I’m going to use this blog entry to respond to Josh’s comments on the “Thanks to All” thing. If you have no interest in the Nicomachean Ethics or Nietzsche(or our feeble attempts to discuss these serious things) move on…I’ll try to write something else tomorrow.
Josh, your last response is why I value our friendship. Whatever the ultimate merits or defects of the response – it addresses the right questions – the ones that matter. And again, whatever its merits or defects – it makes more sense than the secular humanist stance: 'It is a point of pride to treat everyone as an independent moral agent especially in the absence of any universal truth claims.'
…and it is more honest than my sometimes mealy-mouthed Catholicism that picks and choose edicts of my church to follow (not to mention spending more time blogging than in a soup kitchen)…
Even though you downplay some of these thoughts in your post on DC Lies – I think they touch on important questions – older than secular humanism (praise God) and older than my church (by Jupiter!) and some of them are related to the most important questions asked by men – period. (redundancy intentional and stupid).
Some of the questions are important enough to be addressed separately – and that’s what I’m going to do here. I hope it doesn’t diminish your overall position by doing it this way – but I’m going to do it that way. Feel free to call me a bucket of pus.
ONE: “Every time I read a book I interpret it to reinforce my beliefs.”
Yeah – this is certainly related to the moldy, old (and silly sounding) question: Can wisdom be taught? Your response certainly resembles the dominant position of the previous century regarding what it means to read (and I’m not saying it like this to dismiss the position – it’s just something like a fact). But the 20th Century isn’t the first time this “problem of interpretation” has been taken up. Your thoughts regarding what it means to read is an important component of the Socratic critique of writing (consider Plato’s Phaedrus – I’ll give you the line numbers if you want). The written word can only remind someone of something they already know – Plato’s Socrates comes at this problem in a different way than you do in your response – but it is in the same direction.
My question is: Why do you think “everyone does this; at least I’m aware of it”? Do you mean that ALL we have are our own beliefs and if we see anything in these books we read – it’s what we put into them? Or, do you mean we all seek something like resonance – or recognizing our position in the thoughts of others? And why do we do this? Does this suggest a universal need, or is this desire institutionalized – a social construction as well?
Your third paragraph reminds me why this whole discussion is important – you frame these things in terms of “happiness.”
TWO: “I consider institutionalized ethics to be detrimental to happiness and success. These are abstract concepts implemented to control thought and behavior…”
You’ve hit on the problem – maybe the most important problem for men who live in the world. Knowledge of good and evil – the source of ethics – or the things men call justice – should bear directly on how we live. If these things are in fact, bullshit, then those who understand the world should live accordingly. Do what thou wilt (Chamberlain?) shall be the whole of the law. The strong do what they will, the weak yield what they must – sexy, power monger stuff like that. You should get the yuppies kicked out of the bar – AND throw a rock at their cab if you can get away with it.
It is what is at the heart of your critique of “institutionalized ethics” – they suck, or must be disregarded because they interfere with your happiness – and maybe happiness as such – if we all understand these things correctly. Maybe you recognize something of your position (or “beliefs”) in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Consider:
“Every art and every inquiry, and similarly, every action and every intention is thought to aim at some good; hence men have expressed themselves well in declaring the good to be that at which all things aim.”
…and:
“Perhaps to say that happiness is the highest good is something which appears to be agreed upon.”
I’m not going to waste your time explaining Aristotle’s position re: the relationship between ethics – nature and human happiness. But we both know it’s probably going to be different from the one stated so nicely in your response. What’s interesting to me is that his starting point is the same as yours. Men care about happiness. Men want to know about the source of ethics – are they only civic assertions – or are they related to what we are – something that we need – like health. Knowledge of this stuff – pretty damned important eh. I suggest a read (or re-read of the Ethics might be worth your time because you will recognize your position there and you will see the departure). I would be interested to know your thoughts on the departure.
…or maybe I’m trying to distract you from writing your book because mine is about the same shit only probably with less sex and definite less gunplay than yours…
(maybe more drugs, but I’m not even sure of that)
Maybe you can go back and write about the genius children from the colonies of the challenged. That was awesome.
But I digest.
Aristotle’s Ethics might be worth your time because it takes (I think) a very different position than yours, but addresses an important component of your criticism forty lines into the book. Here’s your thought from the post:
THREE: “The majority defines the concepts of right/wrong, appealing/repulsive, good/evil, etc. These constructs are not static, but rather, in a state of flux.”
Aristotle in the E: “Noble and just things, with which politics is concerned, have so many differences and fluctuations that they are thought to exist only by custom and not by nature.”
What the fuck Aristotle?!?! That’s why he’s such a crafty old bastard. He’s willing to put the one argument that could potentially devastate his whole position – and put it in the beginning of his book. If we only had the balls…
Again, I’m not going to explain Aristotle’s position – it’s there for you – and you probably know it w/out this piss poor set of references.
Also I am not going to try to make the case for universal notions of morality – the position of classical political philosophy – or the theology of my beloved church – but I’m going to close this post with a few questions/lame-ass statements:
A.) If the truth about ethics and morality is that they are part of a sham – the way something or someone controls us, who started it?
B.) This is the greatest conspiracy theory ever right – has it been implemented in such a clever way that there will always be enough fools to wonder about the natural source of justice that we will cover up the fact that all there is, is mere convention?
C.) You say that “institutionalized ethics” are constructed in a way that is “detrimental to happiness.” Do you mean your happiness or happiness as such? The difference is important – right? I think you meant it in the sense of happiness as such…
D.) I’m not trying to hang a “you’re inconsistent” tagger here…rather I think your position intimates that society is arranged in such a way that is counterintuitive to us – civil society expressing these ethics inhibits us, limits us, presents us – maybe, from being what we are. What does it mean to say that civil society is arranged against our needs, are desires?
E.) If the reality is this flim-flam morality is put forth by confidence men (in the guise of leaders) to control us – why do we apply these standards to ourselves, in our families, among our friends…and if we catch the leader violating these inviolable rules – hasn’t that dumb bastard dug their own grave? We then call such a person a bloody tyrant, a usurper and they get a fate worse than the subjects suffered under the institutionalized ethics. The perfect excuse to beat the ever-living fuck out of Mussolini and his mistress!!!!!!!! These things become the same weapons that we use to undo our betters…I think the town you work in may be experiencing some of this ethical unpleasantness. I am not foolish enough to think it will last.
F.) Finally, regarding your bar example –starting the fight with the yuppies and successfully getting them kicked out of the bar: is this a blatant disregard for matters of good and evil – right and wrong – whatever…or is this just being naughty? Again, the difference seems to be important. Maybe I just want to get myself off the hook – because I do similar things – from time to time.
…I wanted to say something about “social Darwinism” but I said finally above – so fuck me, I’ve said enough.
Thanks for the thoughtful remarks. I hope I don’t seem like too much of a prick addressing it the way I did above…it’s worth the risk because this topic fascinates me too…dammit.
