It is learnt that Ethics can be categorized into Marxist and Non-Marxist. Is it right?
RK: "It is learnt that Ethics can be categorized into Marxist and Non-Marxist. Is it right?"
Ethics can be categorized into purple and not-purple.
Purple.......! What do you mean "purple" in this context? Could you please tell?
Purple.......! What do you mean "purple" in this context? Could you please tell?
You can divide things your way. Others can divide them differently. All such divisions are arbitrary.
Admittedly the scope of purple ethics is much smaller than that of non-purple ethics. But it is one way to divide things.
I would propose that if you want to divide things in terms of Marx and Non-Marx, you should also include Post-Marx, since it has been a considerable time since Marx wrote his works, and the world has changed enough that we see that many of the assumptions he made about the necessity of a work-force have been made obsolete by automation, but that is of course my own personal understanding and there may not yet be an actual philosophical tradition based on it Yet.
GS: "I would propose that if you want to divide things in terms of Marx and Non-Marx, you should also include Post-Marx, since it has been a considerable time since Marx wrote his works, and the world has changed enough that we see that many of the assumptions he made about the necessity of a work-force have been made obsolete by automation, but that is of course my own personal understanding and there may not yet be an actual philosophical tradition based on it Yet."
Yes, but then you should have to add non-post-Marxist, meaning either non-Marxist or pure Marxist.
No you might say that but it is redundant, the primary difference is simply that post marxism takes the percieved failure of marxism into account where non-marxism doesn't necessarily do so.
All I would say is: thank goodness it failed!! Let us hope it is soon forgotten among the dustbin of failed ideologies, never to persecute mankind again.
Ah, but there you are wrong, once started marxism can never be stopped, if only because it has been inductrinated into whole cultural ethical structures. Did your countries "Communist" party disappear when marxism failed? Neither did mine
The whole political theory thing is based partly on the idea of the excluded middle, that two divergent forces, the titular "Left" usually taken up by Maxists, and "Right" taken up by Fascists should be the wings steering the middle, and the conversation between the two would manage the country, but nobody believes in marxism anymore so who is left piloting the ship?
Actually, both Marxism and Fascism are composed of socialists; both of materialists; both of liberals; both of leftists.
The difference between the two is that Marxism destroys large business first and then goes after smaller ones. Fascism destroys small business first and then goes after larger ones.
It's all just a matter of degree. The result is horrible in either case.
Well yes, there are still the Chinese commies to worry about and plenty of dictatorships around the world.
Not to speak of the countries that are being beggared by the New World Order.
The commies look to such vain hopes. Real ethics is based on the four virtues: wisdom, self-control, courage and sound judgment. Economics is, at the most, a side issue.
Ok, bill, but there is the issue of how we expect people who are starving to express wisdom self-control, courage, and sound judgement.
GS: "Ok, bill, but there is the issue of how we expect people who are starving to express wisdom self-control, courage, and sound judgement."
There are always issues. Do you not know that malnutrition was a problem back in Socrates' day, as well?
Unfortunately, most people who are starving live under dictatorships. Giving such governments money doesn't help the masses, since the governments involved will simply steal whatever is provided. That problem can't be blamed on industrialists --- as the commies imagine... for the problem has nothing to do with capital or capitalists.
Ah, but it is the tendency of Capitalism to worship greed, as the driving force of economics that winks at the excesses of the political elite, in fact promotes those excesses, in order to have a handle by which to predict the direction the dictator will go.
I call it the "Assumption of Consumption" that leaders will consume more goods than their subjects. The queen of Britain is the second richest woman in the world, and the king of some Island nation the richest man.
GS: "The queen of Britain is the second richest woman in the world, and the king of some Island nation the richest man."
Class envy is the food that gives life to Marxism. Personally I am glad that there are people who have money. It doesn't hurt me at all that others are well off.
Looking about me I consider the poor in America. Typically a poor man here is one who watches baseball games on his wide-screen TV while drinking his favorite beer. Such a man would be called truly rich in other countries.
The man who wishes to do well must follow a few simple rules. (1) He must get as much education as he can stand (wisdom); he must work hard and honestly, avoiding too much self-gratification (self-control); patiently enduring any temporary problems (courage); always exercising sound judgment.
But you say, it's impossible, no one can do all that. We must do it for him.
I have no problem with helping the poor. The problem comes from human weakness, something Marx can not fix. The old Soviet Union proved that. Communism bred its own problems. It is silly blaming the Queen of England for the evils of Communism. Just silly.
One thing I find interesting is the growing link between Islam and Communism, two systems which --- one might think --- have little in common, but which are coming close together for short term gains each side is looking for... mostly, I suppose, because they both hate both Christianity and Capitalism. It's a question of "my enemy's enemy is my friend." We shall see which side eats the other... I'm betting on Islam. It has far greater potential in the long run.
No i would prefer to prescribe the socialism preached by Julius Nyerere which he calls 'ujamaa'. This is more suitable than an absolute marxism.
Apart from the anti-social effects of the accumulation of personal wealth, the every desire to accumulate it must be interpreted as a vote of "no confidence" in the social system. For when a society is so organized that it cares about its individuals, then, provided he is willing to work, no individual within that society should worry about what will happen to him tomorrow if he does not hoard wealth today. Society itself should look after him, or his widow, or his orphans. This is exactly what traditional African society in doing. Both the "rich" and the "poor" individual were completely secure in African society.Natural catastrophe brought famine, but it brought famine to everybody--"poor" or "rich." Nobody starved, either of food or of human dignity, because he lacked personal wealth; he could depend on the wealth possessed by the community of which he was a member. That was socialism. That is socialism. There can be no such thing as acquisitive socialism, for that would be another contradiction in terms. Socialism is essentially distributive. Its concern is to see that those who sow reap a fair share of what they sow.In traditional African society everybody was a worker. There was no other way of earning a living for the community.There is not such thing as socialism without work. A society which fails to give its individuals the means to work, or having given them the means of work, prevents them from getting a fair share of the products of their own sweat and toil, needs putting right. Similarly, an individual who can work--and his provided by society with the means to work-- but does not do so, is equally wrong. He has no right to expect anything from society because he contributes nothing to society. To Karl Marx this would be a Utopia.
To make it succinct, Ujamaa, is primarily concerned from the well being of the person to the welfare of the state where as Marxism is concerned with the well being of the state primarily and every person is regarded as a part of the body. In this case the murder of some persons for the good of the state would be only just. Where as with ujamaa, the primary concern is first of all the person as an individual. Therefore, marxism is more liable to lead to violence and holocausts. It even denies religion and to me that is a great flaw in any community. "Ujamaa," then, or "familyhood," describes our socialism. It is opposed to capitalism, which seeks to build a happy society on the basis of the exploitation of man by man; and it is equally opposed to doctrinaire socialism which seeks to build its happy society on a philosophy of inevitable conflict between man and man.This is why i prefer Ujamaa (familyhood) to an absolute Marxism.
Here is the little i can say for now.
How does one enforce 'familyhood' in a complex society? Did 'familyhood' help in the conflict between the Tutsis and Hutus?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Tutsi_and_Hutu
In general, I might ask how 'familyhood' helps in political situations...
For instance how does it help the Copts in their struggle against the Arab invaders?
How does it help the Christians in Ethiopia who suffer persecution at the hands of the Muslim populations?
Islam, of course, has no problem with enforcement... one either submits or one dies. But I am concerned with reasonable men, who care about the individual, regardless of ideology.
I think the hidden stab in the back, was the statement "Similarly a person who can work, and is provided with society by the means to work, but does not do so, is equally wrong"
There are many capitalists of the protestant ethic, that see this as true as well, why Ralph Klein the famous Alberta Politician, was want to go down to the homeless shelter, and harangue the inmates there about getting jobs.
