Was Judas the first Liberal?

[Nick_A]

Steve

My guess is that life has no objective purpose for you so its value can only be determined by a person's subjective opinion. Is that true?

Yes, that's right. "Objective purpose" is, in my use, an oxymoron. Purposes are, by definition, held in the minds of conscious agents. Not necessarily human. Other animals can no doubt be said to have purposes too. The question of the extent to which it makes sense to talk of various species having purpose is a whole other issue.

In my view, obviously, this doesn't mean that purpose doesn't exist, it doesn't mean that there is no respect for the process of life from birth through to death and it doesn't mean that life is a "meaningless accident". (That word "accident" is often misused in these kinds of discussions, I think.). On the contrary, my view is that the proposition that some objective purpose exists in the universe and it just happens to take a special interest in the particular species, on the particular little planet, that dreamt it up, is what unjustly diminishes and trivializes the significance of life on earth and of human life. In my view, if humans wish to claim that we're special, we need to earn it, not award it to ourselves by inventing a system contrived such that we are at its centre.

Then you will agree that "might makes right" should be our guiding principle as to who lives and dies. Those with the power should make the choice. Without objectivity, what other choice is possible other than man made standards and laws which change at a moments notice? Is this true

[Nick_A]

Belindi

One created process is human reason. Reasoning humans are forced by the Good to make intricate and complex decisions. Thinking for yourself is a necessary aspect of The Good. Nick failed to think for himself but instead parroted the simplistic falsehood that each and every foetus is more worthy than each and every other human being.

You believe you can reason as a human being. Is this true? This means that you have complete faith in the Law of Non Contradiction or the EXCLUDED middle. Suppose there was an alternative; the Law of the INCLUDED middle. How hard would you fight against it to defend dualism especially when it serves to verify an objective life process?

Reason is relatively good or bad. No reason is perfect, or wholly bad. It's your responsibility to choose as wisely as you possibly can.

[Steve3007]

Then you will agree that "might makes right" should be our guiding principle as to who lives and dies. Those with the power should make the choice.

Obviously, tautologically, those with power to make choices make choices. Those without power to make choices don't make choices. This is true whether or not we believe in the concept of an objective purpose for living things and objective ideas of what is morally right and wrong.

In a world of people who believed that some things are objectively right and some objectively wrong, it would still be people who declared what those things are. They would argue with each other as to what is objectively right and what is objectively wrong. Sometimes they would agree. Sometimes not. Sometimes they would reach a mutually acceptable compromise. Sometimes they would fight. Same as a world full of people who didn't believe that. The main difference is that when people believe that their own views about right and wrong are objective truths, they're less likely to want to compromise and take into account the views of others with whom they have to share a world. In some cases, they're more likely to want to fight, with the unshakable belief that they are fighting for an objectively existing Good.

Do you agree of disagree with the above?

The fact that those with power to make choices make choices doesn't tend to universally result in a "might makes right" world in which all that matters is physical strength, does it? Why not? Because most human beings recognize that such things as cooperation, division of labour into specialisms, protection of the weak and protection and education of the young are common goods. That's why societies arose. None of that is directly related to any notions of objectively existing purposes or Goods. Societies arose, and generally function, in that way because that is the way that our species works successfully.

Without objectivity, what other choice is possible other than man made standards and laws which change at a moments notice? Is this true

That was a question, not a statement, so I guess when you ask "is this true?" you're asking if this statement is true:

"Without objectivity of purpose and Good, there is no possible choice other than man made standards and laws which change at a moments notice."

Obviously it's true that there is no other choice but man made standards and laws (and this is true regardless of whether those men don't believe that their laws are man made), and, equally obviously, it's not true that they change at a moment's notice. Why not? Because we don't want them to because, in general, we recognize the benefits of living in cooperative societies as described above.

[Nick_A]

Steve

In a world of people who believed that some things are objectively right and some objectively wrong, it would still be people who declared what those things are. They would argue with each other as to what is objectively right and what is objectively wrong. Sometimes they would agree. Sometimes not. Sometimes they would reach a mutually acceptable compromise. Sometimes they would fight. Same as a world full of people who didn't believe that. The main difference is that when people believe that their own views about right and wrong are objective truths, they're less likely to want to compromise and take into account the views of others with whom they have to share a world. In some cases, they're more likely to want to fight, with the unshakable belief that they are fighting for an objectively existing Good.

Do you agree of disagree with the above?

Yes. Plato described this situation as like living on a ship of fools and conflicting opinions going nowhere.

The fact that those with power to make choices make choices doesn't tend to universally result in a "might makes right" world in which all that matters is physical strength, does it? Why not? Because most human beings recognize that such things as cooperation, division of labour into specialisms, protection of the weak and protection and education of the young are common goods. That's why societies arose. None of that is directly related to any notions of objectively existing purposes or Goods. Societies arose, and generally function, in that way because that is the way that our species works successfully.

Humanity as a whole is a creature of reaction Plato called “The Great Beast.” Sometimes it creates and kills and at other times, it kills itself. All is lawfully determined by the cycles of external conditions concluding with war and peace.

"Without objectivity of purpose and Good, there is no possible choice other than man made standards and laws which change at a moments notice."

Obviously it's true that there is no other choice but man made standards and laws (and this is true regardless of whether those men don't believe that their laws are man made), and, equally obviously, it's not true that they change at a moment's notice. Why not? Because we don't want them to because, in general, we recognize the benefits of living in cooperative societies as described above.

There is simply no way humanity destined to float on the “ship of Fools” going nowhere with conflicting opinions can cooperate. Left to its own devices, war is inevitable. Why is it so? Because man is a tripartite soul out of balance. Mystery and I are currently discussing “the Harmony of the Soul” Hopefully we will get into the discussion. But the point is

Justice is, for Plato, at once a part of human virtue and the bond, which joins man together in society. It is the identical quality that makes good and social . Justice is an order and duty of the parts of the soul, it is to the soul as health is to the body. Plato says that justice is not mere strength, but it is a harmonious strength. Justice is not the right of the stronger but the effective harmony of the whole. All moral conceptions revolve about the good of the whole-individual as well as social.

The harmony of the whole cannot be experienced by the tripartite soul out of balance but it is man’s potential. It needs help from above:

“Humanism” was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without Grace.

[Belindi]

Nick wrote:

The harmony of the whole cannot be experienced by the tripartite soul out of balance but it is man’s potential. It needs help from above:

But God Who is nature's own Law, cannot act contrary to Himself.

[Steve3007]

In a world of people who believed that some things are objectively right and some objectively wrong, it would still be people who declared what those things are. They would argue with each other as to what is objectively right and what is objectively wrong. Sometimes they would agree. Sometimes not. Sometimes they would reach a mutually acceptable compromise. Sometimes they would fight. Same as a world full of people who didn't believe that. The main difference is that when people believe that their own views about right and wrong are objective truths, they're less likely to want to compromise and take into account the views of others with whom they have to share a world. In some cases, they're more likely to want to fight, with the unshakable belief that they are fighting for an objectively existing Good.

Do you agree of disagree with the above?

Yes.

OK, so we agree on that.

Plato described this situation as like living on a ship of fools and conflicting opinions going nowhere.

And as I said above, and as you apparently agree, Plato's philosopher kings who claim direct access to the objective Good would argue with each other as to what that Good actually is, each one convinced that they have access to something that is objectively true. As people who claim that access tend to do today.

As I said above, the main difference is that when people are convinced that they alone have a channel to an objective Good, or an objective notion of right and wrong, they're less apt to do what we humans have built our societies on - compromise and cooperate with others with whom they have to share the world. And, of course, that is what we often tend to see with those kinds of people.

There is simply no way humanity destined to float on the “ship of Fools” going nowhere with conflicting opinions can cooperate. Left to its own devices, war is inevitable. Why is it so? Because man is a tripartite soul out of balance....

OK, so I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. You think man is "a tripartite soul out of balance". I think the human race is a species who have succeeded due to our social and cooperative nature, by building societies as described in a previous post.

[Nick_A]

Yes Steve we have an essential disagreement if objective quality exists and what defines it. Mary understood it while Judas had to lose his understanding in order to act naturally and betray Jesus. I can respect your beliefs but can you accept mine?

[Steve3007]

I can respect your beliefs but can you accept mine?

Yes, of course. If we were sitting chatting about this face-to-face I expect it would be very good humoured and we'd probably recognize each other as basically decent people with a lot more in common than that which divides us. Tolerating other people's beliefs is relatively easy. It's really only when those beliefs result in actions, or proposed actions, or proposed refraining from particular actions, that problems sometimes arise.

If those differences arise between people in different societies (which usually means different countries) the "When in Rome do as the Romans do" principle is often adhered to. In that context, up to a point, we tend to tolerate different beliefs and attitudes resulting in different actions more than we do when the differences occur within our own societies. Cultural differences within a single society are often referred to as "multiculturalism" and, as we know, opinions as to the rights and wrongs of that vary widely!

This would be an interesting discussion to continue but I'll leave it there for now.

[Nick_A]

I can respect your beliefs but can you accept mine?

Yes, of course. If we were sitting chatting about this face-to-face I expect it would be very good humoured and we'd probably recognize each other as basically decent people with a lot more in common than that which divides us. Tolerating other people's beliefs is relatively easy. It's really only when those beliefs result in actions, or proposed actions, or proposed refraining from particular actions, that problems sometimes arise.

If those differences arise between people in different societies (which usually means different countries) the "When in Rome do as the Romans do" principle is often adhered to. In that context, up to a point, we tend to tolerate different beliefs and attitudes resulting in different actions more than we do when the differences occur within our own societies. Cultural differences within a single society are often referred to as "multiculturalism" and, as we know, opinions as to the rights and wrongs of that vary widely!

This would be an interesting discussion to continue but I'll leave it there for now.

"When once a certain class of people has been placed by the temporal and spiritual authorities outside the ranks of those whose life has value, then nothing comes more naturally to men than murder." Simone Weil

Steve, you wrote:

Tolerating other people's beliefs is relatively easy. It's really only when those beliefs result in actions, or proposed actions, or proposed refraining from particular actions, that problems sometimes arise.

Somehow it doesn't always work that way. What did the Jewish people do to deserve the Holocaust? What did the Armenian people do to warrant being killed by the Turks in the Armenian Genocide? If Simone is right then certain people are believed by the stronger to lack value. Then these people don't have to do anything. They have been determined to lack value. Lacking value these collectives become scapegoats. The problems of the world are the results of scapegoats who lack value

Toleration is one thing but as soon as it is decided that these unfortunates lack value they easily become scapegoats and can easily be disposed of without second thoughts. A seeker of truth must ask themselves what defines value and why scapegoats are so easy to create even though people preach toleration. Any ideas?

[Steve3007]

...Any ideas?

Well, you've cited the Armenian Genocide and the Nazi Holocaust several times. But, of course, there are many others. For example, numerous pogroms and other persecutions of Jews for hundreds of years, the Rwandan genocide, the treatment of slaves by European and north American slave owners and traders, the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge, the colonial crimes of the British and other empires, the Stalinist purges, the treatment of the Uyghurs in China, the treatment of dissidents in North Korean, the treatment of political prisoners in Syria, and on and on. Those are just the examples that immediately spring to mind.

I think the things that most of them have most obviously in common is tribalism and compartmentalization. The human instinct to hate and fear those who are perceived not to be members of our tribe can be exploited if the appropriate circumstances arise and the appropriate leader(s) come along who know how to use the power of scapegoats for their own ends. And in order to cope with the complexities of the world, the human ability to compartmentalize (to be able to not think about what's happening so we can get on with our lives) means that, again, in particular sets of circumstances, we find it easy to look the other way.

The good news is that we recognize that. The Armenian Genocide, for example, may have served as inspiration for the Nazi Holocaust, but it also meant that the concept of "crimes against humanity" was recognized as a thing for the first time. Nearly a thousand years ago, when Jews were massacred in Clifford's Tower in York (where I used to live), there was no concept of "crimes against humanity"! There was no United Nations! There was no concept of universal humans rights.

[Steve3007]

Incidentally, there'll be a conspicuous display of relatively harmless tribalism tomorrow evening when England play Germany in the final 16 of the Euros (a football/soccer tournament.) Since these basic features of human nature are unlikely to change (they haven't changed for thousands of years, as shown, for example. by that Clifford's Tower massacre I mentioned in the previous post, and are no doubt as old as humanity itself) relatively harmless outlets for them are perhaps the best way forward.

[Nick_A]

Steve

I think the things that most of them have most obviously in common is tribalism and compartmentalization. The human instinct to hate and fear those who are perceived not to be members of our tribe can be exploited if the appropriate circumstances arise and the appropriate leader(s) come along who know how to use the power of scapegoats for their own ends. And in order to cope with the complexities of the world, the human ability to compartmentalize (to be able to not think about what's happening so we can get on with our lives) means that, again, in particular sets of circumstances, we find it easy to look the other way.

The good news is that we recognize that. The Armenian Genocide, for example, may have served as inspiration for the Nazi Holocaust, but it also meant that the concept of "crimes against humanity" was recognized as a thing for the first time. Nearly a thousand years ago, when Jews were massacred in Clifford's Tower in York (where I used to live), there was no concept of "crimes against humanity"! There was no United Nations! There was no concept of universal humans rights.

