The image of politicians and rich businessmen who rub their hands as they consciously conspire to knowingly harm innocents, steal from the poor and commit great injustice to society in order to get more money and power for themselves is a common one. One often thinks that they know themselves how harmful and detrimental their actions are, and know how to do things in a way that is better for society, but simply do not care. They care only about their bank account.
It often seems more likely they care so much about their bank account and themselves that they cannot fathom that what benefits them can be bad for society. A government policy that helps them cannot be unfair – it is only just that they get what they deserve. So they think. Continue reading
What is duty? – A dictionary will let us know it is a moral or legal obligation. Legal obligations we can make unambiguous sense of. One is obligated in the sense that failure to comply will lead to persecution in a clearly defined manner. The obligation of law is not an invisible bond, but a simple statement of consequences – do this, or else…
Moral duty, on the other hand, is a mystery. Indeed, we have done legal duty a disservice, for the law is not in truth meant as a statement of consequences; if it were, what then when there are no observers, no one to enact the promised consequences! The law states, as the moral duty does, that one should. Here the moral duty sets a period while law, perhaps in admittance of should’s obscurity, adds a tangible motivation; a because. You should; if you do not, then… Law made the astute observation that handcuffs are more certain to be binding than should.
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
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
The downfall of all potential to change is the lack of urgency or necessity – or lack of belief. It must be apparent to the self-aware person that society is flawed. The cheap answer is that it will always be flawed since humans are flawed (errare humanum est), but that was equally true in medieval times – yet we have moved beyond that. The modern crisis is one of apathy, leisure, emptiness and old habits. How do we motivate ourselves against this? It seems such a motivation would be a solution in itself, but easy solutions are always hard to accomplish. What is easy for us? – this is one of many questions we must tackle.
Plus nous approfondirons la nature du temps, plus nous comprendrons que durée signifie invention, création de formes, élaboration continue de l’absolument nouveau.
Henri Bergson. Evolution Créatrice
The most definitive feature of nature is development; destruction does exist but in a sense of its support. What is the difference between development and movement? Development implies complexification, differentiation, renovation – creation. Movement belongs to theoretical physics, not to life.
In this case man does not have to feel ashamed about his belonging to nature: while being at first sight the chaos of elements, shapes and instincts, it still has creative nature. And since no atom and no impulse spends extra energy in this system it only means that the system saves the energy for some purpose – otherwise why could it not have been more generous in its infinity?
For most of humanity’s existence, our goal has been to stay alive, and for this outward struggle for food, shelter and security, against disease and nature, we are well adapted and well experienced. This endless toil has been like the boulder of Sisyphus for us – but this toil has ended. We have created societies and states in which all this is provided, from birth, in great abundance compared to even the very close past. But our bodies are made for working, and our brains for thinking, and so we will always struggle against something. And in the modern day this struggle is not for staying alive, but with living, and for this, we have no experience and the education and social structure of our societies leaves us wholly unprepared for it.