[lit-ideas] Re: Justifying Moral Principles?

  • From: palma <palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:59:14 +0200

as it has been shown by a variety of cases, the so called "ethnic"
explanations of anything (the jewish culture "explains" einstein, but the
Georgian culture explains Stalin) are utter bullshit. in fact in order to
run the bogus narrative they change the notion of explanation (it is not
explaining but exposing, inventing stories etc. in short nohting but
propaganda)
it is most notably a form of inquiry that goes nowhen and nowhere, blocking
innovation (as Kusturica observes) and dissent, as everyone knows all the
time (since the culture is 'christian' homosexuals are not to be married
since saint Paul said... blah, blah, insert the random rant by Zizek on
saint Paul)


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>  Another problem with cultural ethnocentrism is that it fails to explain
> how people like Buddha or Socrates or Jesus came to hold moral beliefs that
> had not been previously widely shared in their respective cultures, and how
> their views proved persuasive to others. In other words, the view of
> culture that is held in the age of air travel and telecommunications is,
> amazingly, one of a closed, uniform, and unchanging system. Go figure.
>
>  O.K.
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:02 AM, palma <palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>  this has nothing to do with anything moral. confused idiots like
>> propaganda/advertising and so forth. thereby they out high premium on the
>> spin they put on the wares they peddle. it the same for the lawyers, the
>> sophist, the clowns, the thespians.'
>>
>>
>>  it is a conceptual truth that persuasion has nothing to do with morals,
>> in either the public or the private sphere. once c manson convinced &
>> persuaded shitheads that sharon tate had to be slaughtered, the persuasion
>> has nothing to do with the morality of the speeches he gave or the acts he
>> fostered
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  All kinds of discourses can be persuasive. Hitler's speeches were
>>> persuasive to an audience that had some predisposition to be persuaded by
>>> them, the Germans of the 1930s. You and I might not find them so persuasive
>>> today, but that is because we are not their intended audience. Persuasion
>>> need not have much to do with reasoning.
>>>
>>>  O.K.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:00 AM, John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Persuasive perhaps. But a reasoner? The only one I know is fiction, a
>>>> very smart gun, indeed, in a science fiction novel *The Star Faction *by
>>>> Ken Macleod.
>>>>
>>>>  John
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A pointed gun is a persuasive reasoner.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:47 AM, John McCreery <
>>>>> john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rorty/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Readily available to anyone who can use a Google or other search
>>>>>> engine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  John
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rorty who?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
>>>>>>> lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Walter C. Okshevsky
>>>>>>>  Sent: 26 February 2015 23:43
>>>>>>> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Omar Kusturica
>>>>>>> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Justifying Moral Principles?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rorty didn't express any optimism or pessimism re the possibilities
>>>>>>> or future of his "ethnocentrism." His claim, pace the realists,
>>>>>>> constructivists, Kantians, emotivists, etc was that this is all we've 
>>>>>>> got
>>>>>>> as a justification strategy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Remembering fondly the forests of Opatsia, the slivovitz in
>>>>>>> Slovenia, and Katya in Lyublyana.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dovijenya, Valodsya
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quoting Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > The idea that people should be as ethnocentric and partisan as
>>>>>>> > possible and that the clash of radically defined opposing interests
>>>>>>> > will somehow work out for the best was rather widespread in the
>>>>>>> former
>>>>>>> > Yugoslavia some time around 1990. The things did work out
>>>>>>> eventually,
>>>>>>> > but arguably not for the best.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > O.K.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > > Walter O. wrote:
>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > "We justify our judgements and actions through the giving and
>>>>>>> > > assessing of reasons.  In doing so, we appeal to one or more
>>>>>>> moral
>>>>>>> > > principles for purposes of securing satisfactory levels of
>>>>>>> impartiality and objectivity.
>>>>>>> > > But can the principles themselves be justified? Could Rorty"s
>>>>>>> > > "ethnocentrism" really be the last word on the subject?  On that
>>>>>>> > > meta-ethical view, any attempt to justify a moral scheme or
>>>>>>> "vocabulary"
>>>>>>> > > would prove to be question-begging since the justification would