There are many reasons why someone may not be able to take advantage of the provided work, that have nothing to do with them being wrong.
I personally am forced due to health factors that are out of my control, to take on the patina of being unemployable. The jobs they tell me are there, I just have to look for them, but it is the search, that I can no longer do. In my society, which is just barely socialist at all, I am literally required NOT to work, recently I have been forced to take on the Patina of being classed as severely handicapped, because my society has not been able, or willing to support a move that will allow me to become employable again, if only for 2 or three days a week, and 2 or three hours a day.
I have not become entirely unproductive however, as my theories here on the 'gate' will attest, it is merely, that the conditions under which I do my best work, are not considered conditions necessary for employment.
When I hear statements like this, I think back to the Russian Peasant interviewed before the Wall fell down, who was quoted as saying "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work".
There is something essentially nasty about a society that think it has the right to dictate to a person, what their job may be. Take all the intellectuals and make them ditch diggers, take all the jews and make them indentured servants of the manufacturers that produce military weapons. When society deigns to choose to supply work it seldom offers the work the individual wants. Often when the individual searches for a job, the market doesn't offer them what they want either. How many engineers are glorified sales people because their degrees are not "High enough" to get an engineering job? How many Doctors are cleaning floors, because the local medical establishment has put a cap on internships, and they can't requalify for the new country after immigration?
I think people need the freedom to create their own position, if they can't find it within the market or the society doesn't offer it. Neither socialism nor Capitalism really offer that freedom.
yeah i read abit on the hutus problem with the tutsis and from what i understand if not mistaken, they have a kind of tribal prejudice and discrimination arises from that. The blame should be first on the colonial masters who started discriminating between these people and giving preferential treatment to some the tutsis namely. These people from the start had a sense of ujamaa. This people are rather behaving the way they are doing because of the hatred and anger for revenge caused by their colonialists. But as soon as the regain their sense of 'familyhood' they would hate killing because they would care for the person. they would prefer the growth of their families first. War would be hated because it endangers the family. I think this is the basis of it all. If they regain that sense of 'ujamaa' it would be better.
It seems to me that 'familyhood' may well be part of the problem. People who can not look beyond family and tribe are a problem.
It is this way in many tribal cultures. It is so easy to go on raids to take from another tribe what one is unable to obtain otherwise. The American Indians were constantly fighting long before colonization. Arab tribesmen, likewise, shared this culture. Islam is one great tribal jihad.
But it is always easy to blame everything on the colonialists. The USA once was a group of colonies, but we have been able to avoid its evils. It is time for the people of Africa to learn to grow up and stop blaming everyone else for their problems.
i swear before the God i serve that i agree with you as far as your last paragraph is concerned absolutely
thank u for that. anyway i would think more and write
Actually the problem is the dichotomy between the Intellectual assumption of the familyhood of man, and the instinctual cliquing behavior that is natural to humans even in small groups. I think it is a natural defense against overpopulation, that the cliques drive each other away from the larger group by constant bickering. Thus, groups that grow too large split into smaller groups which drive each other away, in turn, and spread the population over a wider area, allowing greater utilization of resources, and reducing the strain on any one resource base/environmental niche.
GS: "Actually the problem is the dichotomy between the Intellectual assumption of the familyhood of man, and the instinctual cliquing behavior that is natural to humans even in small groups."
Well --- from an ethical viewpoint --- the problem is that human beings are imperfect and need to practice the four virtues: wisdom, self-control, courage and sound judgment.
Smith i beg to give a rethink as concerns the point of the africans crying of colonialist influence. truly they have suffered much and still sufer much. the colonialists have not left they have only looked for another strategy. african leaders are sacked and installed at will by the west under the name of the UN. when the UN denied the attack on Iraq and Bush went on, what was done about that. there is a lot of discrimination. even the way africans are treated it is appalling. weapons are supplied to rebels and britain is helping revolutionists in libya. why? Peace should be the objective. Many more people are dying because u want to remove one man. is that really sound? there are many more thinks that sound wrong in that light. I think at the end of the day there is much africa has to feed in europe and USA what ever the means. The west does not care.
