Here We Go Again
“As a Shepard seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day…
- I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and will bind up that which was broken, and will strengthen that which was sick: but I will destroy the fat and the strong; I will feed them with judgment.”
Ezekiel Ch34 verses 12 & 16
This was part of the first reading from Holy Mass today – although we don’t use the King James that I used above. People have their beefs w/ it – I use it because that’s what Hobbes, Locke etc use…it's the Bible I have to use at my job so, sadly - I'm more used to reading and researching it.
But I’m in Newman – in the presence of God – this reading comes up and all I can think about is: DR. JACK SHEPARD and the show LOST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I watched four episodes from Season One last night. It’s a sickness.
OK, since more than one person has asked: When are we going to get back to the serious bullshit around here – I say let’s go (what am I? Benjamin Orr?)
I no longer need to frame the conversation in terms of questions or problems I have w/ the Nietzsche class. I’m going to try and start at what I think is the beginning and see where we disagree.
And by the “we” it seems that (on the most important crap discussed previously) the disagreement is between me and everyone else. In other words Mr. J. - P. Dawg (I’m not going to lump in Michael here – because his question was about happiness and he didn’t seem to want to weigh in, one way or the other – so I don’t want to misrepresent him) but Josh and P Dawg have come out on the side that rules, ethics, morals, mores are cultural constructions – they come out of the city. They are established by someone – or some group of people for the purpose of control, order…what is needed to get through the day with people living together. Josh compares his position with that of “social Darwinism” (his words, not mine – and remember, this is all in good fun) – he knows where the rules come from – he has the ability to bend or disregard them when it is convenient – and if everything he puts forth is based on right reason (not to say truth) – then this is how a real man ought to behave.
Dawg – in addressing Josh’s longest reply (to my On Truth and Lie thing)…reflects the modern perspective – and maybe the last ditch, more hopeful version of the modern story – Rousseau’s notion that man in the state of nature (pre-political man, right? Before the advent of hi fidelity…er, civil society) – but natural man is essentially good. We become corrupted in the state of civil society. Here it is, from the P-Dawg’s post so people don’t have to look for it:
“Josh, sounds like you might subscribe to Rousseau's notion that we are born "good" and that this is a noble and "natural" state against which the imposition of order works to degrade our character. The task of raising new children into this society is allowing this "natural" state to flourish, yet all the while guiding the young citizen to make "good choices"--according to Nature, which is inherently "good."”
The Pairie Dawg might be trying to moderate Josh and slyly suggest a connection w/ Rousseau here - lots of luck. I don't think this is Mr. J's position - although the two positions share something important...
Maybe, I can say this much. Josh and this Dawg seem to be on the same page with respect to where rules, laws, social standards, ethics and customs come from – they are not a part of our nature, we (for lack of a better term) “make them up” and impose them on ourselves…as Josh admitted in a previous response – rulers and ruled have to deal with the fallout if they’re caught breaking the bullshit unbreakable laws. They will tell me if I’ve gone too far in suggesting that their position rejects the notion that convention, civil society (and many of its ethics, customs, morals, mores, habits of the hear – whatever) follow our nature rather than subvert it.
What is clear is that none of us have proven anything. All we’ve established – I think – is Josh and P.D. believe that the dictates of civil society have nothing to do – or may be ultimately coercive of (on, against – whatever) what we are.
And I am saying (without proving much) that I am unconvinced by their position – and my instincts have always suggested the opposite. The rules of the game in civil society (to debase them in name, as much as possible) may in fact follow our nature rather than subvert it. We flourish – not when we disregard these things, even the petty norms – but when we study (both through habituation and maybe even some more substantial type of learning) and even embrace them as part of what we are. We get a sort of similarity in these rules – when it real counts – cross culturally. Yes, I may be foolish enough to think that Saudi Arabia and Amsterdam (to use Josh’s hilarious example) may have enough in common “legally” to suggest that their conventional social/legal/political structures serve the same natural needs.
So here is where we stand. Again, I didn’t include Michael’s thoughtful question at this point because – at least in his comments he did not stake out a position and I did not want to speak for him (although I think I know what his position might look like regarding such stuff). Also, I think that Mr. Gunderson made a nice point while maintaining his dignity (more than the rest of us losers) – when he intimated that Josh’s TRUE position is that he will (or he SHOULD) choose the course of action that leads to the best story.
