On Aug 30, 6:17 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess you are right Gabs, but I can't help feeling same thing
> differant words. Ahhhh the power of language huh.
>
> On Aug 30, 12:13 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I find the words debt and sin are less useful to activate oneself than the
> > IOU, which is lacking the heaviness of the "to be indebted to anybody" and
> > opens up for an identification option to either side.
>
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > Hey Neil,
>
> > > The word debt is a good one to bring to the convo. It is ridden with
> > > subjective morality. I think it true to say that nobody likes to be
> > > indebted to anybody, and that payment of debt whether that be fiscal
> > > or favours owed, is paramont for the individual to feel free from debt
> > > agian.
>
> > > Of course the corraspanding thought is that the individual can also
> > > feel empowerd by the depts owed to that person. It is like a slavery
> > > light. If a man buys you a beer you remember it and do not rest untll
> > > you have returned the favour. If a freind helps you to move it is
> > > perfectly exceptable to ask of him the same favour when you in turn
> > > move.
>
> > > I think it goes deep, I mean real deeply deep in the human physche.
>
> > > When one welches on a bet, or refuses to repay a favour then that
> > > person is not thought highly of.
>
> > > It ties in nice and neatly with my thoughts on individual freedom, and
> > > the fettering of choice.
>
> > > On Aug 27, 6:50 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Nietzsche argued (in front of the bourgeois) that bourgeois morality
> > > > was all based on the ability to use violence to recover debt. I take
> > > > it his play was ironic, much as Kierkegaard on Xtianity. To abandon
> > > > morality and ethics in order to do the best we can in practical
> > > > circumstances is a move from generality to particularism and 'low and
> > > > behold' the matter is somewhat ironic as we discover morality and
> > > > ethics in the particular. We might, for instance, be generally
> > > > against abortion, but leave this generality aside in considering a
> > > > rape victim wanting one - indeed we should go further and wonder what
> > > > role morality and ethics play in the decision that we have any 'right'
> > > > to be considering a decision many of us think the woman concerned
> > > > should be able to make and expect only our support in it - that is
> > > > help with her distress.
>
> > > > In German philosophy after Hegel, there was much attempt to 'free
> > > > thought' from Geist and what we might call 'socially approved
> > > > epistemic authority' (which we might corrupt to 'moralising') - one
> > > > can draw the line through Fichte, Feuerbach, Nietzsche and on to
> > > > Stirner - the problem always being how there could ever be an
> > > > association of individuals free of morals and ethics - the answer
> > > > usually being that some subjective awareness-analysis could replace
> > > > social authority. This is not exactly new to those of us with some
> > > > notion of self-discipline, and notions of govern-mentality or the
> > > > creation of 'docile bodies' worry on just hoe 'subjective' we can be
> > > > in this sense.
>
> > > > The question is probably about how we can get into meaningful review
> > > > of what is deeply and potentially wrongly held. A good example would
> > > > be that most of us think debt should be repaid. We can hold this view
> > > > with great certainty and even think it immoral not to repay. Yet what
> > > > is human history on this? I can point to a recent book that
> > > > demonstrates history is full of corrections or Jubilee on debt - even
> > > > that the first word we know for freedom means 'freedom from debt' and
> > > > that many religious words come from the word debt as sin - in the
> > > > sense of freedom from it. The very notion of our definition of debt
> > > > is historically wrong and de-politicised when it should not be. We
> > > > can abandon what we have come to think is moral and ethical about debt
> > > > and perhaps recover something 'more moral' in understanding history.
> > > > The book is readable at Amazon - Debt by David Graeber - at least in
> > > > its essentials. Much as we might abandon moral and ethics, we could
> > > > abandon 'money' - though we no doubt come round to a better
> > > > formulation in new practice. There is always some kind of 'return' -
> > > > but where are we without trying our best in thinking things through -
> > > > left with global poverty and indenture? Hardly much 'morality' in
> > > > that.
>
> > > > On Aug 26, 3:15 pm, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Hahahah yes Rigsy I find I can't disagree with you here at all. Makes
> > > > > a change huh!
>
> > > > > On Aug 26, 2:40 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Yes, Lee. A sense of fairness and right/wrong seems to kick in
> > > > > > naturally in very young children- even more remarkable when you think
> > > > > > what they are up against re adults and their siblings, but then the
> > > > > > "teaching" begins "in earnest" via family, education, religion,
> > > > > > society. Most often, humans adapt to standards and expectations
> > > > > > because they assume it's safer and easier- they can work out the
> > > > > > conflicts with a therapist later on. :-)
>
> > > > > > On Aug 26, 4:49 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Obvioulsy I have to strongly disagree with that. Anybody who
> > > thinks
> > > > > > > that morality comes from religion is not thinking straight.
>
> > > > > > > My own morality was there long before I even heard of deity, and
> > > the
> > > > > > > same is true for all of us. Yes yes of course religious faith may
> > > > > > > colour or change ones morality, but then what does not? Culture
> > > does,
> > > > > > > the epoch we live in does, nationality does, even age.
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 25, 5:52 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > A guy called Max Stirner wrote an odd book with the intent to
> > > outline
> > > > > > > > what being free of religion might mean. Rigsby's professor seems
> > > > > > > > unaware of how old his ground is in more recent debate than the
> > > > > > > > Greeks. My own view is that religion more or less cripples
> > > morality,
> > > > > > > > both intellectually and in its practical horrors. The weakness
> > > > > > > > involved in believing or pretending to believe twaddle hardly
> > > shows
> > > > > > > > moral character. Ethics are what lawyers have - rules to protect
> > > > > > > > themselves at the expense of others. The best we can hope for is
> > > some
> > > > > > > > kind of fair-play. Our society is grossly immoral because so
> > > many
> > > > > > > > people cling to religious means to suppose others immoral on
> > > grounds
> > > > > > > > like active homosexuality and most varieties of fornication. We
> > > might
> > > > > > > > think of ridding ourselves of morality and ethics and get on with
> > > > > > > > doing our best in difficult situations that need decision.
>
> > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 5:08 pm, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Please correct me if i'm wrong, Lee; i'd be obliged.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 2:38 pm, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Heh heh that too is my understanding but the other way
> > > around!
>
> > > > > > > > > > To dictionary.com!
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 2:03 pm, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Not sure i agree or fully understand your distinctions,
> > > Lee; you're
> > > > > > > > > > > certainly right that "ethics" and "morality" are not
> > > "opposing labels
> > > > > > > > > > > of the same thing", though.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > To be brief, in my opinion, a thought or action is
> > > "ethical" or
> > > > > > > > > > > otherwise if it meets my standard of conduct; a thought or
> > > action is
> > > > > > > > > > > "moral" if it meets a predetermined and prescribed (by
> > > ordination,
> > > > > > > > > > > coordination, or cognition) system of "human" values. It is
> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > latter category of behavioural conditioning that Marks
> > > "deconstructs"
> > > > > > > > > > > so eloquently in his article.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Or so it seems to me, i may be wrong.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 9:51 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ethics vs Morality as opposing lables for the same thing?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > That is not how I understand the two terms myself.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ethics is concerned with the correct course of action,
> > > both as
> > > > > > > > > > > > individuals and on a larger scale, whilst morality is an
> > > individuals
> > > > > > > > > > > > understanding of what is correct or incorrect.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > That is I may have a moral system that agrees or disagree
> > > with my
> > > > > > > > > > > > socities ethical values.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps then my issues are merely semantic, but I do not
> > > belive that
> > > > > > > > > > > > any human can be berift of a morality. That is to say a
> > > personal
> > > > > > > > > > > > understanding or what is right or wrong.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > When he talks about his dislike of animal cruety, he says
> > > that this is
> > > > > > > > > > > > no longer a question of morality but one of desire.
> > > Excuse me for
> > > > > > > > > > > > mentioning Ayn Rand now, but she would have it that our
> > > greatest
> > > > > > > > > > > > moral porpouse is our own happiness. This sure looks
> > > like moralyity
> > > > > > > > > > > > equated with our desires here.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 7:42 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > He's a very lucid thinker.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a basis, some basis, to
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes- language can be beautiful or terrible!!!
Assinar:
Postar comentários (Atom)
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário