Evolution follows a very simple rule: genes live on only if passed on. Clearly then, the organisms that prevail in nature are those who are able to pass on their genes; those that are best able to protect themselves and their offspring. Since all the creatures are the result of such a harsh process, they are adapted to serve themselves – or, rather, their genes. This is interpreted as meaning that we measure the payoff of actions in promoting oneself and one’s position. And, as much is true, we always try to maximize the payoff of something. But, from a simple rule one can get a complex system. Continue reading
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.
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