Ruphus -> RE: Black Hole eats sun (May 25 2017 10:13:45)
|
quote:
If your point is merely that ideas can have real-life consequences, and bad ideas have bad consequences, then we are agreed. That it is, but not "merely". For ideas being practically too relevant for humans and their species as intellectual being. Which again is why there are to be found definite characteristics in cultures, with some, due to inhumane ideas, displaying corresponding custom. The denial of such differences is not constructive. Because of denial presenting protection which again postpones awareness, debate and change. With the examples that you name, I doubt the people to reveal to you the ethical abyss within their surroundings. Lesser so in a western sphere where the degree of perceived shame will be much higher. (In fact I think to have seen shame exclusively in a sense of prudery.) I have been hearing of unbound recklessness even within families since years. Last time that a new acquaintance was telling me how he was severally set back by first trusting his brother and then even his father, has been only few days ago. You may be wanting to make a point, by saying that bad custom will depend on intensity of spread bad ideas, but it won´t change a thing on the fact that ideas are highly relevant to a thinking species. Even if we had ideas already pragmatically and deconstructivist perfected, we would still be erring enough. And erring almost always means injustice to thirds. That is why any specific deviation from sobriety presents ethical matter and is not a peccadillo at all. As Hamia mentioned already, we are facing a solid discrepancy between our special knowledge / physical effects on environment and our state of awareness. Being way too immature for the power gained. Just the more reason for to make away with arbitrary and disproportionate, way outdated doctrines. Could you care less if folks bowed to Hitler´s "Mein Kampf" in privacy? Would it not affect anyone (including themselves)? So, why make light of any other fascism? I don´t agree with your conclusion that past centuries hadn´t changed much in the (European) christian world. Developing philosophy of about 2300 years in the end forced this abrahamian branch into concession. Pulled lots of its teeth and had it even admit to evolution some 7 years or so ago. Philosophy as base of mentality pushed back superstition in the western world a lot. A sphere with considerably less belief than before and elsewhere. With societal accepted aims of pragmatism, humanism, liberty and equal rights. (Even if actual plutocracy and corruption counter the idea fundamentally.) Yields of philosophy also turned around the premise of "old wisdom", which tainted the Middle Age as dark, even though it wasn´t really that dark. In fact the MA was a period of a lot of scientifical progress, only that new findings used to be deemed as secondary and inappropriate before ancient nonsense. In the way it still is in the Orient. - Formal establishment of target, even if marginally, tends to produce in practice too. Thus in the aftermath of Kemalism Turkish clerics have released a number of humanitarian inspired fatwas, like abolishing the persecution of apostate, or banning the mistreatment / torturing of animals. - quote:
The Jews were banned from normal jobs in Europe in the Middle Ages and became money lenders (some of them at least). This required skill and introduces a powerful evolutionary selection criterion. If you are good at it and make money then you will likely have more children. And you can finance higher education for them, which should present a reason for why among academics and thinkers there were a lot of Jews. I wouldn´t connect that fact to the religion per se though. Also, many of the Jews had no way to constructively escape the discrimination and remained in poverty. quote:
A similar cultural selection criterion was at work in China over a long period. For one thing mastering written Chinese is a tough intellectual challenge and then the labyrinthine civil service upped the ante. This probably explains why there are a lot of very clever Chinese, and perhaps why a good proportion of them are sociopaths. The welfare state is an inverted version of this - just watch a few episodes of Britain on Benefits on YouTube. One of the many homeworks on hold for me has been to check out one day why there is so much of emotional indifference (and outright sadism, partially manifest with some provincial, unspeakable custom of animal torturing even yet on restaurant tables) in Far East. What you say sounds quite like a clue. Contrasting above examples are cultures like of the Bishnoi in India who treat and guard fellow creature like gold. Or the people in Shani Shignapur who live without doors. It´s all a matter of idea. Who agrees on us being responsible for our actions, should also agree in that we are responsible for the ideas we create and follow. They must not be regarded as any desired. The civil right on opinion will not equal any and all of idea as acceptable. Ideas that promote hard-hearted irrationality, discrimination, ingratitude, deceitfulness, cover, insincerity, sheming ... in a short, what we call inhumane behaviour ... should not be considered fair choice. I was raised with firm belief in equality, and as a teen wished all borders would be torn down for everyone to move around to liking. Today I think to see that humanity hasn´t reached to such precondition yet. And I strongly oppose the idea of given cultural and behavioral equality before the facts. True is that there seem to exist items in many if not all cultures that need changing. And some cultures are being unsocial as a whole. Not doing good in states form nor in private. The British, though far from being choirboys themselves, in last century ordered an expertise. Therein it was stated that it is unclear how people of a certain culture manage to get along with each other at all. And after own experience I wonder the exact same. I find that neither arbitrary jurisdiction (for example legitimizing defendants´ lying as means of defence, etc.pp.) nor private surrounding (no outlawing of crime) suit for educating. And even if there was a trial under given horizon, there would not be a position to, where difference between method and system, between moral and ethics is unknown. It lacks the philosophical background and education. To my understanding there are two ways towards ethical standard. Environmental pressure on indigene culture, which tends to produce association, empathy, solidarity and sincerity among group members. Whereas for grand civilizations there is no way other than paths grounded on philosophical insight. Without it, all you get is lost humanity with a host of all struggling, hypocritical and cheating individuals.
|
|
|
|