[lit-ideas] Re: The meaning of life
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:18:58 -0800 (PST)
Several comments.
--- On Mon, 12/8/08, wokshevs@xxxxxx <wokshevs@xxxxxx> wrote:
> From: wokshevs@xxxxxx <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [lit-ideas] The meaning of life
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Omar Kusturica" <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Monday, December 8, 2008, 9:11 PM
> I believe it is instructive to consider whether
> "accordance with nature" may
> operate validly as a criterion of moral rightness and/or
> political legitimacy
> in democratic states. I doubt that it can. The expression
> would appear to be
> the remnant of a culture innocent of radical cultural
> pluralism of the kind we
> find today and innocent as well of the ideals of the
> Enlightenment we continue
> to struggle to promote.
*I doubt that Cicero was a stranger to political debate, though the terms of
the debate were probably somewhat different. "The ideals of the Enlightenment"
would need to be defined more precisely. Philosophically, the Enlightenment
sought predecessors in the Greek and Roman cultures (and the less acknowledged
Arab thinkers.) The concept of "human nature" certainly had a prominent place
in the Enlightenment philosophy. (e.g. in Hume) However, modern science - which
now becomes separate from philosophy - and technology seeks to control and / or
repress nature. (in contrast to ancient science which was said to be
"contemplative," i.e. sought to understand rather than change nature)
> I find that claims regarding what is "natural" or
> "non-natural" in moral and
> political contexts typically express naught but the values
> and traditions of
> particular persons and those of the tribes into which they
> have been
> socialized. There doesn't seem to be anything
> universalizable about appeals to
> the natural.
*I am not sure why, perhaps because it is difficult to establish what is really
natural ? But appeals to 'human nature' were certainly meant to be
universalizable, in contrast to appeals to culture which almost by definition
are not. If, for instance, the only argument for legalizing homosexuality is
that the Western culture nowadays permits it, then for example the Islamic
fundamentalists only need to reply that theirs doesn't. (Though this may not be
actually true.)
(Is "survival of the fittest" a
> universalizabale maxim?) As such,
> there doesn't appear to be any possibility for
> impartial and objective
> judgement on such grounds.
"Survival of the fittest" is I believe a concept Darwin imported from Herbert,
who was an economist. (Previously he only used "natural selection.") It's
unfortunate in that it mixes prescriptive with descriptive terms (survival with
"fitness")
> Does anyone know of any appeal to nature that can
> justifiably and legitimately
> carry the day in cases of moral or political disagreement?
*It does seem to be true that "nature" no longer has a prominent place in
modern (and postmodern) political and ethical discourse. But that may be
because our lives are dominated by un-natural things. In debates over Internet
censorship, for example, neither side would have much occasion to appeal to
nature since neither the Internet not censorhip are very natural.
Nature continues to pop up in somewhat marginal discourses like the
environmentalist, then natural food, natural medicine etc where it continues to
be seen as a source of value.
O.K.
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
