment. You are basing your judgment here off of a stable essence that you refuse to admit must exist to say anything at all. Otherwise I would be allowed to argue that it is noble to create fictitious gods that give my life meaning.

Since we both agree this is absurd, we at least agree that human intellect is naturally inclined to the truth. If the “source” of truth is in constant flux, then our pursuits are fruitless save personal meaning.

9

“flux” being the key word here.

The molecules in my coke bottle are in “flux” (as well as those in the plastic, my body, etc.). But even if those are in flux, and even if my mind perceives them to not be in flux (say, as an illusion), they are experienced as being “stable”.

10

“THE TABLE IS NOT SOLID!” says the man trying to run his fist through it, knowing that atoms are mostly empty space. :laughing:

11

:wink:

12

The ‘stable essence’ of within is far different from the stable essence of without. The ‘stable essence’ within is consciously known to be a subjective expression, and these subjective expressions are subject to change. The stable essence from without claims that a static world exists ‘out-there’ and it conditions us, thus making human beings nothing but puppets in a pre-determined game.

I take your avoidance of explaining how we can get moral imperatives from the ‘coming together of matter’ as they don’t exist?

13

How does this equate and/or connect to morality?

14

There is no reason that a conscious, stable-existing being could not imbue its creations with free will. It would not exist in time as we do (since it would have to be the prime mover, the uncaused cause), thus it would be always existing at all time. This would do nothing to nullify one’s free will.

Also, this stable essence could have designed the universe in such a way that it would eventually produce beings who could contemplate such moral matters. In fact, this is a very medieval approach.

15

A few points, you’re using concepts that have no empirical basis - ‘a stable-existing being … imbu[ing] its creations with free will’, and an ‘uncaused cause - prime mover’. Then you’re moving your argument from a God outside of time to one that exists inside of time, (outside of time is another non-empirical concept).

Also, you using phrases like ‘this stable essence could have designed the universe in such a way …’. ‘Could’ doesn’t equate to does.

16

Yes, but it sounds much more believable than lightning randomly striking a puddle of water (whose matter is either eternal or of unknown origins), causing random proteins to come together in a way such that they started replicating themselves, and then underwent a nearly countless chain of random mutations that one day produced beings who were self-aware and understood language.

It seems like a fiction tale, to me. And it should to anyone with even the slightest shred of reason. Or, if one wishes to argue that this is how life really started, then he must admit that it is very enticing to see a creative force behind the laws that allowed such things to occur. Assuming that it doesn’t exist right off the bat is asinine.

But alas, people hate authority, and will say anything to do away with it. The moralist is simply the person who sees the prime mover as necessary, and moves to contemplate this superior force. Because this force would be the “greatest thing” in the universe, then all ethics would revolve around understanding it, and the sphere of human ethics; concepts like justice and goodness, would be absolutely established and unchangeable.

I understand by accepting this, there is little to do in philosophy other than convincing others that this is how things most likely are. I realize I would put a lot of philosophers out of work by inclining them to cease the creation of their half-baked ideas. Everyone is interested in coming up with new and dazzling ideas, which is a shame if one considers that the work may already be done.

This is why Plato and Aristotle should not simply be read for historical purposes, because they’ve already lined most of this out, along with the proper positioning of the concepts found in justice and politics. The work is done. It is our job as students of philosophy to study the true worth of these ideals. We should not become too interested in modifying everything to our own personal tastes. We are not as wise as we think.

It takes humility for me to adhere to this position. The ideas of the Satyrs and the Mastrianis requires hubris and the desire for excitement that is found in children who love to challenge authority.

17

I don’t think you’ll ever convince the majority of mortals of these ‘ethics’ because human beings are too egotistical; they want to do their own thing, which speaks volumes about the human condition and why static ethics are near impossible to implement. The followers of Plato have had 2,000 years to achieve their objective and it seems to be further away than ever now considering the ontology of our post-modern age.

18

I don’t know if I would go as far as to say “these ethics are further away than ever.” I imagine a lot of people have not considered this problem at all. I will not agree that they have “created their own ethics,” but rather they haven’t even thought of a system. If anything, there’s great potential there.

19

What makes you think that man’s senses are accurate? Being in tune with man’s senses is not a good criterion by which to accept or reject a proposition. A simple optical illusion is enough to show that man’s senses cannot always be trusted. There are plenty of things that are true even though they seem strange to the human mind. I would agree with you that man is an inherently moral creature, but what evidence is there that he is governed by something greater than himself?

It seems strange to think of organisms as having an inherent capacity for mutation and change. It is the same as thinking of a machine as having an inherent capacity to break. Any machine is naturally disposed to perform incorrectly. What is interesting is a machine that performs its task correctly. The first organisms would have been even more improbable if they had reproduced with 100% accuracy.

How does a prime mover help explain the universe? The existence of the prime mover is still unexplained.

Why is it that a universe that is continually contracting and expanding doesn’t require a prime mover? If I understand your reasoning correctly, a cyclical universe is fully explained because each event can be linked causally with the events before it. However, this leaves the cyclical universe as a whole unexplained. It seems to me that the existence of any universe can never really be explained, because for whatever explanation is given, one can simply ask “Why did that happen?”.

Humans are certainly not a product of random chance. I would say that they are a product of unintelligent selection pressures operating over billions of years, but this probably doesn’t sound much better to you. I hope you are not serious in suggesting that anyone who believes in natural selection calculates decisions in their life by deciding what will increase the production of his genes. Whether humans were produced by natural selection or a “prime-mover”, the fact remains that no human created himself; so he is, in a sense, a prisoner of his own mind. If humans are not an accident, then the “prime-mover” that created them is. The creations of a “prime-mover” have no greater claim to morality or purpose than their unintelligently-produced counterparts.

20

Step outside.

Machines, or even blueprints, implies a builder.

The sort of prime mover I’m speaking of would not require an explanation as it would be the creator of the universe and the laws of time that apply to it. You have to allow yourself to think of something that is over and above the universe; sustaining it.

“All explanations come to an end.”

-Wittgenstein

The continual asking of “Why did that happen” will lead to either a finite, created universe or a cyclical, uncreated universe. I am merely saying that it makes more sense for man to think about the universe in a finite manner, since that is how he experiences things. The grounding for this is not in any evidence, but in the limitation of man’s thinking. It makes no sense for him to believe in the cyclical universe and then to declare that he has some purpose for his existence outside of that which he makes for himself.

Excellently written. However, I would say in either case it is the duty of the creation, either an intelligent or unintelligently created being, to contemplate his origin to the end of his existence. This would still place human ethics in the realm of the unchangeable, where they ought to be.