What lit up the Enlightenment was white European culture --- not because of its whiteness, but because of its culture. Not all cultures are equal. Some are inferior, and some are especially evil. When the test is, What is needed to sustain a decent civilization? then it becomes glaringly apparent that Islamic culture is evil. Applying the proper test, it is often glaringly obvious regarding the shared sacrifices that are necessary. Decent Americans hunger for that kind of leadership. Why aren't we getting it, and why is the light of European culture being buried before our eyes? Well, look around at who is benefitting from inculcating people that Western culture is bad and that it is bad to "act white?" Decent people have too long been lulled into allowing decent civilization to be canibalized by the most opportunistically corrupt, cynical, and historically ignorant. We have failed to ask, Why should European culture stand aside and allow itself to be replaced by ignorance and evil? Why should we bow before a NWO comprised of the most cynically corrupt? When enough Westerners begin asking the right questions, we may yet enter into the kind of shared sacrifice and assimilation of individual effort that is needed in order to rescue the light.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Why would I buy Harris' book, when I can watch the movie for free on You Tube? There was nothing new that we haven't already discussed or thought about. The ideas that you mentioned generally make sense to me.
I read Harris' blog reply to all the negative reviews of his book. I have a slight problem with his argument that science can lay some claim to moral values. Harris says we can scientifically justify moral values - in that pain, misery and suffering are not good, whereas the opposite is good - and all observers would agree.
Crap!
A slight problem; any and all moral values can exist - just like "17 different religions". And all believers claim to have a better life, not one of misery. In fact, even pain, suffering and misery are desirable by some human psyche. Science is definitely not that flexible.
We create constructs in our minds of states of existence that do not exist outside of our minds (of free will, morality, among several others). We endow ourselves with these constructs just as we say " a fox is clever ".
So I say, "I am a moral person". The fox got human traits and I got godly traits. But in the 11th century I would be burned at the stake for my current beliefs and values. In some Catholic countries at Easter, people nail themselves to crosses - and they like it that way. How can science relate to that? All of these constructs, free will, morality, etc. change with time and place and none of them are measurable.
Morality, free will, determinism (the devil made me do it), etc do not exist - its kind of like Mickey Mouse, we know there is nothing there but we like to imagine that he really does exist - and therefore morality does, but only within our imagination. And that is what we live by. But living by some 'code' does not make one moral. There is no physical cloak of morality that you can wear. You cannot inherit it, and you are not moral unless you believe you are.
If an alien came down in his spaceship, how could you prove to him that your behavior is moral? But, his science would be the same as yours. Disconnect!
What we have are preferred states of existence and behavior (constantly changing) but there is no scientific basis for any of it. I disagree with Harris on this point. But I liked his other ideas. Perhaps I should read his book.
Dave, in emotional aspect, your initial reaction is not that different from my own, as I read Harris' first 50 pages. As I read further, I saw that he was aware of every issue of which I was aware. Some of his ideas need some semantic fine tuning, but I don't see them as crap. He is attempting to put science more face to face with morality. I think that may be do-able. He may be uncertain about whether science can entirely replace intuitive moral preferences. I don't think it can, and I think he will come to recognize that --- if he has not already.
Harris' problem is a squinting one: How to imbue the world with an assimilating moral view, while not repulsing his atheistic followers off the reservation. His book, The End of Faith, is short. The kindle version is followed with extensive comments. Many of those are directed to some of the more militant atheists, who felt he had betrayed their cause. To my mind, the fundies and militants are both misguided moon bats, but the promised land for pulling them back from the dark side of the moon is still very sparsely populated. However, Harris is among those trekking to the promised land. Imo. Iow, he is an equal opportunity offender (not unlike Hitchens, giving the finger to Maher's audience).
The reason to read, rather than merely watch a video or listen to a soundtrack, is because reading entails more back and forth interaction with one's mind. You read, think, highlight, make notes, then read some more. You can't do that with a video, unless you're handy with the pause button.
******
Re: "like Mickey Mouse, we know there is nothing there but we like to imagine that he really does exist - and therefore morality does, but only within our imagination"
Well, if I can "know" anything, then I know that imagination (conscious or subconscious will) does exist, even though it does not exist confined or defined to any relative, particular locus in space time. I suspect image-ination, like pure in-form-ation, exists with a field that is beyond our measurable physics --- a trivalent identity which expresses a field of Meta Word, which encompasses the possible, the manifest, and the unfolding.
Our relative words, in themselves, will never breach, define, or confine that field, because our relative words are necessarily confined to their own relational circle. A dictionary is expanding universe of circular thinking. Our words only define themselves, not that which avails their existence.
******
Re: So I say, "I am a moral person".
For science, a more interesting, perhaps more approachable concern, may have less to do with trying to replace God as judge of the subjective merit of each moral perspective of consciousness, and more to do with considering what sort of groupwise values may be most conducive to the sustenance of a civilization that avails decent opportunity for citizens to seek their own meaning in relative freedom.
Post a Comment