Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (62611)	10/15/2002 9:58:11 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"Defending tradition against infidels, I assume, because that's my general impression of your modus operandi after all this time. Is it correct?" No. Nor can I see how you have gotten it as the gist. It does, to me, rather confirm that I have wasted some time here, however......

To: Lane3 who wrote (62611)	10/15/2002 11:39:57 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

Defending tradition against infidels? Message 17874847 I do think that some religions are better than others, and that some forms of religion are better than others. Additionally, as you know, I have not had sufficient belief in particular doctrines to comfortably retain membership in any particular religion or sect, and therefore have not been in a church, except for sightseeing, weddings or funerals, for more than 15 years. I will not, therefore, be a hypocrite and say that I consider institutional participation urgent. Since I think that the main theme of morality is human dignity, and that reason is the primary instrument of progress, we are not completely out of sync. However, I use "spiritual" to indicate a belief in the non-material aspect of existence, an affirmation of the truth of our sense of having a substantial self, rather than having the self be a neurological epiphenomenon, and in there being an underlying moral order to the cosmos, such that our deepest concerns and motivations are not merely delusions through which we mark time in order to pass on our genes, but mean something in the long run. Several religions, in their higher expression, help to underwrite spirituality in the sense I mean it, although there are sometimes more dubious elements present in the body of belief and narrative. However, I do not think that we go about purifying religious expression by being antagonistic to it, but by being sympathetic to the legitimate needs addressed, and trying to show what areas of tradition and reason may be reconciled.

To: Lane3 who wrote (62611)	10/15/2002 11:44:21 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Defending tradition against infidels? Message 18056572 progress My whole position of moral progress relies upon the idea that we can critique and reshape institutions, practices, and values from within the framework given, in order to seek improvement over time. That is why an objectionable feature of modernity cannot, by itself, constitute a real criticism of modernity over all. We have, for example, traded off a too great preoccupation with sex with a more just attitude towards the participation of women in society. Thus, in comparing earlier times with the contemporary world, we have to contrast the improvement of female emancipation with the rise of libertinism. The two are connected. Do we want to go back to a "duena society", where women are constantly protected against seduction by being chaperoned, and are not free to pursue their own goals, such as a career, or are we willing to tolerate a higher level of sexual experimentation and work towards achieving a better balance over time? Similarly, we can point to things like air and water pollution as problems especially acute in industrial civilization, but how do we balance that against the general rise in standards of living, lifting the mass of humanity out of squalor and drudgery, and affording them leisure to become more educated and pursue their private goals? Pollution cannot be an objection to modernization, rather, it is a motive to address the discrete problem, for example, through improved filtration.......

To: Lane3 who wrote (62611)	10/15/2002 11:54:45 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Defending tradition against infidels? Message 18044315 Also, I should clarify how this fits in which my "absolutism". I believe that societies improve when given the opportunity, through the accumulation of knowledge and its application in easing and ennobling the lives of as many people as can be brought along, given practical limits. As societies improve, their morals improve, both as a reflection of the values that underwrite a successful society, and through actual insight gained in the course of philosophical reflection on ethics. In both ways, there is moral progress, or greater moral objectivity (assuming that one approaches an optimum goal for society, and therefore that there are values which are the final word, or nearly so). Thus, some "value systems" are superior to others, namely, those associated with societies which make life for most people more humane and productive. Now, let me be clear: we must do our best to understand that social change is not easy, and that the values of a given society are integral to its cohesion, and cannot be easily flouted. Therefore, we must have respect for the multiplicity of views we encounter, in order to respect individuals and to not unnecessarily provoke backlash. However, it is desirable, for the ultimate good of the planet, that there be a move towards modernization and the liberal civilization of which we are a part, with all deliberate speed, and so we should not get overly sentimental about picturesque cultures or cultural equivalence.........

To: Lane3 who wrote (62611)	10/15/2002 12:01:43 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Dafending tradition against the infidels? Message 18103640 Actually, it is not even true to call them "traditional moral standards", since although there is some continuity, there is a lot of change. I am talking about the standards of the particular society in which we live. Some are "genetic", relating to British norms developed with the rise of the middle classes, or the republican character of the United States, but some are much more recent, indeed, perhaps even post- War, like the full emancipation of women or the disreputability of racism. Since you hardly appear to understand my "scheme" sometimes, I do not know how we can compare them. And since my scheme has the advantage of being more scientific than yours, it seems to me of capital importance to acknowledge how we are socialized, and how we have occasion to alter our socialization.

To: Lane3 who wrote (62611)	10/15/2002 12:22:59 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I just realized something I have failed to make clear. Just as I suppose that the capacity for language is hard- wired, so I suppose the capacity for valuation is hard- wired. Essential to that capacity is to register approval or disapproval, to feel guilt or self- satisfaction, to feel shame or pride. Thus, to me, to talk about morality without blame or guilt is like talking about language without subjects and predicates. It is as if you want me to imagine what society would be like if there were no gravity........

To: Lane3 who wrote (62611)	10/15/2002 1:07:57 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

By the way, you never explained your objection to this: Message 18087489 There is too big a difference between accidents and intentional or negligent transgressions. Think of it this way: you steal something, you are caught, you experience a little embarrassment and give back the 5 dollars. What is there to motivate anyone to reform their ways, if they have been malicious or negligent? Nothing. First, there is no real risk, since even if you are caught, it comes to little; second, society has just said to you that it doesn't take stealing very seriously. To which you replied: siliconinvestor.com I have grown weary of bogeymen. I never understood how an apt example could be a "bogeyman".....