my writing in ways I don't want it to. I rarely find myself excited
or inspired by the academy outside of some science. Occasional
writers like Lyotard or Joseph Heller in 'Picture This' appeal to my
enjoyment delayed humour. One particular aspect of 'great writing'
that worries me is that one gets sucked into the arguments made and
yet know at the same time the ability to make them did not shift the
writers from what we now regard as glaring injustices like slavery. I
know people like Moses (the war criminal of Numbers 31) and Plato and
Aristotle (slavery OK were men of their time, but that isn't my
point. Even John Locke argued slaves taken in just wars deserved
their fate.
The Greeks knew it was fairly easy to make equally powerful and
contradictory argument. I (for instance) favour modern reliableism
and structured realism as a philosophic base but prefer to say I'm a
tropical fish realist - this at least admits philosophy isn't my first
consideration. Some won't have a clue what I'm on about. Mostly,
I've learned most arguments are suspicious and based on assumptions
that don't 'ground' (like gods, human nature in economics) or are
subjective in the sense that allows liars like Blair and most
politicians to lie and tell us they tested information they made
decisions on in personal integrity. In the meantime, modern slavery
goes on in the sense of war and economics taking us down the road to
serfdom. I see little hope of philosophical answers to any of this
because they have a long history of failure.
I'm led to a view that our societies are based on selfish madness -or
at least that we should examine what's going on as we might examine
religious belief in its dafter forms. I'd start with our common
virtue ethics. I'm aware of 'Beyond Virtue' (McIntyre) but feel we
need a darker analysis based more on social Idols. Any takers for a
go?
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário