Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 10:54 pm
If any view of what morality is is true, then it has to be useful to people in making various moral decisions. Some of these are personal, but some are also familial, social, institutional, national, judicial, policy-producing, and so on. I'm just wondering how your view of morality serves such cases; and if it doesn't, then should we not ask, is it an adequate view of morality?
My view of morality influences my conduct, and that is all I am entitled to require of it.
The answer, my answer, is that very certainly moral ideas, moral conceptions, moral necessity, and also moral imperative preexisted the manifestation of this Kosmos.
Men, in different ways, discover (intuit) that. And in their human peculiarity ‘construct’ moral, ethical and jurisprudential systems.
I don't agree with a word of that, if it helps you to better understand my view.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 1:34 pmAt that time I was mostly attempting to master soups and STOCKS. So Mamane’s Master Text was always close at hand.
It sounds concomitant with your other metaphysical proclivities only this one is arranged for the stomach. Me, as you likely could have imagined, am a bread, potatoes and pizza kind of guy. I only feed it when it growls and absolutely abhor cooking shows.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 1:34 pmGuénon is the chief rebel against ‘the modern world’ and The Crisis of The Modern World must be read to understand reaction in our own day. The turn back to the concept of Tradition. The idea that there’s nothing new under the sun — in the sense of “metaphysically established patterns”.
I often mentioned Tradition as that which still serves a purpose, societally and personally but there was never a response to it. In what you write there is nothing new even though I never read Guénon. It was always obvious to me that traditions are the afterglow, as you put it of metaphysically established patterns, even though these patterns may no-longer be strictly believed in. Psychologically the power of these traditions are still in effect, traditions being the rituals of a metaphysical performance.
The power of Tradition in modern societies, sans belief in its metaphysical underpinnings is a very interesting one, especially in how it may proceed in possibly establishing a new metaphysic; at least, I find it so but no one else did. So fuck it.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 1:34 pmEvola covered a lot of ground and I’ve only got so far. But to dismiss him as you do in all his categories? Impossible
Maybe not all but most. To me, he's a write-off, thoroughly dispensable and disposable with a malicious type of stupidity always pervading his works without exception...at least the one's I know of. I wouldn't waste my time knowing more of the same.
Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 11:53 pm
Maybe not all but most. To me, he's a write-off, thoroughly dispensable and disposable with a malicious type of stupidity always pervading his works without exception...at least the one's I know of. I wouldn't waste my time knowing more of the same.
Just now rereading The Youth, The Beats, and Rightwing Anarchists (1968). Can’t agree with all of his critique but he’s on the money in many ways.
If you provided one example of malicious stupidity it would be helpful.
AJ wrote: The answer, my answer, is that very certainly moral ideas, moral conceptions, moral necessity, and also moral imperative preexisted the manifestation of this Kosmos.
Men, in different ways, discover (intuit) that. And in their human peculiarity ‘construct’ moral, ethical and jurisprudential systems.
Harbal wrote: I don't agree with a word of that, if it helps you to better understand my view.
You mixed up what I wrote with what IC wrote. Drunk again?
My position has similarities to his but is substantially different.
What you think or don’t think is irrelevant: you reason at the level of a child.
A to the muthafuckin J: if i had to commit to an 'ideal' on a philosophy forum it would have to be fundamentally marxist. I know I know. by 'ideal' I'm assuming that should mean 'what's best for everyone', and i absolutely believe an entirely new economic model along the lines of what marx and Engels and Lenin and Co. described would be workable, especially now in the digital age.
now listen i know it would suck for a lotta people if all industry wuz taken control of by the working classes. big companies would no longer be privately owned and the capitalist class would shirley suffer from this. let's say Bezos. what happens when he loses personal ownership of amazon? well he becomes an employee and takes part in the decision making just like all the other employees. note that the only thing bezos really loses is the privilege to make vast amounts of money off amazon's activity in the future. he doesn't lose his house, his cars or his toothbrush, and he doesn't wear a dark blue jumpsuit with a number on the sleeve when waiting in line to get his nutriloaf serving from automated food distribution station #6 when in district 8. he just keeps doing what he always did without raking in millions of dollars a day, that's all.
in any case to understand the marxist 'ideal' u have to make sense of it from the perspective of a salary/wage worker, not a capitalist. of course it doesn't make sense to a capitalist. what it makes sense to is a class of people who have a common problem, are in a common difficult situation financially and/or otherwise, who are able to mutually recognize and understand the reasons why they are all having the same problems, and who therefore identify as a class with a certain lived class consciousness... a class of people who have the very same interests (lower rent, higher wages, cheaper more accessible medical care, cheaper more accessible education, etc.)
it would make sense for, say, thirty thousand employees to figure out a way to profit more from their own labor and productivity. and to do this they realize that they must have direct control over their own labor and the products of their labor in the distribution of those things. that's to say the sale of it. it makes no ergonomic sense for one guy called an 'owner' to take in daily what these guys collectively don't make in a year.
remember we are in the mind of the proletariat right now, seeing the world as he sees it, living his daily grind. we are not doing morality or politics or even philosophy for that matter.
when u strip the communism crap down of all the fat, all the ideological neomarxian social constructivism nonsense, and keep the fundamental premise - that the workers share ownership of the means of production and distribution but still keep their toothbrushes - u really can't honestly say it isn't a good idea unless u are a capitalist or a philosopher.
now it duddint matter that we haven't a clue how this could be done, or if it is even possible rather than just some theoretical construct that would never be workable in the real world. what we DO have is a very sensible premise and a long history of attempts that fell apart becuz of very specific circumstances and conditions, etc. call em 'dry runs'.
anyway I'm rambling. but other than that, i can't think of anything I'm committed to other than having a good time. if i had'ta give my advice to the people of the erf in summa, I'd say sumthin like 'pay attention to professor Wolff and Harris, Sam. try to somehow take over all private industry after abolishing the borders and uniting the international working classes which u won't be able to organize successfully beforehand becuz the governments monitor social media so they'll see u comin a mile away, lose a violent revolution, and force the technocratic global-capitalist state into a synchronized draconian lockdown, at which point u will regret even trying to have the revolution becuz now u ARE wearing that jumpsuit and eating nutriloaf given to u by a machine owned by.... u guessed it.... jeff Bezos. and u can't leave the house but to go to work becuz it's too dangerous due to the social and economic instability created by the fallout from the failed revolution. define irony.'
also u can't be like 'but wait... u can also start your own business and live the american dream. that's the freedom given to u by the great idea that is this great nation yada yada.'
naw u can't do that becuz in two hunerd years the wealth gap is getting bigger not smaller. and don't make me bust out stats cuz I'll go pull links from Rosa's stuff bro, and u know what happens when i do that.
there is no free competition when i lack the things to compete with. your boy Max said that and it's true. capitalism is responsible for the industrial revolution and wuz the creative force that thrust the world forward in every way. I'd never deny that. but it's promise ended up not holding, and not just logically (i mean by that a world of just capitalists is impossible) but practically too. but at the end, the later stage, we have developmental disproportions around the world that are so dramatic they're embarrassing. countries of people still sleeping in strawhuts with dried shit on their asses becuz there's no running water. but that's beside my point in general and something that could be argued against; why is capitalism obligated to bring all countries out of poverty, etc.
but u see what I'm saying man. capitalizzum is failing the vast majority of us, A to the muthafuckin J.
and I'll tell ya sumthin else. i make more in a day now than i did in three or four days when i wuzzint workin for muhself. and yet i would willingly submit to letting our comrades in the soviet worker-counsels collectively analyze consumer data to determine and vote on a reasonable wage I'm to be paid for what I do if i also had no problem finding a place to live, no problem getting any medical attention i need, paid less for all commodities and services in general, etc.
caveat tho. in my marxist-leninist version of socialism individual citizens would be able to self employ.... to exchange labor and service for money paid by customers. u just can't have any employees. what'll happen is, only in the very smallest of industries would this be possible so not many would choose to be self employed, opting to take a job as a salary/wage earner instead.
but yeah I'd do it. I'd take up my crossbow and schimitar and fight like Lionel Richie in the streets with the proletariat. sure, why not? if we lose and that martial law thing happens, I'll have my excuse to go full wolverines... which is all i ever wanted anyway. I want to live like mad max. that's my dream.
Gary, Gary, Gary...just watch the news, and you'll find plenty. Or read a history book. Or visit a courtroom or jail. Just leave the house once in a while, and that'll be enough.
What makes you think I have not done those things?
You do. If you had, you wouldn't even ask the question.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 10:54 pm
If any view of what morality is is true, then it has to be useful to people in making various moral decisions. Some of these are personal, but some are also familial, social, institutional, national, judicial, policy-producing, and so on. I'm just wondering how your view of morality serves such cases; and if it doesn't, then should we not ask, is it an adequate view of morality?
My view of morality influences my conduct, and that is all I am entitled to require of it.
Fair enough for you, of course. But not useful to anybody else, apparently.
Your approach doesn't offer any wisdom for deciding policy, or shaping a social ethos, or managing the laws of a nation, or structuring a penal code, or managing the ethics of a technology, or preserving rights, or any of the other essential social functions morality is supposed to serve.
I assume, therefore, that you also can't recommend it to anyone. There is, apparently, no particular reason to do so. It doesn't offer anybody any moral guidance. It just says, "X is what Harbal uses to shape his conduct, but there's no special reason you should use X at all."
It seems to be both when it is examined carefully.
They are different stories, and they contradict. Which one will you go with? Was morality already "there" to be "discovered," or did humans "develop" it themselves?
The answer, my answer, is that very certainly moral ideas, moral conceptions, moral necessity, and also moral imperative preexisted the manifestation of this Kosmos.
Men, in different ways, discover (intuit) that. And in their human peculiarity ‘construct’ moral, ethical and jurisprudential systems.
Then you mean that men "discover" it. What they "construct" is not morality itself, but only various systems, laws or judicial arrangements that attempt, however imperfectly, to correspond to objective, pre-existing moral imperatives.
So then, if you would, give me an example of just one such objective, pre-existing moral imperative (as you think it might be), and one social arrangement that would correspond to it. For if what you're saying is true, then there surely cannot be less than one particular case of it.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 15, 2023 4:21 am
Your approach doesn't offer any wisdom for deciding policy, or shaping a social ethos, or managing the laws of a nation, or structuring a penal code, or managing the ethics of a technology, or preserving rights, or any of the other essential social functions morality is supposed to serve.
Oh dear. You’ve effectively just asked Harbal to pass through boyhood, develop the mental equivalent of testicles, and actually think things through.