MCMH: "The west does not care."
In my humble opinion, the problem in Libya may be one in which the West cares too much. The image of armed soldiers attacking civilians has infuriated many. The efforts of the West have been aimed at ending what they see as war crimes done to prop up the government of Muammar al-Gaddafi.
Unfortunately, it seems that the rebels may not be any better --- perhaps worse --- than Muammar al-Gaddafi. Many of them come from extreme Islamic groups, such as al-Qaeda. One questions whether the rebels will thank the West, should they be victorious... more likely they will condemn those who are now helping them.
MCMH: "african leaders are sacked and installed at will by the west under the name of the UN... even the way africans are treated it is appalling."
Unfortunately, African leaders have all too often proven to be petty dictators who have no interest in the people they rule. What is the West to do? Send in armies to force the people of Africa to take responsibility for themselves... or to try to work with what poor rulers Africa provides until better ones arise?
For the most part, we take the latter course. But progress is slow, in dealing with cultures not far removed from the Stone Age. Education is, of course, the key. But even so, there are native African movements which are opposed to education... mostly in the name of the Qur'an... people who would prefer the Seventh Century to the Twenty-First.
The evil West has poured vast resources into Africa in the way of food, economic assistance and educational programs. Why do we do this? I suppose the knee-jerk anti-colonialist would say that we are playing on the needs of the poor in order to manipulate them.
Personally, I think, it is just possible that a not-insignificant part of this effort is a sincere attempt to help the least of our brothers.
But all too often those who receive such aid quickly forget how much they owe to the West and react like spoiled children.
Actually what we are seeing here is a form of cliquing taken to extremes by population pressure.
Why are the Aftricans bickering at the Americans and UN? Because they are seen as "Them" by most of the countries in the world, and the Americans and UN are seen as "Them" by Africans.
Why are the Islamic Countries bickering with the Christian Countries? Because Christians are seen as "Them" by Islamics, and Islamics are often seen as "Them" by Christians. Neither group is blameless, but why attribute blame? Bickering is normal human interaction!.
It is the Ideal, the Ethic, that all should be as one that is to blame for laying blame.
Islamists are looking forward to the day when all are Islamic, Christians are looking forward to the day when all ar christian, and Atheists are looking forward to the day when both of them will just Shut Up about their relative religions.
The odds of any one of these things coming true? Pretty small, but "Hope springs eternal".
GS: "Atheists are looking forward to the day when both of them will just Shut Up about their relative religions."
And when will atheists shut up about the merits of their religion?
Ah, Bill, there seems to be a problem in your definition of Atheism as a religion....
Doesn't your logic include the word NOT!
As I understand it, the courts in the United States have said that atheism counts as a religion. In any event, one has to wonder when atheists will stop shouting at believers. They really seem like children, at times.
Frankly as I don't live in the United States I do not have to accept the idea that a group that as a whole do not believe in god/s is a religion. Now don't get me wrong, there are probably atheisitic groups that are religious groups, and there are certainly churches that are more accepting of atheistic beliefs, but Atheistic, means NOT Theistic, or non-believer. By definition therefore, they are also not religious as a class. However that does not mean that I fall into this class, I after all am a UFF, myself.
I was just noting that from outside one of the main religions it is obvious that none of the religions are really listening to themselves, or other religions. They just spout off as if everyone should believe what they believe.
As it just so happens, yesterday, I was listening to Michael Medved...
http://www.michaelmedved.com/
He said how atheists are now putting pressure on the Armed Forces to employ atheist 'chaplains.' He had a guest on who complained that there were chaplains for other religions, but none for atheism. The interesting thing is that the Armed Forces seem to take his complaint seriously and are apparently looking for good candidates.
Negating A or B is not asserting C. Religion of reason does not have a sect, or a set of rituals... So atheism is not a religion in the conventional sense. But at the same time, religion has something to do with 'positive faith' and faith in reason as a way of life may also be called religion if anybody wishes to call it so. Some said Pope is a poet and others said he is not. Both are right with a slight variation of the definition of 'poet'.
But looking for a chaplain?!?! If this sect grows in number and declare holy war... my Nietzsche.... it will be more dangerous than all KKKs of the world...
MP: "If this sect grows in number and declare holy war... my Nietzsche.... it will be more dangerous than all KKKs of the world..."
I think they are mostly harmless... nothing to compare with Islam. Should the liberals get their way and Islam rise to power, they will be the Muslim's first target. It's really funny in a way, atheists helping Islam defeat Christianity... but in the end being devoured by the forces they have unleashed.
that was a hypothetical comment... thankfully the atheist do not have a single scripture or a prophet.
Your liberals and our seculars are hell-bent on committing harakiri...
Well, as to the "Seculars"/Atheists not having a single scripture or prophet, I think part of the attraction of secularism/Atheism is just that. However, since everyone who isn't Christian in North America (And some Christians like the top Roman Catholics) are being forced to defend Adam Smith, and Darwin, you might think that they are drawing behind "Great Books" and may eventually be convinced that secularism demands acceptance of Smith, Darwin, Marx and Kurzweil's books, even though they were just popular economic and evolutionary seminal works of minor and temporary interest in the ongoing great debate of science.
One wonders when atheists will stop shouting about their religion...
http://zionica.com/2011/04/28/atheist-groups-campaign-for-non-religious-chaplains-in-the-us-military/
GS: "Well, as to the "Seculars"/Atheists not having a single scripture or prophet, I think part of the attraction of secularism/Atheism is just that."
The comment makes little sense. Christianity and Judaism both recognize many prophets whose writings span more than seventy books written over more than a thousand years.
GS: "However, since everyone who isn't Christian in North America (And some Christians like the top Roman Catholics) are being forced to defend Adam Smith, and Darwin, you might think that they are drawing behind "Great Books" and may eventually be convinced that secularism demands acceptance of Smith, Darwin, Marx and Kurzweil's books, even though they were just popular economic and evolutionary seminal works of minor and temporary interest in the ongoing great debate of science."
There are many great books. Few are forced to defend them... no one that I have ever heard about. As to Marx... his was an experiment that failed... 'nough said. And Jaroslav Kurzweil is a fine mathematician, indeed. But I am surprised you know of him.
Interesting one. But I think they can appoint psychiatrist for all (including believers) and adopt the same policy of dont ask dont tell on the matters of faith too!!!
You may like this...
http://www.indiauncut.com/iublog/article/whats-consolation-for-an-atheist/
Bill: "It's a matter of simple jealousy.... nothing more."
Yes, I think you have it, Bill, Religious Groups are jealous that the secular/Atheistic groups have no dogma that they can attack, like they usually attack other religions for, and so, they try to force them to defend picked "Great Books" like Darwin's books, not because they really think that the slippery Atheists believe the "Gospel" of Darwin, but because they can't believe that they don't.
It's a matter of simple jealousy.... nothing more.
As for Kurzweil, why would I not be familiar with Kurzweil?
You think I could read the "Spiritual Machine" book, and then forget who the author is?
Especially since at one point I inherited one of his document scanners, and spent a little time trying to understand it? Ray Kurzweil is well known to me....
GS: "Yes, I think you have it, Bill, Religious Groups are jealous that the secular/Atheistic groups have no dogma that they can attack, like they usually attack other religions for, and so, they try to force them to defend picked "Great Books" like Darwin's books, not because they really think that the slippery Atheists believe the "Gospel" of Darwin, but because they can't believe that they don't."
No, you got it backward. Atheism is negative, the absence of belief. Believers have no reason to be jealous of atheists, who have nothing they would want. It is the reverse, the atheist is jealous of the fact that the military employs chaplains, but no one to proselytize for their religion.
