tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post7205900512086654462..comments2024-03-18T21:06:42.546-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Liberalism and the five natural inclinationsEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger99125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89183473570798237502016-08-19T11:15:28.751-07:002016-08-19T11:15:28.751-07:00Don,
My past words you quoted need context. [etc]...Don,<br /><br /><i>My past words you quoted need context. [etc]</i><br /><br />If that's the case, then fair enough.<br /><br />'til later.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35992495960117772692016-08-18T00:19:36.065-07:002016-08-18T00:19:36.065-07:00Glenn,
I've been very busy with work, and you...Glenn,<br /><br />I've been very busy with work, and you're going on vacation. So it's best if we pick up this interesting conversation at another time. I'll say only this for now. I do not believe that what we believe is of no importance. My past words you quoted need context. In that conversation I began from the position that it does matter. OTOH, if we were only interested in a tranquil or ordered society, that being our overwhelming interest, then what else we believe about it (like our liberty) is irrelevant. That may not be clear. It's the best I can do for now. But let me be slightly more clear about this: Though I'm fond of order, I'm interested in more than a tranquil and ordered society.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83568631624473925332016-08-12T11:16:01.022-07:002016-08-12T11:16:01.022-07:00Btw, I'll be on vacation in two weeks or so, a...Btw, I'll be on vacation in two weeks or so, and there’s a lot to attend to between now and then, so that's likely it from me for a while. <br /><br />And -- this is just too good to pass up -- this is where where we're going to: a small island off one of the main Virgin Islands (!), and one which has plenty of sand and a fair number of coconut trees. I expect to see lots of fish and seaweed -- if not under the water while snorkeling, then on my plate in the form of sushi. I also don't expect to have occasion to experience a sense of deprivation or resentment; but if I do, it won't have anything to do with fidelity. <br /><br />Try to behave while I'm absent. It's a struggle, I know; but I also know you like to strive. ;)Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72740491453187109122016-08-12T10:56:57.528-07:002016-08-12T10:56:57.528-07:00DJ,
Two things, and in reverse order (so that, in...DJ,<br /><br />Two things, and in reverse order (so that, in a sense, the 'internal' comes first, and then the 'external'):<br /><br />1. <i> Your "habit is a doing which has become second nature" is inappropriate to my example. Remember, my example was forced fidelity on a desert island.</i><br /><br />My comments about 'habit' specifically had to do with Blue Ribbon Joey, and with Sodom. (Go back and check.)<br /><br />Nonetheless, and re your desert island example,<br /><br />Suppose a Don Artemis Jindra -- whose internal belief is that fidelity is a virtue -- is on a desert island with only his wife. <br /><br />Suppose also a Don Juan Jindra -- whose internal belief is that fidelity is for fools -- is on some other desert island, likewise only with his wife.<br /><br />Given your, "And yes, I'll stand by my claim that internal beliefs are irrelevant if outward behavior is identical" (second para <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/05/linking-for-thinking.html?showComment=1465492315385#c4858837355883380462" rel="nofollow">here</a>), why should it matter that Don Juan Jindra is in fidelity -- 'fidelity' -- only because of the circumstances?<br /><br />The outward behaviors of Don Artemis Jindra and Don Juan Jindra will be identical during their stay on their respective desert islands, i.e., each with be faithful (in a manner of speaking at least) to his wife during that time; and since their outward behaviors will be identical, their internal beliefs, according to you two months ago, are irrelevant. <br /><br />Yet, it seems safe to say that: <br /><br />a) Don Artemis Jindra is less likely to experience a sense of deprivation or resentment; <br /><br />b) Don Juan Jindra is more likely to experience a sense of deprivation and resentment; and, <br /><br />c) the reason for that difference can be traced back to the difference in their internal beliefs.<br /><br />2. <i>If you look at my response to Timocrates, August 7, 2016 at 4:56 PM. you'll see that I spoke of the will. This was before your arrival.</i><br /><br />I'm familiar with that response of yours to [George LeSauvage]; my first comment addressed to you in this thread had to do with something said in that response.