Originally posted by vistesdYes, exactly. And this is along the lines of the point I was trying to argue above to sonship: that life is saturated with meaning throughout the whole course of one’s life, as one undergoes that existential engagement. It’s not as if meaning is somehow simply conjured or erased, based on some reflective attitudes that arise later from a temporally detached vantage point.
I confess that I only skimmed the cited essay, but I was immediately reminded of our old discussions about Camus’ The Myth of Sisyphus, and his notion of the “absurd situation”, to wit: that external reality discloses to us only facts and patterns of facts, etc., while human beings (absurdly) expect that external reality to, in some way, also disclos ...[text shortened]... rvival value--which does circle back toward Camus' only "really serious philosophical problem".)
Originally posted by LemonJelloThat is so very well put.
Yes, exactly. And this is along the lines of the point I was trying to argue above to sonship: that life is saturated with meaning throughout the whole course of one’s life, as one undergoes that existential engagement. It’s not as if meaning is somehow simply conjured or erased, based on some reflective attitudes that arise later from a temporally detached vantage point.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
08 Jan 16
Originally posted by vistesdWhat do you say about the Nazi doctor Joseph Mengle ?
That is so very well put.
Was the meaning that saturated his life a legitimate one ?
Josef Mengele (German: [ˈjoːzɛf ˈmɛŋələ] ( listen); 16 March 1911 – 7 February 1979) was a German Schutzstaffel (SS) officer and physician in Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II. Mengele was a notorious member of the team of doctors responsible for the selection of victims to be killed in the gas chambers and for performing deadly human experiments on prisoners.
Mengele received doctorates in anthropology and medicine from Munich University and began a career as a researcher. He joined the Nazi Party in 1937 and the SS in 1938. Initially assigned as a battalion medical officer at the start of World War II, he transferred to the concentration camp service in early 1943 and was assigned to Auschwitz. There he saw the opportunity to conduct genetic research on human subjects. His subsequent experiments, focusing primarily on twins, had no regard for the health or safety of the victims.[2][3]
Wiki
Somehow, just having "meaning" cannot be all there is to being a human being.
Am I right ?
Originally posted by sonshipAs I pointed out in my first post, the question of meaning also becomes an ethical question.
What do you say about the Nazi doctor Joseph Mengle ?
Was the meaning that saturated his life a legitimate one ?
[quote] Josef Mengele (German: [ˈjoːzɛf ˈmɛŋələ] ( listen); 16 March 1911 – 7 February 1979) was a German Schutzstaffel (SS) officer and physician in Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II. Mengele was a notorious member of the team ...[text shortened]... i
Somehow, just having "meaning" cannot be all there is to being a human being.
Am I right ?
EDIT: That means that one cannot legitimately evade one’s moral responsibility (no matter how fraught with moral risk) by appealing to some “higher meaning”—or to any philosophical, political or religious authority. The attempt at such ethical evasion would be considered existential bad faith in Sarte’s terms.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by vistesdThat's helpful. Let me ask. You speak of tending to or evading one's moral responsibility.
As I pointed out in my first post, the question of meaning also becomes an ethical question.
EDIT: That means that one cannot legitimately evade one’s moral responsibility (no matter how fraught with moral risk) by appealing to some “higher meaning”—or to any philosophical, political or religious authority. The attempt at such ethical evasion would be considered existential bad faith in Sarte’s terms.
To whom is one responsible ?
Was Joseph Mengle responsible only to himself, in the ( hopeful ) intrinsic nobility of his own conscience ?
Secondly, concerning to whom or whatever we ARE responsible - Is there an ultimate accounting ? Are there real consequences for the attending or neglect of this responsibility?
08 Jan 16
Originally posted by LemonJelloNo offense, but I think his questions (and at least parts of his presentation) are poorly worded.
Here is a link to an article entitled God and the Meaning of Life (2014) , by Ryan Stringer:
http://infidels.org/library/modern/ryan_stringer/meaning.html
Stringer explicitly states and addresses seven questions ( (Q1) through (Q7) ) related to God & meaning, and there is an eighth, final question he addresses in Section 5.
Which of these ...[text shortened]... ions are the most important to address? And do you agree with Stringer's answers and reasoning?
For instance, 1. The Meaning of "The meaning of Life" wherein Stringer concedes to two loose leaf definitions of the phrase.
Why is he unable to zero in on one?
Why is he ignoring the possibility of more than two?
What does he mean by "cosmic purpose or point of life" and specifically, "cosmic?"
In 2. Is God Needed for Life to Be Meaningful? Stringer continues on his foundation-less 'cosmic purposes' without defining either.
Is 'cosmic' local?
Universal?
Time constrained?
Is 'purpose' intended to be equated with 'meaning?'
Afterwards, although he states the anecdotal nature of his examples, they're far too swamped with subjectivity to allow any clarity.
I think his math's just too fuzzy to offer much of anything thoughtful.
My two cents.
Originally posted by sonshipTo whom are we responsible? To anyone whose well-being is subject to our actions, including ourselves. And I tend to hold to a “neo-Stoical” principle of “all things considered” (insofar as our mental capacity allows).
That's helpful. Let me ask. You speak of tending to or evading one's moral responsibility.
To whom is one responsible ?
Was Joseph Mengle responsible only to himself, in the ( hopeful ) intrinsic nobility of his own conscience ?
Secondly, concerning to whom or whatever we ARE responsible - Is there an ultimate accounting ? Are there real consequences for the attending or neglect of this responsibility?
I think we cannot escape our own recognizance (is that what you mean by conscience?) in such matters—since, if we choose to hold allegiance to some “higher authority”, we are responsible for that decision. There is no way out of the “fraughtness” of making ethical decisions—the risk that we might be wrong, and perhaps terribly so.
An ultimate accounting? I don’t know, but I tend to doubt it. I might be wrong. I tend toward a version of Aristotelian virtue ethics, in which the “ultimate accounting” is a life of flourishing well-being. I don’t think that one can ascribe that to Mengele—and I think that we have to allow for what one might call pathological evil, including both pathological acts of harming others and oneself. If there is an ultimate accounting, then I think we do well to hope for grace.
There simply are no “shortcuts”—in philosophy or religion. This is not, to my mind an argument against religion, only some abuses of religion.
I no longer find grand formulae (including various versions of “the golden rule”—or Aristotle, for that matter) to be ethically very helpful. And that is why I tend not to seek some safe harbor there. A quote on that that I have always found insightful is the following one by Catholic theologian Urs von Balthasar:
“When it comes to shaping one’s personal behavior, all the rules of morality, as precise as they may be, remain abstract in the face of the infinite complexity of the concrete.”
—Hans Urs von Balthasar, Presence and Thought: An Essay on the Religious Philosophy of Gregory of Nyssa (from the Foreword).
And that's really the bedrock for me. And so I really can’t answer questions about “the metaphysics of morality”—religious or philosophical. I stand in the crucible of the "infinite complexity of the concrete", without omniscience (or the pretense that some exogenous authority can provide some sort of "vicarious" moral omniscience) and take the ethical risks as they come. I quite frankly think that's the best anyone can do, without "dissing" whatever other religious views they might hold, or whatever valid spiritual experiences they have had (which I also do not discount).
EDIT: Lots of edits for spelling, clarity, etc. Sorry.
08 Jan 16
Originally posted by LemonJelloThere's a mooring but one wonders where that boat is docked.
Yes, exactly. And this is along the lines of the point I was trying to argue above to sonship: that life is saturated with meaning throughout the whole course of one’s life, as one undergoes that existential engagement. It’s not as if meaning is somehow simply conjured or erased, based on some reflective attitudes that arise later from a temporally detached vantage point.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
08 Jan 16
Originally posted by twhitehead"I have seen good arguments that we are simulations in the Matrix. Would the creator of the matrix be considered 'supernatural'?"
I have seen good arguments that we are simulations in the Matrix. Would the creator of the matrix be considered 'supernatural'?
Perhaps in the same manner as a coder is not bound by the code he/she writes.
But the coder lives in a world, which while being "supernatural" to the "laws" of his/her code, may behave in such a way that its regularities can be interpreted as "laws of nature" for his/her level..
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
08 Jan 16
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdTo whom are we responsible? To anyone whose well-being is subject to our actions, including ourselves. And I tend to hold to a “neo-Stoical” principle of “all things considered” (insofar as our mental capacity allows).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The patients that Joseph Mengle tortured - he was only responsible to them ?
Was there anyone else to whom Joseph Mengle must answer ?
Him just being accountable to his poor victims really means there is NO injustice.
If there is no final justice for those poor victims then there really exists no INJUSTICE against them.
I think we cannot escape our own recognizance (is that what you mean by conscience?) in such matters—since, if we choose to hold allegiance to some “higher authority”, we are responsible for that decision. There is no way out of the “fraughtness” of making ethical decisions—the risk that we might be wrong, and perhaps terribly so.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vistesd, before I wade into your deeper concepts I really would like the above matter spoken to.
If JUSTICE really doesn't exist, then how can INJUSTICE exist ?
An ultimate accounting? I don’t know, but I tend to doubt it. I might be wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay. You simply don't know.
But if there is no STRAIGHT LINE how can we know what a CROOKED LINE is ?
And if there is no JUSTICE at the end, isn't INJUSTICE just an illusion ?
Joseph Mengle can go laughing as he jumps into his grave, amused at what he was really able to get away with.
Am I right ?
I tend toward a version of Aristotelian virtue ethics, in which the “ultimate accounting” is a life of flourishing well-being. I don’t think that one can ascribe that to Mengele—and I think that we have to allow for what one might call pathological evil, including both pathological acts of harming others and oneself. If there is an ultimate accounting, then I think we do well to hope for grace.
--------------------------------------------------------------
You say we have to "allow for pathological evil". But the issue is does it EXIST if ultimate GOOD in terms of Justice does NOT.
But concerning what you say about grace. Grace has been demonstrated in the life, death, and resurrection of the Son of God for our redemption. I have moved from merely hoping for grace to receiving grace.
"For the law was given through Moses; grace and reality came through Jesus Christ." (John 1:17)
This grace though, is not free in all respects.
It may seem free to me, the receiver. But it cost Someone very much to be able to dispense it.
There simply are no “shortcuts”—in philosophy or religion. This is not, to my mind an argument against religion, only some abuses of religion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps put in near philosophical terms - the ultimate standard by which we will be judged was given through Moses. Righteous reconciliation and righteous justification came through Jesus Christ the Son Who bore the sins of the world under God's judgment in Himself. We are commanded by the Divine and Eternal Legislator to believe into this One, for this substitution to take place personally.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
08 Jan 16
1 edit
I no longer find grand formulae (including various versions of “the golden rule”—or Aristotle, for that matter) to be ethically very helpful. And that is why I tend not to seek some safe harbor there. A quote on that that I have always found insightful is the following one by Catholic theologian Urs von Balthasar:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The golden rule is enlightening. And words like it are found in many other faiths.
But if from this day forward, if we were able to keep this "golden rule" (which we are not completely successfully) there is still the justice due to its voluminous violations up to this day.
Again, if there is really no final Justice how can we say Injustice really exists ?
We may have a "rule" that from THIS day forward the line will be straight.
But all the yesterdays are admitted to have witnessed a crooked line.
Don't we need to SEE what a PERFECT Life in human beings LOOKS LIKE ?
Don't we need to see what a man keeping this "golden rule" throughout his whole life, looks like?
Originally posted by sonshipHim just being accountable to his poor victims really means there is NO injustice.
[b]
I no longer find grand formulae (including various versions of “the golden rule”—or Aristotle, for that matter) to be ethically very helpful. And that is why I tend not to seek some safe harbor there. A quote on that that I have always found insightful is the following one by Catholic theologian Urs von Balthasar:
-------------------------------- ...[text shortened]... on't we need to see what a man keeping this "golden rule" throughout his whole life, looks like?[/b]
If there is no final justice for those poor victims then there really exists no INJUSTICE against them.
I don’t think that makes any sense. And when it comes to “the existence” of something called “justice”, I prefer to speak in terms of actions: acting justly or unjustly. The same with terms like evil—they aren’t “things”, they are actions. If you disagree, then we just disagree.
Now, one can only say that “George is Just” if one has some idea of what it is to act justly. The same if one replaces “George” with “God”. So the question becomes, whence our notions of what it means to “act justly”. If mystically, from God, then that seems to me to ne a non-evidentiary claim—not false necessarily, but logically a priori. And I won’t argue that.
Don't we need to SEE what a PERFECT Life in human beings LOOKS LIKE ?
Don't we need to see what a man keeping this "golden rule" throughout his whole life, looks like?
But this is where I think you get it backwards, and perhaps are missing my point. In order to judge whether or not any such person acted with consistent moral perfection, you would have to know what moral perfection looks like. You can take it on faith—but faith (like feeling) is an act of trust, not certainty. If one has knowledge that is certain, then faith would be unnecessary (though I think we might often say something like. “Of course I trust her” almost as a grammatical redundancy).
I want to point out that I am quite comfortable saying “I don’t know” about many things—and also that I don’t feel the need to argue over something, after I have stated my position to the best of my ability, just because you think it ought to be up for argument. I mean that with all due respect.
LATE EDIT: When I say that I don't find such "grand formulae" as the golden rule particularly helpful, I mean it in the practical sense where, as Balthasar points out, the particulars that we confront become infinitely complex. And sometimes, doing to someone else what I would want done to me might be actually harmful--all things considered.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
08 Jan 16
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI don’t think that makes any sense. And when it comes to “the existence” of something called “justice”, I prefer to speak in terms of actions: acting justly or unjustly. The same with terms like evil—they aren’t “things”, they are actions. If you disagree, then we just disagree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the ACTION of final justice is delayed yet inevitable.
There is plenty of action at the last judgment.
My question is - "If there is no final setting straight the moral scales of Justice, albeit delayed, does injustice really exist?"
Solomon wisely pointed out that, because justice is not always SWIFT, mens' hearts assume it will not come. And they devote themselves to evil.
" Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the children of men is fully set within them to do evil." (Ecc. 8:11)
I am speaking of ACTION without doubt. But this ultimate ACTION of justice is seemingly prolonged and not immediate.
I'll consider separately your other comment. Thanks.
08 Jan 16
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipOkay: if what you mean is that people may get away with perpetrating injustices because (a) they die without being punished, and (b) there is no after-life punishment—then that may well be the case. But that does not render our ideas (however imperfect) as to what acting justly or unjustly entails absurd. Whether they are implanted by some divine source, or derive from what is called natural law, or instinct, or whatever.
[b] I don’t think that makes any sense. And when it comes to “the existence” of something called “justice”, I prefer to speak in terms of actions: acting justly or unjustly. The same with terms like evil—they aren’t “things”, they are actions. If you disagree, then we just disagree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ...[text shortened]... seemingly prolonged and not immediate.
I'll consider separately your other comment. Thanks.[/b]
If it is the case that people ultimately get away with unjust acts, then that is a fact—however unsatisfactory we might both agree that it is. The truth doesn’t have to be satisfactory—it just has to be true. I in no way claim to know all truth. 🙂 And if we needed to know all truth in order to decide on any truth, then that would be the case. But I don’t think that it is.
You seem to be arguing that we cannot know what imperfection is, unless we first know what perfection looks like: perfect justice, perfect truth. I think, for reasons that I outlined, that is a fruitless quest. (At least outside the limiting strictures of deductive logic and mathematics—neither of which relieves the kind of ethical “fraughtness” that I spoke of.)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
08 Jan 16
Originally posted by vistesdBut this is where I think you get it backwards, and perhaps are missing my point. In order to judge whether or not any such person acted with consistent moral perfection, you would have to know what moral perfection looks like.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, I also am comfortable with saying I don't know something.
I am not so comfortable saying it when I am pretty certain that I DO have a good idea what's up.
So, let us not kid ourselves. Joseph Mengle, only being responsible to his victims, got clean away with his acts ?
Convince me that your philosophy is not basically saying that is the case. (I mean with a reasonable amount of Discussion Forum words). Obviously, you've given much thought to these matters.
But basically, Dr. Joseph Mengle got away with murder, literally. Right ? I mean in some abstract ethereal philosophic realm he's wrong. But he really just will peacefully melt away into the dust of the planet. Right ?