Yes, in Daoism (Taoism), the idea/concept of the Dao (Tao) is very similar. "The Tao That Can Be Spoken of Is Not the Eternal Tao".
Rorty's Liberal Ironist
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
Yes, quite so.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 14th, 2022, 11:27 amYes, in Daoism (Taoism), the idea/concept of the Dao (Tao) is very similar. "The Tao That Can Be Spoken of Is Not the Eternal Tao".
And they also say, a man who understands the Tao in the morning can die contentedly in the evening. And that's not quite true either, is it. Once the initial bliss of awakening to the Tao starts to wane, we find ourselves in the world we have always lived in, we just now see it as it truly is. But no "inherent nature" to the world (like value or whatever) was uncovered. Although it is true that most people do become more content permanently, after the initial bliss has waned.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
Not sure just what you're saying there, but generally, in the philosophical literature, "morals" and "ethics" are used synonymously. Neither "codifies" values.
Well, to "relate morally" requires someone other than oneself. Crusoe, alone on his island, has no "moral relationships," and can have none.In the film Castaway the hero, Chuck Noland , had a moral stance towards Wilson the castaway ball, and Wilson was himself a moral agent who had opinions and loyalty. When Wilson was lost off the raft, Chuck was heartbroken as he had lost what was to him a person to whom he related. it's 'only a film' but the theme of moral agency is what makes it relevant to life.
There is a defect in people who can't relate morally to what is other than themself. Robinson Crusoe was bereft until Man Friday appeared. My point is that evaluating features of environment is so necessary to us that it may be counted as an instinct. Environment is so important that men have invented gods who preside over inanimate features of environment such as some benign personal god of place who presides over a holy well, grove, or mountain. There are other gods of place who are dangerous persons, e.g. the old Jahweh, and men need to placate them. When people need moral agents other than themselves they will invent them if need be.
You seem to be saying that humans are social animals and desire human companionship. That's true, but it doesn't address the question, What is ethics?
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
Maybe you could just answer this, to help me see if there is a grounding here I'm missing, which would help me make better sense of your posts? You say this -
What's the basis or underlying theory which justifies saying an object, eg a stone, doesn't exist except as your or my conscious experience?The point comes to this: an object is not an object apart from experience. It is unspeakable. It doesn't exist.
What justifies the move from saying we can't fully and perfectly consciously experience the nature of the object we call a stone (which I agree with), to saying the object we call a stone doesn't exist? And how do you demonstrate the truth of the theory?
As clearly and concisely as you can please.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
So far so good, yet these phenomenologist don't seem to realize that we have already used automatic "concepts" to break up our continuous experience into separate blank things, which blank things we then make into objects using more "concepts".Hereandnow wrote: ↑January 14th, 2022, 2:43 am But of course you know that when you see a rock of a tree, that these are not intimating their existence to you as if something out there actually traverses space and time and arrives in your conscious thoughts. Just to be clear, when you approach an object, and you know what it is "always already" the object before you is predelineated, that is, you recall it from previous historical encounters. You never actually see the "purely" the thing there, but see "through" the interpretative language and culture that makes an object and object. Without this, you would be just staring blankly. So, the stone as a stone is not an independent thing at all. It is infused with conceptual properties. Kant said: (sensory) intuitions without concepts are blind; concepts without intuitions are empty.
The point comes to this: an object is not an object apart from experience. It is unspeakable. It doesn't exist. The moment you say it does exist, you find that existence, after all, is first, prior to any ontology, a term that is contextually bound. Not that there is nothing "out there" but that all you can ever talk about is something invested with the talk to begin with. (It gets much worse with Derrida.)
You can perhaps see how this effects the matter here: Contexts make an object an object, so the stone, when observed has built in contextual possibilities. You may see it as a physicist might, or a child at play, or a thing of beauty; or perhaps like me, you are trying to discuss it in the broadest possible context, philosophy.
This entire philosophy seems to sort of shoot itself in the foot by literally trying to analyze the relationships between the things appearing in consciousness, but strictly speaking there is only one thing there and no relationships. Unless they don't literally mean this, they are just sort of speaking metaphorically.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
If there is no moral agent other oneself one has to invent him. Ethics are rules or proposed rules for relating to other moral agents and to amoral things.GE Morton wrote: ↑January 14th, 2022, 2:15 pmNot sure just what you're saying there, but generally, in the philosophical literature, "morals" and "ethics" are used synonymously. Neither "codifies" values.
Well, to "relate morally" requires someone other than oneself. Crusoe, alone on his island, has no "moral relationships," and can have none.In the film Castaway the hero, Chuck Noland , had a moral stance towards Wilson the castaway ball, and Wilson was himself a moral agent who had opinions and loyalty. When Wilson was lost off the raft, Chuck was heartbroken as he had lost what was to him a person to whom he related. it's 'only a film' but the theme of moral agency is what makes it relevant to life.
There is a defect in people who can't relate morally to what is other than themself. Robinson Crusoe was bereft until Man Friday appeared. My point is that evaluating features of environment is so necessary to us that it may be counted as an instinct. Environment is so important that men have invented gods who preside over inanimate features of environment such as some benign personal god of place who presides over a holy well, grove, or mountain. There are other gods of place who are dangerous persons, e.g. the old Jahweh, and men need to placate them. When people need moral agents other than themselves they will invent them if need be.
You seem to be saying that humans are social animals and desire human companionship. That's true, but it doesn't address the question, What is ethics?
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
There are the parts, and the whole which is more than the sum of its parts.Atla wrote: ↑January 14th, 2022, 6:04 pmSo far so good, yet these phenomenologist don't seem to realize that we have already used automatic "concepts" to break up our continuous experience into separate blank things, which blank things we then make into objects using more "concepts".Hereandnow wrote: ↑January 14th, 2022, 2:43 am But of course you know that when you see a rock of a tree, that these are not intimating their existence to you as if something out there actually traverses space and time and arrives in your conscious thoughts. Just to be clear, when you approach an object, and you know what it is "always already" the object before you is predelineated, that is, you recall it from previous historical encounters. You never actually see the "purely" the thing there, but see "through" the interpretative language and culture that makes an object and object. Without this, you would be just staring blankly. So, the stone as a stone is not an independent thing at all. It is infused with conceptual properties. Kant said: (sensory) intuitions without concepts are blind; concepts without intuitions are empty.
The point comes to this: an object is not an object apart from experience. It is unspeakable. It doesn't exist. The moment you say it does exist, you find that existence, after all, is first, prior to any ontology, a term that is contextually bound. Not that there is nothing "out there" but that all you can ever talk about is something invested with the talk to begin with. (It gets much worse with Derrida.)
You can perhaps see how this effects the matter here: Contexts make an object an object, so the stone, when observed has built in contextual possibilities. You may see it as a physicist might, or a child at play, or a thing of beauty; or perhaps like me, you are trying to discuss it in the broadest possible context, philosophy.
This entire philosophy seems to sort of shoot itself in the foot by literally trying to analyze the relationships between the things appearing in consciousness, but strictly speaking there is only one thing there and no relationships. Unless they don't literally mean this, they are just sort of speaking metaphorically.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
Well, one doesn't have to invent him, but I suppose some people would (I certainly wouldn't). But I do agree that "ethics" can embrace one's interactions with non-moral things, but only after (irrationally) endowing those things with some semblance of agency, as do animists, for example. People can adopt all sorts of strange beliefs that entail constraints on their own behavior. Nothing wrong with following those "private moralities," as long as they don't lead to conflicts with a rationally defensible public morality (rules governing one's interactions with other moral agents).
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
You don't have to believe dead or inanimate things are moral agents to respect them.GE Morton wrote: ↑January 15th, 2022, 1:44 pmWell, one doesn't have to invent him, but I suppose some people would (I certainly wouldn't). But I do agree that "ethics" can embrace one's interactions with non-moral things, but only after (irrationally) endowing those things with some semblance of agency, as do animists, for example. People can adopt all sorts of strange beliefs that entail constraints on their own behavior. Nothing wrong with following those "private moralities," as long as they don't lead to conflicts with a rationally defensible public morality (rules governing one's interactions with other moral agents).
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
True; one may respect anything one wishes, just as one may love or enjoy or prefer or admire anything one wishes, and adopt a private morality which reflects those sentiments.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
You contend, then, that "morality" is, in whole or in part, "rational"? Interesting. Interesting and puzzling. In the light of empirical, observational, evidence, yours is a surprising conclusion to reach, I think.GE Morton wrote: ↑January 15th, 2022, 1:44 pm People can adopt all sorts of strange beliefs that entail constraints on their own behavior. Nothing wrong with following those "private moralities," as long as they don't lead to conflicts with a rationally defensible public morality (rules governing one's interactions with other moral agents).
N.B. I do not suggest that morality is irrational, any more than it is rational. Perhaps we might more accurately say that morality is a-rational (if that's a word)?
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
We've covered that, at some length, in previous posts and threads.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 17th, 2022, 8:29 am
You contend, then, that "morality" is, in whole or in part, "rational"? Interesting. Interesting and puzzling. In the light of empirical, observational, evidence, yours is a surprising conclusion to reach, I think.
Vernacular (popular) moralities and most private moralities are far from rational; they typically reflect culturally-induced and/or emotionally-driven impulses and dispositions. A philosophically respectable morality, however, must be rational, i.e., coherent, logically sound, and consistent with empirically-verifiable evidence. I.e., the same criteria that govern any other intellectual inquiry. "Feelings" have no more place in morality than they do in physics.
Philosophy is, after all, rational inquiry into fundamental questions.
I take a public morality to be a system of principles and rules governing interactions between moral agents in a social setting, the aim of which is to maximize welfare for all agents. Whether a given principle or rule furthers that goal is usually objective, i.e., empirically determinable.
Private moralities --- principles and rules one governing one's own behavior one may adopt for various personal reasons --- may include anything, and need not be rational. I have no interest in those.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 17th, 2022, 8:29 am
You contend, then, that "morality" is, in whole or in part, "rational"? Interesting. Interesting and puzzling. In the light of empirical, observational, evidence, yours is a surprising conclusion to reach, I think.
Yes, but if no-one questions your casual implications, you might become convinced that there are those who believe and accept what you say without demur.
So morality - "public morality" - is not only rational but also objective? Your condition is progressing at an alarming pace.GE Morton wrote: ↑January 17th, 2022, 12:59 pm I take a public morality to be a system of principles and rules governing interactions between moral agents in a social setting, the aim of which is to maximize welfare for all agents. Whether a given principle or rule furthers that goal is usually objective, i.e., empirically determinable.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
"Condition"? Did you have any substantive rebuttals to the previous post, or just ad hominems?Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 18th, 2022, 10:23 am
So morality - "public morality" - is not only rational but also objective? Your condition is progressing at an alarming pace.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023