Actions alone can be judged as moral or immoral, morality is tied to what we do, not necessarily what we think or feel.
Thoughts, on their own, are rarely if ever, actions, what we imagine or consider isn’t inherently moral or immoral without action to give it weight.
Immoral actions are not always invalid choices, sometimes, circumstances leave us with only immoral options, and we must navigate these moments as best we can.
These (unattainable) depictions create a hyperreal framework, one completely detached from actual human experience, yet they are omnipresent and prescriptive, shaping social norms and rippling far beyond personal identity.
For both spheres, conservatism isn’t just nostalgia for the past: it’s a reaction to the insecurity fostered by hyper-individualism and identity fragmentation. These frameworks offer a sense of purpose and belonging that feels increasingly elusive in today’s fragmented world.
Both identity fragmentation and the retreat into conservatism stem from the same sources: the unattainability of hyperreal gender constructs and the insecurity bred by individualism. Media-fueled ideals distort human experience, alienating individuals from themselves and their communities.
The part I might disagree is in your phrasing of the second quote above, as if traditional value systems offer a safe harbor of retreat, to suggest their value is simply pragmatic, a quiet space in the corner away from the noise. I'd suggest the comfort derived from them is not simply that they happen to work because of their stricter standards and their clear offers of direction, but it's because they are true. It's not as if any standard will do as long as we have a standard, but it's that we have a correct standard. That is, I don't fall back to my traditional systems because I can't take my neighbor's chaotic system, but I stand firmly in my traditional system because it's the correct way to think and to act. That is, by doing right, one ends up without the psychological stresses of those who do wrong.
If I'm reading you correctly, you hold at least some sympathy for "woke" culture. I regard my statement as being reportage, not analysis in support of antithetical judgment.
If the whole world is a mirror, then how do you develop a self in the first place? If everything is public, then where is the Self?
I think we can even extend this question, from knowing about these secrets to thought itself. Take the following dilemma: Imagine you were taking part in a lottery where several of your closest friends were each offered the choice of either immediately taking $1400 dollars or declining with the understanding that if all the other players declined then you would all receive $2000 each. What would you do? Now what would you do if it it were random people, each from a different continent of the world?Why shouldn't we meet and educate the isolated tribal peoples of the Sentinel Islands? Would educating them about what lies beyond their own way of life increase or erode their free will?
I don't think a more detailed discussion of this issue is appropriate here.
The fact that living life unavoidably brings us into conflict with other people has nothing to do with "moral indecency" or a "darker side." It's how we handle that conflict that matters.
A New York Times editorialist said that "Democrats must learn to say no." Some people's interests have to be turned aside. Should the public be asked to pay for prisoners' and immigrants' "gender affirming" therapy and surgery?
Your opinion of human nature is different from mine.
Further, visualizability or an emphasis on analogical/metaphorical language as opposed to mathematical/axiomatic frameworks to understand scientific theorizing seem so antiquated. The usual responses I see regarding this say something along the lines of, "How can you know, prove, or convince me that the world really is such as your analogue models presents it as? This was high science a century ago but its been found lacking come the modern era." They object that, "Any approach that one could take to analogue model modern mathematical models are bound to fail." So while layman might need such subjective vices, objective science demands no such need.
There is something greatly misguided about these ten cent objections as if either science is supposed to be so abstracted and VAGUE that we may not even understand what it is that we've been theorizing about for decades.
Regarding the statement about philosophy being the bewitchment of our intelligence by the means of language, then why is that so?
Now, the issue I have with the concept of ownership is that there is no clear definition of what constitutes a transfer of ownership, let alone what qualifies as a legitimate claim to owning any given material good. The transfer of goods or capital is not the sole method for the transfer of ownership as we have the lumberjack becoming the owner of the lumber through the mere act of felling the tree, or a thief having stolen something can be said to now own it (though this is deemed as an illegitimate ownership relation by many due to the illegality of it afaik), or even items being given away for free give a claim to ownership.
So what's the difference? Or is the "observability" thing really just a red herring?
Meaningful labor is not ALL that life offers, and I can imagine a scenario where someone doesn't find any "labor" (at least in the survival sense) meaningful. And that itself pushes back against this essentialist notion of "homo economicus".
What then is real labour when the economy is more about selling future debt? Well financial engineering and debt marketing are well paid occupations. And real work so far as the global debt industry is concerned.
Not sure if this covers your concept of abstract jobs. But who exactly employed this spreadsheet content person and for what ostensible purpose? Did it help sell loans? Directly or indirectly?
My advice- get out of the “production is the point of life” mentality. Of course this leads to Pessimism and AN, but I’ll meet you there with open arms when you get there :wink:
When we enter into a discussion about “personal identity” – that is, whether or not it makes sense to say that a newborn baby at time t1 and space s1 can be the same person as a full-grown adult at time t2 and space s2 – we agree on the terms we are using (e.g., “same person,” “newborn baby,” “full-grown adult,” etc.).
You wrote that laws are not products of communities. My question: then by whom or what? — tim wood
(Laws are...) Recognized, acknowledged, established and perhaps sometimes institutionalized instead of created. And if laws not a product of communities, then from whom or what?
Do you mean "ideality" instead of "non-ideality"? I hear the cry of a good thought trying to get out of your sentence, but I cannot hear it clearly enough to understand it. Clarify? — tim wood
Should we obey the law? Why should we obey the law? What laws should we obey? Quick and easy answers are yes, for the good of all and everything, all of them. Live long enough and it’s not that simple.
What is law? An imperative established by the community. As such, either an expression of reason/rationality or of arbitrary power; i.e., either just or unjust.
This isn't meant to be rude - It's most to illustrate that, given my opinion of Hegelian thinking (and my position that it can be shown to be nonsensical) we're not going to get far :P
"the truth of what was" makes no sense here
As to the rest of your post, it seems to rely on Hegelian concepts that I find totally incoherent
To be sure, I think Hegel was an eloquent idiot. But that doesn't affect the lack of coherence here.
I am wondering if having “personal identity” is simply part of what it is to be human. This, despite the fact that a newborn baby human looks nothing like its later iteration as a full-grown adult. This, despite the fact that an adult human does not consist of the same cells as it did as a baby human. This, despite the fact that we can find no unchanged “essence” or “mind” or “soul” anywhere.
This, despite the fact that we can find no unchanged “essence” or “mind” or “soul” anywhere.
The electronic versions of a book are dynamic: As long as one is in contact with the Internet (devices, cables, wifi, electricity, signals, etc.) the book and the distributor are connected and monitored.
A book is an economically efficient distribution bundle of articles, i.e. chapters, that may -- or may not even --be closely related. With the advent of the internet, it has become equally efficient, if not more, to publish just the individual articles online. Hence, the very reason for bundling them has disappeared.
To be brief: if one is studying books and thinking about them, is he looking forward or backwards, and in which direction is he living his life? And if the books themselves are determinant, we can ask if the books themselves are forward-looking or back?
...My own tentative answer is that books look backwards...
One more point: many people say that currently the rich people become richer, the poor become poorer, and the middle class disappears.
There is no pure-reason explanation for suffering. If you insist anyway, you will fight against the absurd until you give up and call the suicide prevention hotline.
I'm a moral anti-realist, so any conception of good or evil outside of preferences is simply someone trying to push their values upon another.
I'm not sure what you define as morality, but I've described what I define it is in many of my comments. If our definitions disagree then we're simply having seperate conversations with a joint term.
Morality can only be defined in relation to a certain set of values. You could do any action and if it is in accordance with your values then it is moral by definition.
No, experience is not a principle. The sensory inputs entering your eyes, and the preference for orange juice over apple juice are not conceptual ideas, but are natural values we hold and so can be used to ground an ethical egoist morality.
Is it possible to have a healthy economy which is 'steady state'? Not expanding and not shrinking?
Perhaps philosophy (similar to religion), is cosplay fantasy, to give reality a more interesting sense to it, and nothing more than this sensibility.
What is this impulse in philosophy for an aesthetic view? What does it matter if the aesthetic view exists? Why are some people drawn to it and some not?