GS: "You think I could read the "Spiritual Machine" book, and then forget who the author is?"
Oh, you mean Ray Kurzweil? Goodness, what a let down...
No, Bill, It is YOU who have it backwards.
Atheism is not negative so much as non-dogmatic. It is not a reaction to religion, merely an alternative to it, for people sceptical enough to refuse to believe organized religious dogma.
Why would the "Creationists" and "Intelligent Design" weirdo's attack Darwin, if they didn't see Atheism, and his potential for support of an atheist agenda as a threat to their belief?
Sure there are Dawkins types, around, who rub the face of the religious in secular belief, but then there are more "Missionaries" willing to take marginalization as a license to preach to the poor, than there ever were Dawkins types.
You will seldom find an Atheist, hosting their soup line in the Church, partly because they don't often have churches, they tend to go to the client, rather than having the client wait through a sermon before getting fed. The primary difference between a secular charity and a religious one, lies in the fact that the secular charity deals with the needs of the individual, while the religious one, claims to deal not only with the needs but with the soul.
What do the secularists have that religions are jealous of? FREEDOM from dogma! what else!
GS: "You will seldom find an Atheist, hosting their soup line in the Church, partly because they don't often have churches, they tend to go to the client, rather than having the client wait through a sermon before getting fed. The primary difference between a secular charity and a religious one, lies in the fact that the secular charity deals with the needs of the individual, while the religious one, claims to deal not only with the needs but with the soul."
How little you understand Christ. He taught His Faithful to prize the least of our brothers... seeing in the lowly, an image of Christ, Himself. Thus, one should love others, not for what they can do for us, but for the image of Christ in them. Perhaps that is why the secularist gives so little to charity... They think that the government should take care of such matters for them.
GS: "What do the secularists have that religions are jealous of? FREEDOM from dogma! what else!"
Nonsense!! The believer has the same freedom that the atheist has. He simply believes, while the atheist doesn't.
GS: "Why would the "Creationists" and "Intelligent Design" weirdo's attack Darwin, if they didn't see Atheism, and his potential for support of an atheist agenda as a threat to their belief?"
Calling others names, such as 'weirdo' seems to show a lack of understanding. It is amazing to me that you would use such a prejudicial term. I suppose it reflects fear that Intelligent Design might be partly right.
There are many faults in Darwinian thought. Modern biologists are constantly trying to fill in for the failings of their hero. From what I understand, micro-evolution is generally accepted. The evolution of species is, however, completely unproven... the fossil record simply doesn't support the claims that have been made.
Lucretius was the original thinker who developed the idea of evolution...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucretius
Lucretius was an Epicurean philosopher. His works have attracted interest, lately, through the work of Ilya Prigogine...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Prigogine
You might like him. His theory of evolution is superior to that of Darwin in that he recognizes that matter must be potent to form for evolution to work. Perhaps you could learn from the likes of Lucretius and Prigogine to be a little more philosophical and avoid calling people names.
Ah, I hit a sore spot. I didn't want to paint all believers with the same brush, so I tried to separate the Creationists from the merely dogmatic, probably shouldn't have used the prejorative term, but, frankly, Bill you bring the worst out in me, by reflecting back to me, the dogmatic extremes of the faithful.
I have no doubt, that Darwin was NOT the first to think of Evolution, in fact his grandfather had published long before he did, but he was the most influential, if only because he could document why he thought that it was a good theory. So why is Darwin the target of the true believers? because he noted a similarity between the so called perfect man, and the simian/ape family.
I get a kick out of you bringing historical trivia back to tease me with. Matter must be Potent....
What the heck does that mean? Prigogine I respect, Lucretius obviously didn't know what he was talking about by todays standards of matter. Obviously his work would have to be heavily interpreted especially since it is in a different language, but I am sure that you could make such an interpretation just as odius as your other works.
Bill: "Nonsense, the believer has the same freedom that the atheist has"
Sure they do.... Why my GF offered to learn to be a preacher in her church, but the male dominated dogma seemed to be against her preaching. Despite the fact that a female prophet helped create the church. Her mother died from high blood pressure, because her father insisted she eat the religiously prescribed diet, even though the doctor recommended she stay away from some of the staples that that diet required. Believers have the same freedom that the atheist has, but for some reason have chosen not to exercise it, even when it threatens their life, when the cultural demands of belonging and the dogma that form around them, vie with doctors orders, or perhaps when their preacher straps a bomb around their waist and tells them they are going to heaven, but take some infidels along with them.
GS: "Sure they do.... Why my GF offered to learn to be a preacher in her church, but the male dominated dogma seemed to be against her preaching. Despite the fact that a female prophet helped create the church. Her mother died from high blood pressure, because her father insisted she eat the religiously prescribed diet, even though the doctor recommended she stay away from some of the staples that that diet required. Believers have the same freedom that the atheist has, but for some reason have chosen not to exercise it, even when it threatens their life, when the cultural demands of belonging and the dogma that form around them, vie with doctors orders, or perhaps when their preacher straps a bomb around their waist and tells them they are going to heaven, but take some infidels along with them."
Yes, the believer is a free as the atheist... and just as not all atheists are wise, not all exercise self-control, not all are brave, not all have sound judgment... so it is with believers. Indeed, I never said all beliefs are equal. I simply said that men are free to believe or not to believe.
Ah but Bill says "men are free to believe or not to believe"
Obviously you are a product of North American Education if you believe that.
Often people are free to believe only what they are allowed to believe at the point of a gun, or under threat of one sort or another that is socially accpetable to the belief system, or religion. There is no question in my mind, that MOST religions offer coercion in an attempt to create more followers. The coercers may claim to be charities, but they still coerce. Where THEN is this vaunted freedom?
If you admit that an atheist is an independent thinker, not necessarily Darwinian or Communist, then he is free... so is the believer of a particular way of life. It is institutionalised religion or organised atheism that coerces.
Relilgion as a matter of inner subjective existence, a "one-to-one" relationship with the divine, preaches only one spirituality - freedom. Similarly a rational and scientific attitude (if we call it atheism) cannot claim to be so unless it gives space to independent thinking. Otherwise we have speudo religion as well as pseudo science. A totalitarian belief pattern is neither a true science nor a true religion. So atheism also has to place the reason's house in order. At the same time, religion cannot afford to close the doors to any new experience.
You may find this reading of Kierkegaard, who is also known as the Danish Socrates, intersting at this point.
For him, faith is a matter of believing in a paradox. He says, life is more than logic, so reason is not the only and surest way to reality.
“Reason is proud of having excluded the paradox, which it considers to be absurd, since it (the paradox) does not play the game by Reason’s rules.” (H V Hong & E H Hong, Kierkegaard’s Philosophical Fragments and Johannes Climucus, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985, p. 50)
In announcing their mutual incompatibility “Reason merely parrots the Paradox…” which replies to Reason, “It is just as you say, and the amazing thing is that you think it is an objection.” (p. 52) For Kierkegaard, the fact that Reason excludes Paradox only proves that it is exclusionary, not that what it excludes is by that fact discredited.
I will certainly agree that reason, especially greek philosophically based reason is exclusionary, and that what it excludes is not by that fact discredited. In fact I will grant him that "Life is more than logic, so reason is not the only and surest way to reality. In fact, what I have maintained is that the body uses selective mechanisms that do not use the rules of logic, but are effective none-the-less as methods of exclusion, without needing to exclude paradoxical inputs. An ability to accept paradox, is not within the realm of Greek Philosophically based logics. But it is, within the ability of similarity selection.
GS: "There is no question in my mind, that MOST religions offer coercion in an attempt to create more followers."