The U.N says one thing and does another. This is the norm. Call it tribalism but what is it that makes one tribe species deny value to another. What is the source of value. I would say that Man, as he is, is the source of value. If we are a tripartite soul functioning out of balance as Plato describes there can be no other source of value other than our fallen selves.

Yet there are those who understand the human condition and strive to deal with it. One such organization is CIRET: The International Center for Transdisciplinary Research

https://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/index_en.php

Briefly put can you imagine such people who all know they lack value since they all have one of three parts needed for understanding. The scientist is limited to thought, the artist is limited to feelings, and the mechanic is limited to work with their hands. Rather than arguing who is better but instead they all lack understanding of the whole. Can they work together for the sake of balancing the human organism for the sake of experiencing its value in relation to the whole? Not Now. Only a minority can be open to these ideas but that minority can be influential for our future. But can a person temporarily abandon the intellectual tribe long enough to admit they only have a piece of what it means to "understand?"

From CIRET

MORAL PROJECT
(1987)

1 -
We are witnessing an unprecedented revolution engendered by the fundamental sciences and in particular by physics and biology. This revolution is overturning conventional ideas of logic, epistemology and day to day life as a consequence of its technological developments. It is vital to recognize the existence of a considerable discrepancy between the new vision of the world which is emerging from the study of natural systems and the values which predominate in the social sciences and in the life of modern society; values based, to a large extent, upon mechanical determinism, positivism or nihilism. This discrepancy is extremely harmful and harbours the threat of destruction of our species. It is essential to seek the underlying causes, to reflect upon possible remedies and to try to put these into operation.
2 -
One of the obvious causes of this discrepancy is the fragmentation of knowledge. Extreme specialisation is a necessary evil since it helps to accelerate the acquisition of knowledge, but it leads, at the same time, to a darkening of meaning. On the one hand the fragmentation leads man to see himself as a stranger in a world invaded by an incomprehensible complexity. On the other hand it causes a rupture between the organs of reflexion and those of decision-making in society. Thereby are thrown open the doors to absurdity, to non-sense, to violence and to implacable dynamic of self-destruction.
Faced with this situation it is vital to encourage, in every possible way, research activity into a new scientific and cultural approach - transdisciplinarity - in an attempt to reconstitute a coherent picture of the world.

3 -
It is important to distinguish carefully between transdisciplinarity and other activities seemingly very similar if not identical, such as pluridisciplinarity, multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity, but which, in fact, by virtue of their methods and goals, are radically different from transdisciplinarity.
Transdisciplinarity is not concerned with the simple transfer of a model from one branch of knowledge to another, but rather with the study of isomorphisms between the different domains of knowledge. To put it another way, transdisciplinarity takes into account the consequences of a flow of information circulating between the various branches of knowledge, permitting the emergence of unity amidst the diversity and diversity through the unity. Its objective is to lay bare the nature and characteristics of this flow of information and its principal task is the elaboration of a new language, a new logic, and new concepts to permit the emergence of a real dialogue between the specialists in the different domains of knowledge.

4 -
By its very nature, transdisciplinarity rejects all globalising projects, all closed systems of thought, utopian ideas, any enslavement to an ideology, religion or philosophical system no matter what. Its aim is not the unification of all branches of knowledge; a goal that would be absurd and illusory. More modestly, transdisciplinarity will try to bring us closer to reality by the linked study of nature, the imaginary, the universe and man, so as to permit us better to meet the challenges of our epoch.
5 -
The need for transdisciplinarity is making itself felt more and more. Witness the mushrooming of intellectual clubs, colloquia and books which touch, more or less, upon the subject of transdisciplinarity. But these initiatives, important as they may be, cannot at all replace a real, long-term research effort, uniting the most competent specialists for each domain of knowledge and the best qualified amongst those who have reflected upon this approach.
It thus seems very desirable to us to create a genuine centre for transdisciplinarity research, which could become the special meeting-place for specialists from the different sciences and for those from other domains of activity, especially artists, industrialists and educational specialists. Such a centre for research does not exist anywhere, neither in France, nor Europe nor the entire world. Ultimately international in character, this centre, by virtue of its geographical position and its initial structure, would, to start with, have an european flavour.

Besides the defined research activity, materialising in publications and colloquia, we envisage organising an Annual International Conference, regular press briefings, and the setting up of an information bank.

It is clear that the functioning of such an International Centre for Transdisciplinary Studies and Research will demand certain material resources, and a minimum of structural organisation (even though, to be faithful to its one tenets, it ought to aim for self-organisation).

6 -
Scientific knowledge, as a consequence of its own internal development, has arrived at a stage where it ought reestablish an active dialogue with other forms of knowledge. Founded on a spirit of scientific rigour the activity of the International Centre for Transdisciplinary Studies and Research will encourage the establishment of a dynamic exchange between the exact sciences, the social sciences and art and tradition.
While recognizing its principal role as the furthering of fundamental research, the International Centre for Transdisciplinary Studies and Research will keep an open interest in society. Special attention will be given to research into new methods of education aimed at surmounting the rupture between contemporary science and the outmoded images of the world. In the long term it is possible to envisage the creation of a "Transdisciplinary University".

7 -
The advances in modern science lead one to forsee the birth of a new rationality, infinitely richer than that bequeathed to us by the scientific hopes of the 19th century. The creation of an International Centre for Transdisciplinary Studies and Research could help greatly towards the advent of this new rationality.

It reads like the conscious evolution for tribes created by the human condition into becoming human or what Einstein called: the Cosmic Man. If true our species is at the beginning or recognizing its potential for conscious evolution from tribal duality into perceiving universal triune reality where objective value is experienced through the activation of human conscience

[Steve3007]

Call it tribalism but what is it that makes one tribe species deny value to another.

If you're asking for proposed reasons why we, as a species, tend to have tribal affiliations and therefore value members of our own tribe more than we value members of others, I'd say the answer is that it is our evolved nature. It's a simple extension of the reasons why we tend to value the lives of our own children more than we value the lives of other humans. Lineages who tended not to do that tended not to survive quite as successfully.

The fact that I love my children, and the fact that I would be happy to risk my own life and health and possibly die to protect them, is an inherited trait. People in the past who tended to feel less like that tended to have children who died a bit more. To me, at least, that fact doesn't have any effect on the value I attach to my feelings for my children.

Knowing the laws of optics which describe the way that rainbows work doesn't stop rainbows from being beautiful to us.

[Steve3007]

What is the source of value. I would say that Man, as he is, is the source of value.

Since (in my usage) value is something that we hold, like an opinion, I agree. There can be no other source of value than the people (or other sentient creatures) who hold the values. To say otherwise would make as little sense as to say that opinions exist independently of the people who hold them.

If we are a tripartite soul functioning out of balance as Plato describes there can be no other source of value other than our fallen selves.

You're obviously welcome to think that. As you'll have gathered, I don't see the human race as having fallen off anything. We are what we are.

Yet there are those who understand the human condition and strive to deal with it. One such organization is CIRET: The International Center for Transdisciplinary Research

https://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/index_en.php

Briefly put can you imagine such people who all know they lack value since they all have one of three parts needed for understanding. The scientist is limited to thought, the artist is limited to feelings, and the mechanic is limited to work with their hands. Rather than arguing who is better but instead they all lack understanding of the whole. Can they work together for the sake of balancing the human organism for the sake of experiencing its value in relation to the whole?

The process of working together cooperatively, using the best of what each individual can bring to the exercise, is called society.

[Nick_A]

What is the source of value. I would say that Man, as he is, is the source of value.

Since (in my usage) value is something that we hold, like an opinion, I agree. There can be no other source of value than the people (or other sentient creatures) who hold the values. To say otherwise would make as little sense as to say that opinions exist independently of the people who hold them.

If we are a tripartite soul functioning out of balance as Plato describes there can be no other source of value other than our fallen selves.

You're obviously welcome to think that. As you'll have gathered, I don't see the human race as having fallen off anything. We are what we are.

Yet there are those who understand the human condition and strive to deal with it. One such organization is CIRET: The International Center for Transdisciplinary Research

https://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/index_en.php

Briefly put can you imagine such people who all know they lack value since they all have one of three parts needed for understanding. The scientist is limited to thought, the artist is limited to feelings, and the mechanic is limited to work with their hands. Rather than arguing who is better but instead they all lack understanding of the whole. Can they work together for the sake of balancing the human organism for the sake of experiencing its value in relation to the whole?

The process of working together cooperatively, using the best of what each individual can bring to the exercise, is called society.

True, The idea of cooperation influences societal reactions. It is the cause of the secular sacrament of mutual self destruction sometimes called war. It is how Man cooperates with the demands of nature for qualities of energy resulting from excessive deaths. If society didn't function by the axiom "might makes right" mother nature would have to adjust to not having her needs met.

Jesus understood the reality of the big picture and what is required to deal with it. So did Mary. Judas couldn't which is why he was the first liberal.