|
glowing-fish posted:Heidegger Checks out. And I don't mean this just as a glib "lol what a weirdo, so clearly a nazi lol" jab. Half-dumb fucker with just enough brains to be dangerous quote:While there is lots of reasons to look at fascism as being allied to state power, and embracing economically conservative positions, there is a deeper strain to what fascism is, and I believe a lot of it is concealed inside of the philosophy of Martin Heidegger. The idea of wanting to do away with our individual consciousness and conscience, and replacing it with an oceanic feeling of being part of something bigger, is something that we can appreciate. The idea of returning to the unity of a community and a simpler world is something that sounds like a good idea, until we think of all that could mean. I propose that many faux-spiritual and woo fads (yoni eggs, anti-vaxx, OMG GMO/pseudoscientific back-to-nature nonsense) stem from a similar line of thought that attempts to locate dumb fucks in a vision of a pure and all-encompassing whole threatened by any attempts to point out that poo poo is hosed and won't be solved by positive thinking unless accompanied by reality-based *spits* action. I would also be surprised if this doesn't mesh extremely well with the just world fallacy. quote:Looking at the damage caused by "Western rationality" is a good critical perspective, as long as we don't forget what the alternative has been. Looking at the damage caused by cultures with older ideologies (especially considering what was then technically achievable) when the west was still a disease-ridden backwater, I'd argue that just pointing at the philosophy of whoever happened to be the top oppressor previously and saying "thought bad" is the easy way out and doesn't solve anything. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 12:55 on Jan 22, 2019 |
#
¿
Jan 22, 2019 12:51
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 21:59 |
|
|
glowing-fish posted:I guess this is why I posted all that yesterday, how it is still relevant to this forum. In practical terms, does it matter? "Cops will defend the rich and powerful when push comes to shove" can be understood as descriptive of the state of cops in society, presenting a problem for the goal of establishing socialism against the wishes of the rich and powerful. Solutions such as "remove cops", "reform cops and give them different incentives", "replace cops with red guards" (as if there is a difference between this and the previous option  ), etc. will be tried until the problem is solved or eternal cyberpunk plutocracy sets in. Whether the eventual outcome is in accordance to hypothetical universal laws of morality doesn't really matter. starting here:In general terms, I also ask whether allegedly-universal moral and ethical laws can possibly be universal in the first place, and again, does this even matter? Now, I'm sure I'm pissing over centuries of philosophical thought by taking positivism über alles as the fundamental assumption of the argument, but I fail to see how we could possibly discuss the idea of natural or universal morality without taking into account that humanity is essentially apes transplanted into new habitats and societies vastly different from natural ones due to rapid advances in culture and technology. ~~~human nature~~~ is a mess of adaptations and maladaptations to living as small tribe/family group omnivores who might occasionally meet another group (new findings suggests some core behaviours are more ancient, but this doesn't change the overall argument). As a behaviourally-complex and flexible species, we would have evolved general behavioural rules that broadly encourage behaviour consistent with performing everyday functions of paleolithic life such as optimal (or sufficiently good) resource sharing, conflict resolution, group-level decision making, etc in line with the need to survive and reproduce. The underlying rules form a 'natural' system of morality, and it is in principle possible to discover them. However, we run into two main problems when trying to apply 'natural' morality to modern societies: Firstly, it is unlikely that a few generations would have been enough to adapt humanity to a world where societies number in the tens of millions (if you're an ardent isolationist) to billions (if you're a (((globalist)))) with easy access to long supply chains, public works, unprecedented means to build power structures, etc. There is no reason to assume that 'natural' morality is sufficient to regulate behaviour here, instead of reaching its limits as factors that have never been relevant to selection become overwhelming. Evolution doesn't anticipate, it reacts, it can take some time to do so, and sometimes it loving fails and poo poo goes extinct. Natural morality cannot be considered complete. Secondly, why the gently caress is 'natural' morality supposed to be universal, good, and/or prescriptive? Core assumptions of moral arguments typically include something along the lines of 'suffering bad', and arguably 'suffering bad' is part of natural morality. It's obvious to us that less suffering is generally desirable, but this can again be explained through pure biological adaptation. If you're suffering, poo poo has gone wrong, and it's adaptive to do something about it. As a group animal, we are capable of empathy for anything that shows a recognisable response to stimuli we understand. However, it's equally obvious that inflicting suffering to a clearly morally repugnant degree is possible without running into an insurmountable obstacle of natural laws. Inflicting such suffering merely makes other people consider you a loving rear end in a top hat, and maybe inflict some retribution or justice on you after the fact. Since this is an extremely online argument, I'll point to exhibit 1, literally Hitler  . There is also no way to show that suffering is universally bad without making unprovable prior assumptions (critics will attempt to argue for universality by pointing out that a lot of non-human life will also attempt to avoid suffering, or whatever state of being comes closest. This again boils down to the fact that "if you're getting hosed up try to stop getting hosed up" is a useful response for anything adapted to survive). Hence, natural morality cannot be seen as universal, or objectively good, but merely as a behavioural adaptation of humans.Because humans are behaviourally flexible and have the potential to be at least minimally capable of reasoned and/or evidence-based argument, it is possible to develop new moral rules to supplement or supersede natural morality and take into account the state of modern society. These rules could be considered unnatural in a very strict sense (though if your conception of the human phenotype is sufficiently broad, you would argue that the fact that humans use their human brains to make new moral rules makes these rules natural by definition). They will be based on some set of unprovable a priori assumptions, and are true only in the sense that they ought to follow from logical argument and evidence to actually loving work instead of backfiring. The assumptions may still be influenced by very powerful parts of 'natural morality' that people find hard to overcome. If people use different a priori assumptions they may arrive at different moral rules. Objectively,  , and Truth with a capital T does not exist for morals. But so what? Some key parts of natural morality are likely to be shared across the human (and potentially other intelligent species) experience due to certain adaptations common to any self-replicating life form. It makes little sense to deviate from them without overwhelming need. Other parts may not be so widely distributed. Sections of society (e.g. plutocrats or some sociopaths) may voluntarily use assumptions taking them to entirely incompatible moral rules from the bulk of humanity (e.g. FYGM is cool and good), and this leads to a conflict that will eventually be resolved one way or the other. Why should it matter to the masses that plutocrats may or may not be more objectively right in some metaphysical sense? The masses are still deprived of food and other resources, and will inevitably feel compelled to rectify this situation.
suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Jan 23, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2019 01:23
|
|