<br /><br />But something which I hadn’t mentioned previously continues to puzzle me. In that response to George you said this,<br /><br />"Since this love is about acts, suppose Jack is forced into acts of love toward his enemies. Jill is given free will and voluntarily chooses to love her enemies. Which is the more noble soul? IMO, Jill's choice makes her nobility. If we take away Jill's choice, and force her to act as we have forced Jack, we rob her of her nobility. We have become levelers of the moral playing field."<br /><br />Yet, in an earlier reply to me elsewhere (penultimate para <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/05/linking-for-thinking.html?showComment=1465581728634#c1866627288651205039" rel="nofollow">here</a>), you had this to say,<br /><br />"[I]t doesn't matter if one acts 'out of the good of thoughtfulness toward their neighbor,' or out of 'lifeless motions' if the results are identical."<br /><br />If all that matters is that results are identical, what's up with the championing of Jill's nobility?<br /><br />That is, why champion Jill's nobility if all that really matters is that results are identical?<br /><br />- - - - -<br /><br />o Even as one's liberty is not lessened by one being unable to sin, so, too, the necessity resulting from a will firmly fixed to good does not lessen the liberty[.] -- <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3088.htm#article4" rel="nofollow"><i>ST</i> II-II 88.4.1</a>Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65716210802688289452016-08-11T14:58:51.691-07:002016-08-11T14:58:51.691-07:00No, but arguably at least one end of the emotional...No, but arguably at least one end of the emotional bonding of a married couple is to provide a loving, stable environment for their children once they have reproduced. And the last time I checked, sharks were not human beings. What is natural for sharks is not necessarily so for humans.Frednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65425774915862097832016-08-11T09:36:40.975-07:002016-08-11T09:36:40.975-07:00Glenn,
I'm aware that you weren't offerin...Glenn,<br /><br />I'm aware that you weren't offering a tip. That's why I responded tongue-in-cheek (TIC). <br /><br /><i>"The 'importance of the will' first came up when after saying to me, 'You must know I will say yes to your list of questions', </i><br /><br />If you look at my response to Timocrates, August 7, 2016 at 4:56 PM. you'll see that I spoke of the will. This was before your arrival. I was referring to why I brought up the subject. You will permit me to speak of my motivation, won't you? I mean, I should be an expert on my motivation if such expertise exists. (More TIC)<br /><br />I'm glad you agree habit can't be substituted for will. But some people kind of do. I think I remember that as a theme in Bellah's "Habits of the Heart." Your "you'll just continue to do what you've been doing all along" reminded me of that since, to me, it implied habit is sufficient. Your "habit is a doing which has become second nature" is inappropriate to my example. Remember, my example was forced fidelity on a desert island. That's a situation of, at best, what I called downhill habit. IOW, it's a "habit" that's equivalent to the "habit" of a diet of coconut, seaweed and fish, or bathing in salt water or sleeping on a bed of leaves. None of these "habits" are likely to continue when rescued off the island because none were a free choice. The "habits" were imposed and are likely to be seen as negatives even though they might not be. They were not developed as "the good." They sure aren't habits of "countering a particular lure" since there is no lure in this situation.<br /><br />If I misread your "not so oppositionalistic privately" remark months ago I apologize. I remember the situation. I could be wrong, but although I addressed both of you, in my mind I was responding to the villain pck (grin) much more than to you because I'm confident he misread your remark, or at least exploited it. On its own, without pck's additional input, I don't think I would have mistaken your intent. In fact, you're not totally wrong. I appreciate your acknowledgement of that and I should have mention it at the time. Btw, I did obtain some of the reading recommendations.<br /><br /><br />DNW,<br /><br />Emotional bonding's end is surely not reproduction. Anyway, sharks don't seem to need it.<br /><br />Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52258604270893573352016-08-11T06:24:47.014-07:002016-08-11T06:24:47.014-07:00" [we can affirm that the]... primary end of ..." [we can affirm that the]... primary end of sex is reproduction, or we can choose to believe it's a strategy to combat predators (the Red Queen) and that reproduction, though real, is just as secondary as emotional bonding."<br /><br />"Emotional bonding" to what end again?DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21934114023686237752016-08-10T20:53:39.541-07:002016-08-10T20:53:39.541-07:00DJ,
Btw, and for the record, what you took as a t...DJ,<br /><br />Btw, and for the record, what you took as a tip was not intended to be a tip, and had no connection to that 99.99% confidence of mine (or what inspired it), but to call attention both to an implication of the line of reasoning I said was interesting, and to an incongruity between that implication and, pardon my saying so, the general character of your usual behavior around here.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30316127391289121772016-08-10T20:37:54.327-07:002016-08-10T20:37:54.327-07:00DJ,
The thing is, I *have* entertained thoughts a...DJ,<br /><br /><i>The thing is, I *have* entertained thoughts about spiritual principles and spiritual practices, but thanks for the tip.</i><br /><br />I have been 99.99% confident for some while now that you have entertained as you say. Not to make it sound as dull and mundane as it really is, but my confidence has been founded on the fact that you once, years ago by now I guess it was, stated that you were serious in requesting recommendations for reading material of a certain kind, and the fact that there wasn't any reason not to believe you were serious as you said you were. <br /><br />(In fact, it was this 99.99% confidence of mine that was the primary basis of my statement to pck once that I don't think you're as 'oppositionalistic' privately as you publicly appear to be. (You seemed greatly annoyed by my having said that, and went to some lengths to try to disprove it. (Perhaps it came too close to what you thought you were keeping secret. Maybe. Maybe not. If so, again, you did broadcast it loud and clear, i.e, you did let the cat out of the bag, with that request of yours years ago.)))Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53697385536397176302016-08-10T20:25:40.581-07:002016-08-10T20:25:40.581-07:00DJ,
In my view, any habit meant to counter Sodom ...DJ,<br /><br /><i>In my view, any habit meant to counter Sodom is a habitual exercising of the will.</i><br /><br />Again, a habit is a doing which has become second nature. So, if one has a habit of countering a particular lure of Sodom, or one has a habit which enables him to counter that particular lure, then that countering is second nature to him. This is not to say he no longer need be on guard against that particular lure (possibly finding a way around or through some hole in his countering), only that his successful efforts against succumbing to that lure, by definition, are not going to anywhere near as great as as they would need to be if that countering had not become second nature to him.<br /><br /><i>If the will is circumvented by force or circumstances, the will is not properly exercised.</i><br /><br />This will depend in part on whether one is aware of the circumvention, and how he might adjust or adapt to the fact of it (if he is aware of it).Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13734755250307436632016-08-10T20:05:50.474-07:002016-08-10T20:05:50.474-07:00DJ,
If a "perfect" culture hands Joey a...DJ,<br /><br /><i>If a "perfect" culture hands Joey a blue ribbon and says, "You're a good boy now because we force you to obey us," then Joey is going to have a false sense of striving and has no way of proving he's good or even that he understands the good. Your response to this has been to substitute habit for will as if habit has nothing to do with will and that downhill habit without temptation is equivalent to uphill habit with temptation.</i><br /><br />I did not 'substitute habit for will'. A habit can no more be substituted for will than summer can be substituted for spring. A habit, or a habit which is cultivated, simply is a doing which has become second nature after repeated acts, efforts and/or exercisings of the will with regard to a particular end.<br /><br />I also have not made mention of either a 'downhill habit without temptation', or an 'uphill habit with temptation'. Since I have not mentioned either, it should be obvious that I also have not compared the two. And since I have neither mentioned the two nor compared them, it is likewise should be obvious that I have not equated one with the other.<br /><br />Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55710308560156093432016-08-10T19:29:53.235-07:002016-08-10T19:29:53.235-07:00DJ,
The importance of will came up because of my ...DJ,<br /><br /><i>The importance of will came up because of my claim that one needs to exercise the will to become good.</i><br /><br />The 'importance of the will' first came up when after saying to me, "You must know I will say yes to your list of questions", you immediately went on to also say to me, "So I'm going to assume you scoff at the importance of the will" -- even though the 'list of [my] questions' specifically had to do with striving for the good, and even though striving (for anything, including the good) necessarily entails exercising the will.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86954718629855807322016-08-10T09:32:53.428-07:002016-08-10T09:32:53.428-07:00Glenn,
1)
The importance of will came up because...Glenn,<br /><br />1)<br /><br />The importance of will came up because of my claim that one needs to exercise the will to become good. You used the word strive, which I like. If a "perfect" culture hands Joey a blue ribbon and says, "You're a good boy now because we force you to obey us," then Joey is going to have a false sense of striving and has no way of proving he's good or even that he understands the good. Your response to this has been to substitute habit for will as if habit has nothing to do with will and that downhill habit without temptation is equivalent to uphill habit with temptation. If that substitution works, all a parent has to do in a degenerate culture is shelter the child to age X. Then all will be well when he's set loose in Sodom. Problem solved, no reason to fret.<br /><br />In my view, any habit meant to counter Sodom is a habitual exercising of the will. If the will is circumvented by force or circumstances, the will is not properly exercised.<br /><br />2)<br /><br />What are spiritually bad practices in software versus actual bad practices? Who would count them as evil? Are there, in fact, best software practices which fit every case and are not open to criticism? I think answers to these questions would end up bolstering my criticism of "spiritual unfaithfulness." Empiricist that I am, I deny the best of anything can be found except through testing ideas in the real world.<br /><br />I'm not totally unsympathetic to calls for better practices. Our country permits a long list of behaviors which I personally don't like. My objection to authority is practical, not emotional and not ideological. My sons would tell you that early in their childhood I was very strict. So I know authority has its place. But the subject is liberalism and the inclination toward the good. Just to clarify, my position is that too much authority suffocates that inclination and the goal itself. Liberalism was a justifiable reaction to that suffocation. The issue for me is not all or nothing. The trick is to find the best mix.<br /><br />3) <br /><br />The thing is, I *have* entertained thoughts about spiritual principles and spiritual practices, but thanks for the tip. Yes, I take a hard empirical stance, but please don't take that as ignorance about and/or disrespect for everything spiritual, even though for me the spiritual exists in a natural world.<br /><br /><br />Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40114777429114481762016-08-09T14:21:04.876-07:002016-08-09T14:21:04.876-07:00DJ,
There's also a paradox. If goodness or ba...DJ,<br /><br /><i>There's also a paradox. If goodness or badness is defined in terms of how well or badly a thing manifests its nature, how can the intellect manifest its nature if it is prevented from entertaining all possibilities? That is, how can a thing manifest its nature if the fear of fully exercising that nature prevents one from exercising it?</i><br /><br />That's an interesting line of thought. <br /><br />But I wonder just how much thought you have given it. <br /><br />To wit, and to speak on or in your terms:<br /><br />If, as you suggest, the intellect needs to entertain all possibilities in order to 'manifest its nature', then either you'll have to, and more than cursorily, entertain spiritual principles and spiritual practices -- as each relates to or has to do with the intellect -- or forever suffer the debilitating effects of an intellect whose nature has not been fully manifested, i.e., or forever suffer the debilitating effects of an impoverished intellect.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49003881125536812222016-08-09T13:47:35.065-07:002016-08-09T13:47:35.065-07:00DJ,
"One cannot strive without making an eff...DJ,<br /><br /><i>"One cannot strive without making an effort, and one cannot make an effort without employing his will;"<br /><br />I'm glad you take that position. I was almost worried you wouldn't.</i><br /><br />Well, I must confess that I don't really hold that position. I only pretended to in order to save you some worry, and, hopefully, thereby delay the graying of a few more hairs.<br /><br />That said, maybe I should now confess that it isn't true that I don't really hold that position, and that I only pretended to have pretended that I don't in order to poke fun at the ludicrousness of your having been on the cusp of worrying that I don't make use of my will, or that I might think use of one's will ought not be made, or that I might think using one's will is unimportant (or whatever silly thing specifically was in danger of being the object of your worry about me).<br /><br /><i>Nobody I know of would but people in jail for spiritual murder or theft.</i><br /><br />Regret and remorse, e.g., can be penalties in and of themselves.<br /><br /><i>If spiritual good is so good, the A-T natural law advocate has no good reason to stress over real-world disorder.</i><br /><br />As usual, your logic is impeccable, and easily adaptable to other domains. For example,<br /><br />If good software practices really are so good, then a project manager hasn't any good reason to stress over the crappy software resulting from the misuse, abuse or lack of use of those practices by the developers on his team.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47694539020543198632016-08-09T13:44:13.441-07:002016-08-09T13:44:13.441-07:00@ George,
"
You go over the deep end when yo...@ George,<br /><br />"<i><br />You go over the deep end when you refer to "Magically self-correcting markets that will supposedly weed out immorality of their own accord?" First, because "magically" is a bit of Dawkinsesque dismissiveness. Defenders of free markets give arguments for why they think market forces lead to self-correction. Failure to at least indicate why you think they are wrong is, again, Gnuspeak.</i>"<br /><br />I can and do provide examples - plenty of them - of how markets are not necessarily auto-self correcting. I point out that neoliberal free market economics takes, eg., civilization itself even for granted, just assuming that functional, stable, viable "households" exist that will perpetually provide a supply of healthy and rational workers/producers and consumers. That is obviously not strictly necessary and plenty of market activity actively undermines and destabilizes such households.<br /><br />Again I also point to stock market swindling and also give an extreme example of one firm perhaps even slaying its competition. It does not follow that the market will ever act to correct such activity - at least not before it's too late. Moreover, auto-correcting markets presuppose a tolerance and license for simply immoral behaviour or vice, such as out and out greed. It is at least debatable whether or not it is morally licit to tolerate or allow such vice or activity ever in the first place: the neoliberal market here betrays a social and moral Darwinianism in my mind. A market will take a long time to correct virtual slave labour also, as consumers are actually inclined to prefer such products to the extent that they are indeed cheaper or more affordable. Never in history have I known a market economy to successfully end up correcting a slave market or labour dynamic: to be sure, it has increasingly real and grievous consequences, creating plenty of problems that typically result in anti-market solutions (such as free bread and circuses for unemployed Roman citizens residing in Rome) and creates no shortage of problems, but where was any real market-based drive to correct it? The market can scarcely correct such activity, perhaps exactly because markets presuppose cultures, societies and civilizations and are by nature servants, so to speak, to them.<br /><br />The neoliberal conception of the free market also allows for predatory practices upon the weak or the ignorant. It's hard to justify any number of safeguards that prevent people from being conned or swindled or not investing in things they know little about or engaging in risks they can little afford in neoliberal economic dynamics, which again are strikingly Darwinian. But I argue that Darwinism here is in fact a barbarism. Timocratesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37843711105870812012016-08-09T08:52:14.187-07:002016-08-09T08:52:14.187-07:00Glenn,
"One cannot strive without making an ...Glenn,<br /><br /><i>"One cannot strive without making an effort, and one cannot make an effort without employing his will;"</i><br /><br />I'm glad you take that position. I was almost worried you wouldn't.<br /><br />I'm not one to disparage the intellect. But spiritually unfaithfulness (spiritual badness) has never made much sense to me. Nobody I know of would but people in jail for spiritual murder or theft. It's not on the same planet as the actual deed, just as spiritual goodness is not on the same planet as the actual deed. I may win an Olympic metal in my mind, but it's a poor substitute for the real thing. We do not live in a Walter Mitty moral universe.<br /><br />The unfaithful husband tells his wife, "Dear, while I was making love to her, I was really thinking of you!" Wives are smarter than that.<br /><br />There's also a paradox. If goodness or badness is defined in terms of how well or badly a thing manifests its nature, how can the intellect manifest its nature if it is prevented from entertaining all possibilities? That is, how can a thing manifest its nature if the fear of fully exercising that nature prevents one from exercising it? <br /><br />If spiritual good is so good, the A-T natural law advocate has no good reason to stress over real-world disorder.<br /><br />So I won't confuse spiritual liberty and spiritual behavior with real liberty and real behavior. And I doubt you do either. The proof of the pudding is in its eating, not in imagining its eating. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56346132187531270162016-08-08T12:49:14.394-07:002016-08-08T12:49:14.394-07:00DJ,
You must know I will say yes to your list of ...DJ,<br /><br /><i>You must know I will say yes to your list of questions. So I'm going to assume you scoff at the importance of the will.</i><br /><br />There's a line of reasoning connecting those two statements in a rational way, but I can't quite put my finger on it. I think I know what it might be, but I won't venture to say specifically what I think it is. I'll just say, enigmatically, that you're still free to exert your will towards some other end, or to find some other wheel to reinvent.<br /><br /><i>But you, yourself, frame the journey in terms of the self and the will: "How might *I* strive..."</i><br /><br />Another way to place the emphasis is as follows: "How might I *strive*..." One cannot strive without making an effort, and one cannot make an effort without employing his will; so, I ask that you reconsider your assumption that I 'scoff at the importance of the will'.<br /><br />But let's return to the emphasis as it was placed: "How might *I* strive..." It is true that this does implicate the 'self' and the 'will'. But it is also true that it isn't only the 'self' and the 'will' which are implicated. Surely the 'intellect' plays a part, no? I mean, to strive for one thing is not to strive for something else. And an intellect is needed in order to consider, weigh, judge and determine which of multiple somethings one is to (or not to) strive for. Without the aid of the intellect in one's striving, the will ostensibly is nothing more than a leaf blown about by the winds of desire and affect.<br /><br /><i>My point is the *I* can't *strive* if the *I* is forced.</i><br /><br />There’s always something for the so-called *I* to strive for.<br /><br /><i>If I'm on a desert island with only my wife, I'm forced into fidelity by circumstances.</i><br /><br />If you've been faithful all along, that there suddenly aren't other women around won't force you into fidelity; you'll just continue to do what you've been doing all along.<br /><br /><i>I can be neglectful but I can't be unfaithful with another human being.</i><br /><br />Well, yeah, it is true that you couldn't be <i>physically</i> unfaithful. But no other human being need be present in order to be <i>spiritually</i> unfaithful. And given the potential effects of long-term isolation on the human mind -- disorientation, proneness to reverie, hallucination, etc. -- the opportunities to be spiritual unfaithful actually might increase.<br /><br /><i>You used the word, perseverance. Hooray! Great word! Perseverance demands obstacles. If obstacles are artificially removed, there is no perseverance.</i><br /><br />Let’s suppose all obstacles have been removed. Oops, there’s still one obstacle left: how not to go out of one’s mind over not having any obstacles to persevere in the presence of.<br /><br /><i>So liberalism does not sit poorly with the first inclination. It tends to permit an individual's seeking of the good as well as failure.</i><br /><br />Regardless of the type of government under which one lives, it is free-will first and foremost which enables an individual to seek the good as well as failure.<br /><br />That said, I myself would not chalk up a high tolerance for and indifference towards a creeping disordereness in the general sense of the good to a responsible and honorable acknowledgment of the first inclination.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44851050390149089102016-08-08T08:17:56.136-07:002016-08-08T08:17:56.136-07:00Glenn,
"It does not follow that there is mor...Glenn,<br /><br />"It does not follow that there is more moral skepticism in an authoritarian society" should read, "It does not follow that there is LESS moral skepticism in an authoritarian society."Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30259810697589906842016-08-08T08:13:50.629-07:002016-08-08T08:13:50.629-07:00"How might I strive after becoming a better h...<i>"How might I strive after becoming a better human being without also striving after that which is good?"</i><br /><br />You must know I will say yes to your list of questions. So I'm going to assume you scoff at the importance of the will. But you, yourself, frame the journey in terms of the self and the will: "How might *I* <i>strive</i>..." My point is the *I* can't *strive* if the *I* is forced. If I'm on a desert island with only my wife, I'm forced into fidelity by circumstances. I can be neglectful but I can't be unfaithful with another human being. You used the word, perseverance. Hooray! Great word! Perseverance demands obstacles. If obstacles are artificially removed, there is no perseverance.<br /><br /><i>"And, according the OP, '[T]he prevalence within liberal societies of moral minimalism, moral skepticism, subjectivism about value, and moral relativism is evidence that liberalism sits poorly even with the first and most basic of the natural inclinations.'"</i><br /><br />It's true that liberal societies allow voice to moral skepticism. It does not follow that there is more moral skepticism in an authoritarian society. When people are not permitted to state what they actually think, how would we ever know?<br /><br />More importantly (much more importantly), this is not a question about what people say or think. If there are moral absolutes (and I think there are), it's a matter of fact, not opinion, not belief, not ideology or culture. It's either true or it is not. No amount of liberalism or authoritarianism will change that fact. If there are moral absolutes, I claim the best ways of finding those absolutes, and discarding the fake ones, is through the freedom in a liberal society. Liberal society permits relatively unfettered seeking and therefore permits alternatives and testing. It would be an incredible accident if an authoritarian society just happened to guess those absolutes correctly the first time. And if its "absolutes" change over time, contradicting its first guess, it refutes its own claim to moral authority and drifts toward a crippled liberalism anyway.<br /><br />So liberalism does not sit poorly with the first inclination. It tends to permit an individual's seeking of the good as well as failure. Authoritarianism tends to deny both.<br /><br /><br />Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28005108596135352352016-08-07T18:56:57.870-07:002016-08-07T18:56:57.870-07:00(Somehow I managed to stutter while copying & ...(Somehow I managed to stutter while copying & pasting; obviously, the first quote s/b "It tends to rob us of what could be the highest end -- a journey to become better human beings.")Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15850491367246249162016-08-07T18:50:09.353-07:002016-08-07T18:50:09.353-07:00DJ,
It tends to rob us of what could be the highe...DJ,<br /><br /><i>It tends to rob us of what could be the highest end -- a journey to become better human beings.rob us of what could be the highest end -- a journey to become better human beings.</i><br /><br />Would not my becoming a better human being imply that previously I had not been as a good a human being?<br /><br />How might I become a better human being without there being a concomittant increase in my goodness (or, more accurately, without there being a concomittant increase in the goodness in me)?<br /><br />How might I strive after becoming a better human being without also striving after that which is good?<br /><br />Indeed, would not my becoming a better human being, if such should actually take place, actually be a by-product of my having, in some measure, successfully striven after or for that which is good?<br /><br />If, as has been suggested, the highest end is, or might be, to become better human beings, would it not follow that a serious traveller on that journey (to becoming a better human being) would need to have an inclination to the good, whether innately or via cultivation, in order that his perseverance in the pursuit of that highest end might be consistently and/or properly fueled?<br /><br /><i>IMO, liberalism has the confidence to see us off on that journey and wish us good luck.</i><br /><br />Well, the inclination to the good is the first of the natural inclinations spoken of in the OP. <br /><br />And, according the OP, "[T]he prevalence within liberal societies of moral minimalism, moral skepticism, subjectivism about value, and moral relativism is evidence that liberalism sits poorly even with the first and most basic of the natural inclinations." <br /><br />So, either you need to put forward reasons as to why the OP is wrong on that account, or you need to explain how the liberalism you're talking about hasn't anything to do with the liberalism spoken of in the OP.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22373620497729350522016-08-07T16:56:39.014-07:002016-08-07T16:56:39.014-07:00George LeSauvage,
I like your responses to Timocr...George LeSauvage,<br /><br />I like your responses to Timocrates.<br /><br /><i>"The notion that natural inclinations are 'chosen' or 'imposed' is pointless here"</i><br /><br />This issue came up because Timocrates claimed X, Y, and Z were imposed upon him by the courts or culture or both. He made it relevant. But it's relevant for other reasons too. Humans can guess at ends, imposed or not. Maybe they're good guesses. Ultimately they're probably our subjective point of view. That POV is a choice. We can choose to believe the primary end of sex is reproduction, or we can choose to believe it's a strategy to combat predators (the Red Queen) and that reproduction, though real, is just as secondary as emotional bonding. <br /><br />I'll go further. <br /><br />Our gracious host recently wrote about love. "Christ is not demanding that we have warm feelings toward someone who does us wrong, or even necessarily that we somehow get rid of the negative feelings he generates in us.... Rather, Christ is saying that, whatever it is we feel, what we will should be the enemy’s good...."<br /><br />Since this love is about acts, suppose Jack is forced into acts of love toward his enemies. Jill is given free will and voluntarily chooses to love her enemies. Which is the more noble soul? IMO, Jill's choice makes her nobility. If we take away Jill's choice, and force her to act as we have forced Jack, we rob her of her nobility. We have become levelers of the moral playing field. Suddenly, Jesus was not sent to separate the wheat from the chaff. I don't think that's a good interpretation of the message of Jesus. It's not a good end for natural law, either. It tends to rob us of what could be the highest end -- a journey to become better human beings. If I interpret you correctly, you acknowledge this effect with "The point is that, having committed to doing so, our government quite callously dishonored that commitment." So IMO, liberalism has the confidence to see us off on that journey and wish us good luck.<br /><br />Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65032999774788673492016-08-07T13:22:42.905-07:002016-08-07T13:22:42.905-07:00BTW, that last "Anonymous" was me. Don&#...BTW, that last "Anonymous" was me. Don't know what I hit wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34821690668948704212016-08-07T11:07:47.617-07:002016-08-07T11:07:47.617-07:00@Don Jindra:
You seem to refuse to recognize that...@Don Jindra:<br /><br />You seem to refuse to recognize that the sense of "natural" used here is not that which you prefer. (No one says you must accept it, full stop. Only that you must "accept" it in so far as you argue against it.)<br /><br />This shows in both your second and last comments in this thread. <br /><br />"Are those A-T "natural inclinations" supposed to be free choices made by relatively free individuals or yet more X, Y, and Z imposed upon us?" - The notion that natural inclinations are "chosen" or "imposed" is pointless here, unless you go full postmodern for the latter, and object to nature "imposing" humanity on us. (The point I was stumbling at in my first comment here.*)<br /><br />And the last comment shows this in "A male sexual predator can jump from bed to bed through lies and deception. But outside the lies, isn't this natural law at work -- at least from the male's point of view?" - I will grant that this is a fairly common usage of "natural", but you have been around here far too long to think that A-T's use of "natural" can be equated with "biological". Here, as usual, it refers to man as a rational animal, and not a beast. The "selfish gene" argument is irrelevant to this.<br /><br />A side point: I think you miss Timocrates's point about veterans. OF COURSE, our society, being so very much richer (a big argument for capitalism, right there) can do much more than earlier ages could. They did what they could. For instance, in sailing days, a seaman who was disabled would often have a job - almost automatically - as a cook, or in the dockyards. They also got money from "widows' men", fictional crew members whose pay went into a pool (if officers) or from the naval hospitals (if enlisted). Far below what we can do. The point is that, having committed to doing so, our government quite callously dishonored that commitment. I believe he is drawing a parallel between our indifference to commitments to spouses and children, and those to veterans. At least, that is how I read him. (And again, I think I'm with you in wondering how the same government which does this is to be trusted in other areas.)<br /><br />*BTW, it was Pico, not Ficino. I should've remembered that, but I must plead that both times I read the Dignity of Man I thought it just gas.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com