Ecmandu wrote:Iambiguous got into his scared mode when I posted this, so he made a thread to ignore it
viewtopic.php?p=2711095#p2711095
iambiguous wrote:Ecmandu wrote:Iambiguous got into his scared mode when I posted this, so he made a thread to ignore it
viewtopic.php?p=2711095#p2711095
Beat it Kid.
Please...?
Ecmandu wrote:[Why? Because you don't want to hurt me?
iambiguous wrote:Ecmandu wrote:[Why? Because you don't want to hurt me?
Okay, Kid, I challenge you to beat it!
Ecmandu wrote:iambiguous wrote:Ecmandu wrote:[Why? Because you don't want to hurt me?
Okay, Kid, I challenge you to beat it!
Alright, make it official with Carleas in the debate section.
iambiguous wrote:I asked folks here to focus in on a particular value judgment of their own. Then to take us back over the course of their life [as I did above re abortion] and to intertwine their experiences and their encounters with ideas raised by philosophers. Such that they explore how and why "I" here came to embody one moral and political narrative rather than another.
The whole idea being that, in using the tools of philosophy, one is either able to subsume dasein, conflicting goods and political exonomy in an argument that transcends these existential contraptions, or one can explain how, in confronting their own conflicts with others [or reactions to specific contexts from the news] they do not themselves believe that their own "I" here is down in the hole that mine is.
Instead, in ny view, we basically get more "general descriptions" embedded in intellectual contraptions predicated on the particular definition and meaning they give to particular words placed in a particular order.
That's not the "I" that I am intent on exploring here.
Ecmandu wrote:For example: abortion
The anti abortionists say there are two lives instead of one, and both must be protected.
Then there's consent.
The mother is not consenting to a being that's part of her body until the umbilical cord is cut, since it's a part of her body still, it is her choice... once the child is no longer a part of her body, it is no longer her choice.
iambiguous wrote:As promised...
"From time to time I will bring this thread back to the top in case any new members might have an interest in this."
This being an attempt to connect the dots between the moral and political values that you subscribe to here and now and the extent to which you attribute them more to either 1] the lessons that you've learned in exploring ethics philosophically or 2] a particular experiential trajectory such that, given the life you've lived, you were basically predisposed [for all practical purposes] to embody one set of values rather than another.
For example, think of Donald Trump's children and the children of Barack Obama. Clearly, their own moral and political values were or are going to shaped and molded "at home". On the other hand, imagine them acknowledging this and then wondering what specific knowledge can be garnered using the tools of philosophy. Knowledge accumulated allowing one to concoct a moral narrative and a political agenda most in sync with that which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to embrace.
That's what most intrigues me about value judgments. The parts embedded existentially in dasein more or less than the parts embedded essentially in one or another deontological/objectivist assessment.
Now, if you wish to explore this here with me, be prepared to bring your own value judgments "down to earth". And not just embedded in "general descriptions" or in the abstract technical jargon of Will Durant's "epistemologists".
Please read the OP first in other words.
iambiguous wrote:If there is one thing I am clearly preoccupied with at ILP, it is relationship between moral and political value judgments and the existential tajectory of the lives that we live.
And, in almost every thread in which I post about this relationship, I eventually get around to this:
1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.
This because in it are embedded two experiences that were of fundamental importance in shaping and then reconfiguring my own moral and political narratives.
Over the years, I have gone from an objectivist frame of mind [right vs. wrong, good vs. evil] to a way of thinking about morality in human interactions that basically revolves around moral nihilism.
And, then, in turn, this resulted in my tumbling down into a philosophical "hole" such that for all practical purposes, "I" became increasing more fragmented.
This hole:
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
In other words, I am no longer able to think of myself as being in sync with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".
So, I decided to create this thread in order for others to at least make the attempt to describe their own value judgments existentially. Values as they became interwined over the course of their lives in "experiences, relationships and information, knowledge and ideas."
The part where theory is tested in practice out in particular contexts out in particular worlds.
This thread is not for those ever intent on providing us with "general descriptions" of human interactions. Interactions that are then described almost entirely using technical or academic language.
Instead, this thread is for trying to explain [to the best of your ability] why you think you came to value some behaviors over others. Linking both the experiences you had and the ideas that you came upon that shaped and molded your thinking in reacting to them.
From time to time I will bring it back to the top in case any new members might have an interest in this.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:OK. One broad category of behavioral activities I have come to value above others is the creative arts with an emphasis on that first word. Take that broadly, since I have engaged in photography, music, theater, various forms of written products and more. Let's focus on music.
My parents were musicians, though nor professionally. So I grew up in an environment where music listening and playing was a regular part of my days. I heard them comment on music - including popular music - on their own efforts to play well, and on musical artists they liked and why. Interestingly neither of them was particularly focused on the creative side, themselves. That is neither composed or wrote songs. So where did my interest in writing songs come from?
In addition to dasein, I would like to add in built in temperment, though it gets very hard to say how this plays a role in music creation. I just want to say it is there. My parents commented that unlike them I took an interest in creating in ways they did not, despite the fact that their parents also included musicians. IOW I seem to have had a tendency to make my own art and in my own way, rather than say wanting to faithfully recreate the music composed by others.
This later got intensified by my group of friends, coming in from ages 8-12 and staying into my thirties, with some still friends from t his group. These were people who through humor, physical creativity, and then within traditional categories of art, were always exploring new ways to do these things. It was a very playful group of males adn their was some drive to do things in our own way, together and separately. Any tendencies I had in that direction got increased in their company.
I found some pleasure in being able to play the songs of someone I liked. But not much. I always saw it as an excerise in learning how to create myself. The concept of a cover band or the nailing a guitar solo I thought was great was of very little interest in an of itself. I loved the feeling of making something that did not exist before I made it. Of course I wanted it to be good.
Later I found out that one of my parents had wanted to be a composer, but had thought it would entail too much ruthlessness in relation to his family. Perhaps this was in the air at home. This denied urge. And I picked this up by osmosis.
I went to Montosorri school when quite little. While not particularly more focused on creativity, at least, I don't remember it being so. It is a very physical pedagogy. The pedagogy itself is quite creative and multimedia and this may have given me more of a sense of possibility regarding doing things in generally. Creativity is founded on being open to possibilities. So perhaps this acted as a cultural quality that at least allowed it to be more likely I would focus on creativity.
Since my parents were talking about creative people - though also on technical artists like other musicians - I may also have thought that there is value in being that kind of person. One of my friend's fathers was vastly more focused on creative people and was a clearly frustrated creator in a number of arts - he did want to make his living off art. He became a kind of extra father figure, though chicken and egg issues come up in determining if my built in interest drew me to him or he helped create my interest.
I had a short attention span for things I was not directly interested in. I probably would have gotten a diagnosis - ADD, ADHD - if it was nowadays. Creating I find interesting. Rote learning I do not. I often did assignments in school in ways the teachers did not intend and this was for me to make it interesting for myself. This started very early and was noted - both as a postive and negative by teachers. Usually negative. Where did this impatience come from? Well, I went through some serious traumas as a kid. This can make some people want more instant gratification and also to not being willing to suffer their way through details and be disciplined in certain ways, since they are already suffering. Or it could have been genetic - my mother had similar tendencies, though she also went through similar traumas as a child. But then it also could have been that I was normal. That we all find sitting in rows learning things out of context, keeping still, to be a kind of torture. The difference is I allowed my reaction to take more space. Perhaps due to parenting - I was an only child, one parent had hippyish tendencies - perhaps due to genetics. Maybe stubborness was built in to me.
To keep things interesting I was creative. Or tried to be. Once this made things more interesting then all boring situations were essential triggers for me to train creativity - as well as I could, given the general hatred for hte creative in the education system and elsewhere.
Anyway, that's a bit of an attempt to satisfy the request of the OP. I can say more, but perhaps am not doing it correctly. I did not choose what it generally consider a moral value. Though I think it is one. Or since I do not grant morals some kind of objectivity, anything that leads to behavior is in the same category: values. Perhaps I should be doing something else. Perhaps other people should be. I value creative behavior more than other behavior. Not all behavior, but much of it. I prioritize it.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: FAir enough, and I realized it might not quite fit. But let me make a last statement on it. I think actually it does underlie and is connected with political and moral narratives and conflicting goods.
In fact to say these values here are moral values and these values over here are values but not moral ones is a kind of objectivism. Because it is deciding that this set of behaviors is good or bad and these others are neutral, don't matter. Only an objectivist, can, in the end, say that these are behaviors and attitudes that have a moral dimension and those are behaviors that do not.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: I think creativity is hated by some, both on the right and the left. The right often view creatitivity as threatening because it means change, but also because creative people are questioning things that should only be one way. This can involved political issues - and so liberals are seen as being creative where one should be traditional - or it can be even down to how one walks, what clothes one wears...how hippies or bohemians or jazz kids or hip hoppers would be viewed by conservative people, with more acceptance by some libertarian types. The left at least if you get far enough out there an the communist end (but not on the anarchist end) can see creativity as bourgeois and too individualistic and norms get created for art, that should have political we focus and often should be realistic. Creativity also runs counter to corporatism, which certainly wants to eat specific creative products and sell them, but the actual working environment stifles it, with highly restricted channels for what might lead to money.
iambiguous wrote:
My point is always that there does not appear to be a way using the tools of philosophy to pin down that which it is said
that all truly rational human beings are obligated to think and feel about all of this
And I have a song on my music thread that explores the contempt that both the Nazis and the Communists had for jazz music. And we all know of those who have contempt for "pop music".
surreptitious75 wrote:iambiguous wrote:
My point is always that there does not appear to be a way using the tools of philosophy to pin down that which it is said
that all truly rational human beings are obligated to think and feel about all of this
Philosophy is not mathematics in that it cannot be objectively demonstrated to the satisfaction of absolutely everyone
There are always going to be alternatives to any proposition so universal agreement is virtually impossible to guarantee
Users browsing this forum: No registered users