Diana McPartlin (diana@asiantravel.com)
Tue, 17 Feb 1998 08:40:28 +0100
clark wrote:
>
> Diana,
> The only thing I would change in your post would be where you say, "the
> only thing that matters is whats true for you personally, And (not or)
> whats true for your existence. (I think thats close).
As I am my existence then what's true for me personally is the same as
what's true for my existence so, yes, it should be "and" not "or".
> As I see it, this has made it unnecessary for us to agonize over the
> workings of our brains (someone said that it is similar to trying to find
> out how a watch operates by smashing it open with a hammer) and simply
> devote ourselves to monitoring its operation. We can now sit back and relax
> and wait for the science nerds to work out the physical operation. We now
> have an understandable process which will keep us occupied and satisfied
> until that time. We don't even need to know how the brain operates with
> this system.
It's also like trying to find out how a watch operates by putting it in
your mouth. My nephew is currently under the impression that the entire
physical world can be understood through the sense of taste. When he
goes to school he'll be taught that the physical world can be understood
through science. But is it really any more sensible? The toddler
explores the inorganic world biologically, the scientist explores it
intellectually. Actually the only way you can really understand the
inorganic world is inorganically. Rocks just want to be happy the same
as anyone else.
> It seems to me that the trouble the squad is having is keeping the two
> systems separate in our minds. Moral and good in the unconscious system is
> not necessarily the same as moral and good in the conscious system.
> Moral and good in the first is solely concerned with our universal
> situation and moral and good in the second also includes interaction at the
> human level because it is a part of our consciousness.
>From what I've read, this kind of unconscious morality is what early
philosophers meant when they used the word. The sophists thought that
right and wrong were different for different people in different places
and at different times. They saw morality as a kind of "flowing"
concept. It was Plato who polluted the word "morality" by trying to set
fixed rules that applied to everyone.
Diana
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:47 CEST