Enough people wanted to start this back up – and this is how I’ve chosen to start it back up – I hope I don’t sound like a dick – but what is worth talking about now is what we don’t agree on – recognizing that we all sort of agree that happiness – or the name happiness somehow has animated much of this discussion.
I’m gonna end this with some crusty old Latin quote that reflects the position that has always been more convincing to me. Maybe, to go back to Josh’s initial note in this crap – maybe I like this position because it contains what I want to hear…but here it is anyway:
“Ius naturalis est, quod natura omnia animalia docuit.”
Justinian I
from the “Institutes” - or "Institutes of Justinian" - I dunno - I can't even cite this crap.
I lifted this from a secondary source – Prairie Dawg no doubt knows the original as (I’m pretty sure) this Justinian was a Byzantine Emperor…
But the English is: “Natural right is that which nature has taught all animals.” This is the position I’m going to explore on and off over (way too many fucking nonsense words here) – the next coupla blogs – or until you guys say: “Ok Ed, you can’t articulate this shit – we have lives dammit!”
Best of luck to us all – and if anyone else can make some sense out of this junk – please help us.
- I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and will bind up that which was broken, and will strengthen that which was sick: but I will destroy the fat and the strong; I will feed them with judgment.”
Ezekiel Ch34 verses 12 & 16
This was part of the first reading from Holy Mass today – although we don’t use the King James that I used above. People have their beefs w/ it – I use it because that’s what Hobbes, Locke etc use…it's the Bible I have to use at my job so, sadly - I'm more used to reading and researching it.
But I’m in Newman – in the presence of God – this reading comes up and all I can think about is: DR. JACK SHEPARD and the show LOST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I watched four episodes from Season One last night. It’s a sickness.
OK, since more than one person has asked: When are we going to get back to the serious bullshit around here – I say let’s go (what am I? Benjamin Orr?)
I no longer need to frame the conversation in terms of questions or problems I have w/ the Nietzsche class. I’m going to try and start at what I think is the beginning and see where we disagree.
And by the “we” it seems that (on the most important crap discussed previously) the disagreement is between me and everyone else. In other words Mr. J. - P. Dawg (I’m not going to lump in Michael here – because his question was about happiness and he didn’t seem to want to weigh in, one way or the other – so I don’t want to misrepresent him) but Josh and P Dawg have come out on the side that rules, ethics, morals, mores are cultural constructions – they come out of the city. They are established by someone – or some group of people for the purpose of control, order…what is needed to get through the day with people living together. Josh compares his position with that of “social Darwinism” (his words, not mine – and remember, this is all in good fun) – he knows where the rules come from – he has the ability to bend or disregard them when it is convenient – and if everything he puts forth is based on right reason (not to say truth) – then this is how a real man ought to behave.
Dawg – in addressing Josh’s longest reply (to my On Truth and Lie thing)…reflects the modern perspective – and maybe the last ditch, more hopeful version of the modern story – Rousseau’s notion that man in the state of nature (pre-political man, right? Before the advent of hi fidelity…er, civil society) – but natural man is essentially good. We become corrupted in the state of civil society. Here it is, from the P-Dawg’s post so people don’t have to look for it:
“Josh, sounds like you might subscribe to Rousseau's notion that we are born "good" and that this is a noble and "natural" state against which the imposition of order works to degrade our character. The task of raising new children into this society is allowing this "natural" state to flourish, yet all the while guiding the young citizen to make "good choices"--according to Nature, which is inherently "good."”
The Pairie Dawg might be trying to moderate Josh and slyly suggest a connection w/ Rousseau here - lots of luck. I don't think this is Mr. J's position - although the two positions share something important...
Maybe, I can say this much. Josh and this Dawg seem to be on the same page with respect to where rules, laws, social standards, ethics and customs come from – they are not a part of our nature, we (for lack of a better term) “make them up” and impose them on ourselves…as Josh admitted in a previous response – rulers and ruled have to deal with the fallout if they’re caught breaking the bullshit unbreakable laws. They will tell me if I’ve gone too far in suggesting that their position rejects the notion that convention, civil society (and many of its ethics, customs, morals, mores, habits of the hear – whatever) follow our nature rather than subvert it.
What is clear is that none of us have proven anything. All we’ve established – I think – is Josh and P.D. believe that the dictates of civil society have nothing to do – or may be ultimately coercive of (on, against – whatever) what we are.
And I am saying (without proving much) that I am unconvinced by their position – and my instincts have always suggested the opposite. The rules of the game in civil society (to debase them in name, as much as possible) may in fact follow our nature rather than subvert it. We flourish – not when we disregard these things, even the petty norms – but when we study (both through habituation and maybe even some more substantial type of learning) and even embrace them as part of what we are. We get a sort of similarity in these rules – when it real counts – cross culturally. Yes, I may be foolish enough to think that Saudi Arabia and Amsterdam (to use Josh’s hilarious example) may have enough in common “legally” to suggest that their conventional social/legal/political structures serve the same natural needs.
So here is where we stand. Again, I didn’t include Michael’s thoughtful question at this point because – at least in his comments he did not stake out a position and I did not want to speak for him (although I think I know what his position might look like regarding such stuff). Also, I think that Mr. Gunderson made a nice point while maintaining his dignity (more than the rest of us losers) – when he intimated that Josh’s TRUE position is that he will (or he SHOULD) choose the course of action that leads to the best story.
Enough people wanted to start this back up – and this is how I’ve chosen to start it back up – I hope I don’t sound like a dick – but what is worth talking about now is what we don’t agree on – recognizing that we all sort of agree that happiness – or the name happiness somehow has animated much of this discussion.
I’m gonna end this with some crusty old Latin quote that reflects the position that has always been more convincing to me. Maybe, to go back to Josh’s initial note in this crap – maybe I like this position because it contains what I want to hear…but here it is anyway:
“Ius naturalis est, quod natura omnia animalia docuit.”
Justinian I
from the “Institutes” - or "Institutes of Justinian" - I dunno - I can't even cite this crap.
I lifted this from a secondary source – Prairie Dawg no doubt knows the original as (I’m pretty sure) this Justinian was a Byzantine Emperor…
But the English is: “Natural right is that which nature has taught all animals.” This is the position I’m going to explore on and off over (way too many fucking nonsense words here) – the next coupla blogs – or until you guys say: “Ok Ed, you can’t articulate this shit – we have lives dammit!”
Best of luck to us all – and if anyone else can make some sense out of this junk – please help us.
posted by edP | 8:32 PM
20 Comments:
Yeah, I can't compete. I'll just wrap myself in the womb-like safety of "crackin' wise" and feel like I'm contributing something.
Until the laughter stops.
I'm following along, though. Loving it! Keep it up!
OK, here's my opinion in short form. I am not going to quote a lot of other people or reference a lot of other texts for the following reasons:
a) I am a retard.
b) My opinion on all this would make referencing other people's opinions irrelevant.
So that brings me to what I think about good and evil. My view relates mostly to what I have learned over time about the brain and to a greater extent the mind or ego. A newborn baby has more possible neurological connections than there are elementary particles in the universe. As such, it is reasonable to assume that as the brain develops that individual will be utterly unique and will develop their own ideas of what good and evil are. Those opinions will be greatly influenced by the environment that individual is in. If someone is told that black people are animals and never receive any input to the contrary (even if they have never met or seen a black person) they will probably believe that it was so. I think that person is a racist (evil) as would many others but other groups would think I was either wicked myself or poorly informed.
This all happens regardless of the law so the law is not necessarily good or evil. The law is generally based on a consensus or compromise that reflects the ideas of the population at the time or at least the opinions of their elected officials. This is a simplistic model but I did not pay attention much in civics class.
I cannot fully agree with Josh's idea of what is good or evil in each of our minds as being based on what pleases us. I think that there are lots of things that please me that I feel are evil that are not entirely momentray indulgences. I think he is on the right track though but since my world view has been shaped by my experiences and assumptions, I doubt we will ever have identical opinions on the subject.
Finally, truth (like beauty) is in the eye of the beholder. Many people hold certain things to be sacred and feel there is some absolute truth in the universe and a guiding force that shapes the world and therefor minds of men. I do not beleive in all that and to a certain extent think that some of those beliefs are evil or at least have been used in what I consider evil ways. Because of that I am sometimes accused of being a wicked person or at least it is implied and if you are a follower of that theology I am. If you do not believe, then I am not.
Again, I am not a philosopher or a theologian, just a dumb-ass with a computer.
Mikey: Well said - especially point b)!
Gundy - the jokes are part of what makes this worth while...In fact telling jokes (making me laugh without having to explain why)...is a way of transmitting something like philosophical knowledge - or at least helps make the point that we can understand certain things - or have grounds to understand these things without explaining everything step by step.
To Clarify
----------
From Wikipedia:
Social Darwinism is a social theory which holds that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is not only a model for the development of biological traits in a population, but can also be applied to human social institutions.
-----------
I believe in the "survival of the fittest" in a social context. I'm not one of those genetic predisposition sorts. I believe that people deserve to fail because of their actions (or lack thereof).
If you want, we can get into why certain ethnicities fail to thrive in certain societies, but genetics has very little to do with it (in my opinion).
Sorry dude - I thought you used the term...I'm going to make a sort of appeal to evolutionary theory that is partially related to thought that might be considered "Darwinian"...
...but not with respect to genetic disposition and race...and not in terms of genetic determinism - I think we're on the same page about that junk
But, there may be something like evidence in part of the Darwinian position as it applies to us and our dopey mores etc...
You might want to dial out of that portion of the conversation if you think it's all bullshit. rock on
Michael--Beauty is Truth and Truth is Beauty. And you can quote me on that!
Do our state/order/laws/mores contribute in some way to happiness? It would be hard for me to argue this was true until I posit some "necessity" for our species--the need to get along to increase survival, for example; or, taken a bit further, the seemingly primal "rightness" of the family unit, on which society is based. Don't philosophers grandiosely fail when they imagine such necessities (and their attendant institutions) can be unlearned, replaced, or eliminated?
And if you do think that, at bottom you must believe that human nature is somehow changeable, mutable. I couldn't disagree more strongly and that is ultimately why I can't be bothered with the ridiculous strains of thought emanating from Marx and his sad descendents (also leftover grad school resentment from having to "apply" these perverse games to innocent texts). Human nature is Nature--and therefore Nature would seem to demand--naturally, ha ha-- some form of order. After all, it does among lions, ants, and prairie dogs, as well.
However, does this order make us "happy?"
I am not sure again if order contributes to happiness in all cases or necessarily if it is bad. I need more order in my life because I find it easier to operate that way but I don't want to be overly restricted by those who feel the need to impose their belief system on me when I do not agree.
In regards to human "nature" I have this question:
Couldn't one say that some aspects of nature are "evil" and some are "good"? Such as sex to some is considered wicked but to others good. So although these aspects of being may be constant , the perceptions of this nature does mutate over time.
By the way the title of this entry has had me thinking of that bullshit song all day. Thanks, Ed.
I'm only good for caveman-level thought (works for drumming - useless for philosophy).
That said, my opinion of philosophy is similar to my opinion of economics - they're both a way to make simple concepts as complicated as possible.
The discussion on good vs. evil (or simplicity) is impossible. Perception is everything. It's 100% subjective and it's vulnerable to environment, DVDs, blogs, parents, video games, etc.
Good and evil are exactly what you think they are. That's it. This is why there are so many different perspectives and all (or none) are correct except to each individual.
Economics = don't spend more than you make. Simple!!
Ed, for making my head hurt, I suggest you translate this entire blog into French.
You relativists! What are we gonna do with you?
Of course, most wise people seem to come to the same conclusions you do, eventually. And wisdom is one thing I definitely can not claim. And I'm not being trying to be self-deprecating like you guys. I seriously have no talent for wisdom! It's something my wife does.
After several drafts of trying unsuccessfully to thoughtfully answer to Michael's question about Nature and Evil, I stopped to wonder why Buddhism is not more popular, as it really is the most satisfying philoso-theo-onto-meta-whateva man has yet devised. Its nearest competitors, in my opinion, being mystical Christianity (which I think shares a lot with Buddhism anyway) and mythology.
But Buddhism has a "weakness" when it comes, for example, to questions of how do you deal with "bad" people? It's all well and good to have a holistic, or worse, relativistic, view of good and evil, but that doesn't bode well for keeping things from descending to chaos. The problem is, you can't build laws on sublimely reconciled paradoxes--whereas, conversely, law and order seem to be the real preoccupation of the Ancients and to some extent the Judeo-Christian thinkers who picked up where they left off. So Western philosophy seems to have an edge there.
Ed, I'm sorry for your loss. And I know it's a lot of work getting ready for Thanksgiving, so we'll see you when we see you. Thanks for hosting this discussion, and in particular, thanks for attempting to put a frame around it! We need that; these things can get out of hand!
Thanks guys - rock on!
Buddhist philosophy's failure to judge people does have it's shortcomings for sure. Like communism, it works on paper but people are motherfuckers. I do like their perception of time though. As an atheist, I take some comfort of all things being connected in the river of time. I take solace in knowing that the particles that make up "me" (And "No." I am not trying to take this conversation down an existentialist path. Fuck Sartre! It took me a year to read Being and Nothingness and in the end I interpreted it as meaning everyone is full of shit.) will be a part of some other creature (not in a reincarnation way) once I have gone. I hope a creature that is smarter than me. Maybe an ape or a politician (joke).
The influence of law on culture is interesting as people's beliefs are often not at all reflected in law but rather are there to protect us from ourselves. So though the law may say that smoking pot is illegal and "evil" and so I don't do it so I don't go to jail, I think it should be legal and "good".
Time for Josh to lob a grenade at this conversation:
I feel that Buddhist principals work very well when applied to people, rather than possessions.
Take that you fat yellow bastard.
I,m not sure if I get exactly what you mean, Josh. Are you just making fun of the ideal of releasing all posessions or making a bigger statment? In these kinds of discussions I am always a little wary of peoples statements.
Anyway, Sidhartha (sp?) changed my world when I read it and I hope for the better. I took from it that we are all the Buddha. Kind of a nice thought. We are all part of the same thing that is the world. God, I sound like a hippie.
Dude - there's a serious point from Josh above...
What happens to those of us foolish enough to hold on - to need - to desire people from our past.
We must let go...
Oh God how I miss you guys!
...and then there's TAKE THAT YOU FAT BASTARD
Oh - and not that I'm above all this bullshit - because I started all this bullshit and I deserve what I get...
...but it might be worth examining part of Chris B's position - especially the part that led the PDawg to sort of go off and call him a relativist. In other words - Chris might just be applying this amorphous understanding to the loaded terms "good" and "evil" and this might not be his position on right and wrong as such. I'm not just saying this because I'd trust ChrisB w/ my kid, my wife and my wallet...
but it's late (disregard the time of my posting on the comments...when I log in my geographic location is always United States Minor Outlying Islands - and wherever the fuck that is - it isn't in the central time zone)...
...it's late, I just got back from Lockport and I've had a few drinks. I'll try to say something thoughtful tomorrow night. I'm really happy people kept up the conversation on this long ass post.
Oh God I miss you guys
...Take that you fat bastards!
In chiding Chris or Mike or anyone else who appear to take a sliding-scale, "it's all subjective" approach, I don't mean to suggest that this is a bad way to look at life--in fact, I mention theirs is the way most wise and compassionate people tend to approach things--on a case-by-case basis, not with summary judgements.
BUT what kind of led me up this primrose path of (in my case, dime-store) philosophy and theology was the process of challenging my own assumptions, with a double focus of structuring my politics according to what I really believed and not what I wished or "intuited" were true; as well as figuring out the basis of the values I need to impart to my kids. In fact I found philosophy (for the most part) a pointless game up until now.
So for a long time, thanks to the internets, I've been throwing my opinions at various walls, enemies and friends, and trying to see what comes of it. Ed has the misfortune of actually being a rabbi about all this stuff. So our band practices with Tall Grass Captains usually ended with me accosting Ed: "How come Plato be dissing the poets?" "What's up with the Tenth Amendment these days?" "Why does Nietzsche want me to nourish myself w/sperm?" and Ed backing slowly away to his car, after dropping a few names like "Gyros" and "Souvlaki."
I've been called a rabbi...
That's the nicest thing anyone has ever e-said about me.
Thank goodness I decided to go through the adult, male circumcision process.
I think ed should have to start wearing a sox yamulka.
...at least until that circumcision heals.
Oh, you mean on his noggin?
Post a Comment
<< Home