[lit-ideas] Re: A political thought (continued)
- From: John McCreery <mccreery@xxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:18:22 +0900
On 2004/04/30, at 14:58, Scribe1865@xxxxxxx [quoted Mark Lilla who]
wrote:
> It is a moral challenge to determine how to comport
> oneself simultaneously in relation to abstract ideas and a
> recalcitrant world.
Thanks, Eric, for posting this piece. What do you think? Would it be
fair to say that between the Scylla of abstract ideas and the Charybis
of constantly changing circumstance (respectively closely associated
with what James MacGregor Burns calls the transformational and
transactional aspects of politics), intellectuals are more prone to
succumb to the lure of the former?
Playing with abstractions can, of course, be only a harmless glass bead
game. But imbued with the passions that kill, abstractions can also be
deadly.
Which is not to say that abstract thought is useless. Muddling through
can also be dangerous. Found the following while Googling for
references to Scylla and Charybis.
=====
If fundamentalism is rooted in the belief that there is only one
revealed truth, the threat that stands on the other side of the narrow
channel humanity must navigate is nihilism - the belief that there is
no truth at all.
If fundamentalism is the dark offspring of tradition and orthodoxy,
nihilism is the equally dark offspring of pragmatism and relativism.
Pragmatism, plain old common sense elevated to a formal belief - argues
that actions can best be judged by the results they yield, not by their
formal moral content. And relativism, in its healthy forms, is simply
the recognition that there are a wide diversity of human cultures and
belief systems, and that it is at the least impossible to determine
which one is correct or divinely inspired. These are the two American
philosophical currents that run along-side, and in competition with
traditionalism and orthodoxy. But taken to the extreme, they lead to
the belief that there are no intrinsic moral principals at all, that
any outcome humans might choose is equally valid and equally moral. It
does not, of course, follow, from the belief that there is no one fixed
truth, that there are no falsehoods. And saying that we should take
responsibility for the results of our actions doesn't automatically
imply that the end justifies the means. But in the dark and powerful
currents of human history, these currents have often led to exactly
these results, just as orthodoxy and tradition too often lead to
fundamentalism.
Source:
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/resources/items/
20011109_pope_naral.html
======
John L. McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd.
55-13-202 Miyagaya, Nishi-ku
Yokohama, Japan 220-0006
Tel 81-45-314-9324
Email mccreery@xxxxxxx
"Making Symbols is Our Business"
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