>>>>>>> > > have to appeal to principles, norms and criteria internal to its
>>>>>>> own vocabulary.
>>>>>>> > So
>>>>>>> > > how then do we justify the Categorical Imperative, Principle of
>>>>>>> > > Equal Respect for Persons, The Original Position, Principle of
>>>>>>> Discourse, etc..
>>>>>>> > > Are these really but articles of political faith?"
>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > I don't find Rorty's position as problematic as Walter does, for
>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>> > > different reasons. First, for Rorty, the ethnocentrism really
>>>>>>> kicks
>>>>>>> > > in
>>>>>>> > only
>>>>>>> > > when public debate reaches an impasse, and we are only left with
>>>>>>> > > acknowledging that these are the beliefs that 'we' hold. It
>>>>>>> seems to
>>>>>>> > > me that this is similar to the situation that leads Kant to
>>>>>>> > > acknowledge the fundamental asocial sociability of human beings,
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> > > 'Idea for a Universal History', or that nature separates people,
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> > > 'Perpetual Peace'. In the end, there can be no Utopia or World
>>>>>>> > > government because there are just too many differences for there
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> > > be a single set of laws. For Rorty, ultimately, we are bound to
>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>> > > particular histories, but falling back on this particularity is
>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>> > > should happen only when public reasoning has gone as far as it
>>>>>>> can.
>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > Second, the list that Walter gives, i.e. Categorical Imperative,
>>>>>>> > > Principle of Equal Respect for Persons, etc., require judgment,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> > > I would prefer that judgment ultimately come under politics. For
>>>>>>> > > Kant, judgment is the activity of putting experience under
>>>>>>> universal
>>>>>>> > > rules or laws, so with the CI, we evaluate specific activities by
>>>>>>> > > deriving maxims of action from them and attempting to make them
>>>>>>> > > universal laws. Because this activity always requires judgment,
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> > > is, how the particular comes under the universal, there will
>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>> > > be the problem of how to overcome differences. Kant recognizes
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> > > nature divides people, and the one way nature divides is
>>>>>>> > in
>>>>>>> > > giving people different interests and goals. So, while in a very
>>>>>>> > > Hobbesian fashion, Kant urges people to pursue their interests
>>>>>>> in as
>>>>>>> > > selfish, in other words rational, manner as possible, the
>>>>>>> > > reconciliation of
>>>>>>> > differences
>>>>>>> > > between people will require a political solution. This political
>>>>>>> > > solution will bring about an equilibrium of competing forces and
>>>>>>> > > interests, most likely established through a 'spirit of
>>>>>>> commerce',
>>>>>>> > > and most likely in the formation of a Republic. I realize that
>>>>>>> > > Walter will not be happy with
>>>>>>> > this,
>>>>>>> > > but what comes to mind is a quote from Stanley Fish: 'Politics,
>>>>>>> > > interest, partisan conviction, and belief are the locations of
>>>>>>> > > morality. It is in
>>>>>>> > and
>>>>>>> > > through them that one's sense of justice and the good lives and
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> > > put
>>>>>>> > into
>>>>>>> > > action.'
>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > In short, yes, I am quite happy with Walter's list being
>>>>>>> articles of
>>>>>>> > > political faith and I see this as very much being within the
>>>>>>> vision
>>>>>>> > > Kant outlines for his hope for a peaceful future.
>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > Sincerely,
>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > Phil
>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
>>>>>>> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
>>>>>>> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   --
>>>>>> John McCreery
>>>>>> The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
>>>>>> Tel. +81-45-314-9324
>>>>>> jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> http://www.wordworks.jp/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  --
>>>> John McCreery
>>>> The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
>>>> Tel. +81-45-314-9324
>>>> jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> http://www.wordworks.jp/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>>  palma,   etheKwini, KZN
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  palma
>>
>>  cell phone is 0762362391
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  *only when in Europe*:
>>
>> inst. J. Nicod
>>
>> 29 rue d'Ulm
>>
>> f-75005 paris france
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
palma,   etheKwini, KZN












 palma

cell phone is 0762362391




 *only when in Europe*:

inst. J. Nicod

29 rue d'Ulm

f-75005 paris france

Other related posts: