Cheese is Good in Itself

If I say a dish is tasty I am describing a particular property of how I perceive eating it, not an intrinsic property of the dish itself. While the taste of a dish certainly depends on the properties of the dish itself we are all aware of it depending also on properties of the taster and that these properties are not equal for all people. Therefore we define tasting good in a purely subjective fashion – the definition relates not to intrinsic properties of the dish but to the individual’s experience of eating it. Continue reading

Advertisements

Evolution, Religion and Society

Recently I started to read the book “Natural Justice” by Ken Binmore, and in his introductory chapter he talks about the evolutionary basis for morality. For his part this is meant only as an introduction of sorts, and therefore the exposition is shortened and simplified, and so it would be unfair to criticise it too harshly for avoiding some issues. But, it did get me to think about some common presentations and arguments from evolution that I feel are too much of a simplification – especially if the goal is to make ethical and political claims based on human nature. I will in this article raise some general questions considering how one argues from and presents evolution, and in particular I will present important concerns about the focus on religious beliefs, that is beliefs containing deities or the divine, by certain atheistic groups. Continue reading

A Model of Time and Space

Prologue

This model was madzenoe mostly as an interesting exercise. I do not claim it is a correct model, or that I even believe in it. However, the fact that I can make such a model, that cannot in any way be disproven, does tell us something interesting.

Ideally, one would look at all facts and start building a model to explain them. The world is unfortunately not ideal. Such a model begins always by an idea, which one tries to match the facts with.

Continue reading

Gravity of Morals

Traditionally morality has been defined in terms of rational categories detached from humans. The morality of an action or idea is determined by checking abstract criterias: loyalty, honesty, honour, harm, justice and so on. The important question is, how did we arrive at these terms? If one is to argue that honesty is moral, one shows that it satisfies certain criterias, or lead to certain consequences. Where did these criterias come from? Why these consequences?

The answer does not lie in logic detached from Man. We do not eat because we logically deduce that we will die if not, but because we are drawn to it. Indeed, we can give no reason for living other than a force that draws us. It does not make sense to talk of morality without such a force.

The moral concepts and principles we have made cannot be explained other than as a result of a force – and it is this force that is morality. Continue reading

Omveltning av alle verdier del II – The Is and the Ought

We ought to have wings in order to fly, but we do not so requiring us to fly is to doom us to eternal failure of our goal. This is how insistence on some morality can be: we require that we do something that by nature we can not.

Why has the Is always eluded us? – we have been blinded by our desire for the Ought. If we ought to fly, how could we ever believe it is impossible for us? Continue reading

Omveltning av alle verdier del I – De-evaluation

There is no wrong morality. Philosophy of morality has to deal with life and not reason – with the real and not the ideal. As mentioned in Morality and Reason, a purely abstract philosophy of morality that is interested in absolute truth (not just relative to some assumptions) will always be stillborn. Only by our belief in truth have we been able to prove it, but, in such a secular world, most agree: belief is no proof. For the abstract philosophy, I can say: to call a morality wrong is to make a moral judgment, and so one needs a morality to comment on the rightness of morality, but no morality can comment on itself.

Continue reading

Love Thyself or Anthropodicy

Self – is the answer for all questions.

Maybe The Socratic Turn was too intensive and came back into initial position after running through all the 360 degrees?

Unlike the sociocentric people of Africa and Asia we, westerners, live in individualistic societies, but for some mysterious reason, beyond all the human rights and freedoms, we have almost lost the meaning of the individual. Continue reading