You may, indeed, believe whatever you wish to believe. Believing it doesn't make it true. In fact, today, the reverse is more nearly correct as governments are rushing to implement secularist --- even atheistic --- agendas.
But even as believers are subject more and more to government restrictions on them, they remain free to believe or disbelieve... just as under any other sort of persecution.
GS: "I will certainly agree that reason, especially greek philosophically based reason is exclusionary, and that what it excludes is not by that fact discredited."
It is certainly false to deny what is true. Yet there are many matters about which no clear knowledge is available to one. About such matters one can come to no certainty. The Greek philosophers clearly understood such things. Aristotle used the term ἔνδοξα...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endoxa
He spent much effort in the ***Rhetoric*** discussing how to argue in such cases. Frequently he describes how to argue on either side of a question, using enthymemes, which he called 'rhetorical syllogisms' to come to probable opinions, based on probable arguments. Thus he is able to treat of all such cases.
Since many people are confused by the new ResearchGate, I have decided to create a new workgroup which should be essentially reflect the old Philosophy group. Hopefully this will reduce some of the frustration I have noted. I would invite everyone who was in the old Philosophy group to join this new workgroup.
http://www.researchgate.net/group/Philosophy_II/
It looks like the only way to join the new workgroup I created is for me to send an invitation to you. I will gladly send invitations to anyone who adds me as a connection. I wish there were and easier way to do it, but we must work within the system. It looks like this should work.
I'd said Marxism has not an ethical body, but it can be considered rather as an absolutely goal-oriented system, the term: 'Self-Criticism', doesn't differ from the analysis a team of salespersons does about having sold, let's say: X, and not 120% of X. 'Soul-searching', or: 'Self-examination', does belong to the field of ethics, as it focuses mainly in ascertaining what was right and wrongdoing, about sins.
Marxist systems can be considered the prototype of: 'Legal positivism', in opposition to: 'Natural Law', that claims human beings have some innate rights; in socialist places, there are no rights but those who are actually and actively considered and protected by the state, what in the end may be true everywhere: whatever the sources of law you endorse, or the legal texts you publish, if the law reinforcement bodies don't protect a right or act in accordance with a rule, the law/ right lacks any content
I'd point 'Purple', deep or pale, besides of some rain, is the color of quicksilver ore, and Mercury was both the protector of trading and of thieves, having a tendency to act as the Erinias, avengers, that perhaps induce previously the fault to have the opportunity of applying force, just for the aim of harming.
Does Marxism have an ethics? I'd say: no, no no!.
Marxism is absolutely goal oriented, marxian self-criticism would not differ from the discussions of a team of street drug or liquor dealers about why the rivals took their market, it's not ethics, but 'protecting their turf', a function done in the Roman times by Priapo, who acted both on orchards and erections.
The legal system of social-communist countries, you know Mao-Ze-Dong coined the term: 'social-fascists', for the USSR driven social-communist groups, could be proposed as a model of 'ius-positivism', in front of 'ius-naturalism', the politicians with hebrew roots Francisco Franco and Adolf Hitler claimed building a system implementing 'natural law', the basical idea in ius-positivism, and I don't know if I'm teaching adding to mathematicians, is that no right exists if a law doesn't specifically protects and defines it,
In the end, it's always true, if police doesn't prosecute thieves, property won't exist, but the final meaning of the 'rule of law' expressed in these sytems as. 'empire of law', may be something like: 'Don't even blink, or the state will fall over you', under these premises, the assumptiom is that the state, government, judges, police, armies, would do whatever they think it`s appropriate, in the way Benjamin Franklin stated: 'I'm accountable only in front of myself', this points to the existence of the remains of a conscience, of moral values, but not accepting anyone telling them if they were right or evildoers. Who do you think you are to even questioning me?, and much less attempting a corrective, and correctives are only deterrent.
Someday everybody will have to respond, to explain their actions, but we won't be the judges, just spectators. Jesus will do this in the last day. Regards, + Salut
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy