Mis à jour le Mercredi, 28 Avril 2021
No one system of morality is universal. But can we find a way to synchronise the world?
Educators believe the concept of right and wrong should be taught to children; yet, the concept itself has been challenged as to whose conception of right and wrong should be planted in the minds of the young. In this example, absolutists and relativist have been arguing the claim for choosing moral guidance. Could anyone (organisation or person) be entrusted as the arbitrator in morality? Is everyone meant to follow the same morals?
Ethical relativism is true per se – as no moral principles are valid for everyone. Anthropologists have made discoveries to back up the claim that different cultures have different practices and moral priorities and those which prevail in one does not necessarily have to be accepted in another. This argument tends to lean towards the descriptive explanation, where it is concluded that no one system of morality is universal; “what is believed to be morally good and bad differs from culture to culture” (Benn, 2006 p15) – meaning no system of moral is valid for everyone. Then, we have the normative side where codes of conduct could be assumed to be culturally determined. “Are certain things right for some cultures, but not for others – in the sense that the members of some cultures have certain obligations which members of other cultures do not have?” (Benn, 2006 p15) Ethical relativism, face another problem through other cynics who might claim that universal moral principles do exist. However, a major issue is raised here as the existence of such principles cannot be known; and the attempt to educate people morally may comes across as an extreme act of arrogance when the educators would be people just as morally fallible as the rest.
The doctrine has also been questioned in its addition to most debates. Does it even make sense? If it is believed that one should follow the moral principles imposed culturally, that makes no point in arguing the validity of other cultures, as one would have to first see the culture as authority. But this would close the debate uninterestingly. Therefore we look at the argument of cultural diversity where it takes the truth of the statement “no one system of morality is universally valid”. This leads to conclude the underlying assumption that some beliefs are false. Why can’t some people be wrong about their morality however strongly the hold to their conviction? An example to back the logic used is in other fields of science where many professionals disagree among themselves. A case that goes against ethical relativity is where morality is questioned by the individuals within the culture (after the assumption that each culture should comply with their respective prevailing opinions and morals).
The argument however is more complicated as the logic behind acknowledging culturally imposed patterns as “right” is heavily scrutinized by the Argumentum ad Nazium. This states the example of the Nazi culture that was clearly mistaken about “some” moral principles regarding human evolution and natural selection – policies that discarded assimilation and considered all non-Germans as inferior. Assuming that Germany had won World War II and applied Nazi policies and values over Europe and other areas, the question of whether their policies and values (i.e. human good emerges from conflict and domination) would then be deemed as good after they would have had settled as a culture seems conclusive. Surely, they would still be flawed in some aspects of their ideologies and policies even if they had their own culture.
The Nazi example clearly shows the flaw with ethical relativism because the consequence of some sections of its applied doctrines would have been a wrong understanding of human evolution, and hence, an erroneous interpretation and application of Darwin’s theory since it would have wrongly discarded the fundamental evolutionary principle of “natural selection” (assimilation) [See: Essay // Psychological Explanations of Prejudice & Discrimination].
Traduction(EN): « I have called this principle, by which, each slight variation, if useful, is preserved by the term of natural selection. » -Charles Darwin / Note: Darwin devised the Theory of Evolution and was against bad breeding, and even supported a campaign to make marriage between cousins illegal due to the range of diseases and disabilities caused by consanguineous inbreeding [See: (1) Inbreeding, Consanguinity and Inherited Diseases, (2) The Role of Inbreeding in the Extinction of a European Royal Dynasty, (3) Royal dynasties as human inbreeding laboratories: the Habsburgs & (4) 75% of Jews Are Lactose Intolerant and 11 Other Facts
However, in the 1930s, a tremendous amount of research on genetics was not yet carried out and perhaps if the Nazis had access to all the latest research of the 21st century, they would have rectified their policies based on good science after understanding that evolution encompasses all human organisms, since scientists have discovered 1,000 new “intelligence genes” [which is a highly heritable trait and a major determinant of human health and well-being] and have also found that 2 types of extroverts to have more brain matter than most common brains; this logically means that any talented individual organism with superior genes would be an asset to any group it assimilates into and passes down its genetic inheritance to, this would lead to the enhancement of the organic composition of the particular group. It is also to be noted that Adolf Hitler himself was the product of inbreeding between a man and his niece, the kind of breeding that Darwin himself would have been against since those inbred genes have the potential to pass down serious genetic diseases.
Hence, what “ethical relativism” seems to be promoting is tolerance; the idea of respecting the choice of one another. But is this acceptable in every scenario? Definitely not, because it could well be seen as confusion or moral cowardice when one is asked to withhold judgement from cases of extreme evil [e.g. “some” elements of Islam regarding the treatment of all non-Muslims termed ‘kaffirs’ (See: Essay // History on Western Philosophy, Religious cultures, Science, Medicine & Secularisation)].
In some locations on our small planet, strict behavioural patterns (culture) have been imposed on members of particular groups, rules grounded on authoritarianism (e.g. some countries under strict Islamic rules that many muslims living in the modern world themselves find irrational and excessive; countries where many voices who speak up against religious atavism and irrationality are often persecuted, jailed and even murdered sometimes). Such savagely imposed rules would surely leave the resident ethical relativist with a hard choice [if any] when expected to respect the “other” side’s approach to morality as a matter of giving every human being the freedom to choose their groups, sub-cultures, appearance & social patterns. However, these cultures have survived perfectly for generations [with dogmatism and other illiberal moral certainties] with a blossoming number of faithful to their restrictive lifestyle who are living within the confines of their political boundaries, where they are allowed to so as long as the choices of other countries, groups & individuals are respected. It would be fair to assume that the owner of a house is free to set out the indoor decorations, furnitures and rules but would be deemed as fairly unreasonable should he or she try to impose these personal rules in their neighbour’s home [who might prefer curtains to blinds, or fresh fruit juice over Pepsi]. Perhaps what ethical relativism is trying to elicit is toleration from all, but can complete control over human lives be compared to judgements on artistic tastes and decoration? Toleration has long been considered as morally virtuous. Yet, is it possible to be tolerant to others who strongly believe in “wrong” and who discard scientific facts, genetics and medicine? [E.g. legitimising marriage between cousins that promote genetic diseases?] Even from a religious perspective, some modern and evolving thinkers in the Christian faith see science as the systematic study of God’s works; Michel Langlois may have phrased it well in saying « Si Dieu nous a créés avec un cerveau, c’est pour qu’on s’en serve ! » [which is French for « If God created us with a brain, it’s so we can use it! ».
The moment we accept the notion that there is no absolute truth and that reality is a social construct that does not exist as such but that it is dependent on the perception and definition of the individual, we also open the door to the a great deal of the absurd, because we allow some groups [e.g. mediocre politicians, and other con artists] who have influence through departments that they control or other outlets, to use their conceived “reality” and impose it to maintain their power. In that sense, reality becomes a game produced by a particular questionable ideology, and so we can oppose it with another ideology deemed more sophisticated and progressive. Hence, the oppressed are also able to respond with their arguments of another reality; this gives way to an idealogical battlefield where different “realities” oppose each other, where one has to win. Noble debates based on sound and reliable science, allows us to rewrite biology, science and history – allowing us to annihilate every trace of an outdated history that is not truth but a social construction at the service of a particular group’s oppression and obsession with supreme dominance.
The other tragic side of the logic that truth and reality are a matter of perception, is that in some societies, it allows the dominant to impose their ideology on the weak. When those ideologies are based on superstitions from another age and when the groups supporting them have the advantage of number and force, we have a perfect combination for tragedy: we spectate the murder of the values of the intellectual enlightenment. In the West, in the academic world some religious groups by supressing all universal rationalism are extinguishing the sophisticated values of the enlightenment, which were acquired at a heavy price after fighting against religious fanaticism and obscurantism. Some social pathologies can lead to the destruction of civilised society. It is only through intellectual discourse that reality can be discovered and conceived for the betterment of human civilisation.
So far, the only universally working derivative from the relativism debate seems to be toleration. The problems that confront ethical relativism remain debatable issues with no perfect solutions. However, a strong backup for toleration comes from Simon Blackburn’s article where it came as conclusive that some arguments are pointless – such as arguing about one’s art preference in an art gallery. It might keep the debate calmer if people were to agree to differ. Or, maybe relativism is just a way of dealing with each other’s personal choices while still not being in full agreement: tolerance. A similar example would be Piers Benn’s mention of colour preference; where relativism could not determine the “degree of pleasantness” to show which colour was “better”; and no objective scientific test in a laboratory will ever manage to do so.
Gustave Caillebotte (Paris 1848 – Gennevilliers 1894), “Fruits à l’étalage“
Artistic preferences related to colours and style is a decision that is highly personal, influenced by a range of subjective factors that elicit particular feelings that hold special and unique signifiances for a particular individual. Ethical relativism is extremely important as it has elicited toleration from many while tackling hostility among parties; however, it falls short in providing solution when faced with irrational parties and deluded politicians who consider their unfounded opinions and desires as the only valid agenda and outcome.
Ethical relativism reminds us all that freedom of choice would seem a rightful entitlement to every human being of the 20th century living on a modern and civilised planet. According to Kantians [Immanuel Kant’s adepts], the sole motivating factor for someone’s action should be reason, and should issue from their own rational deliberations [See: Essay // Psychology: The Concept of Self]. Moral relativism’s addition to the issues on morality seems vague, as – assuming that moral judgements are judgements of personal taste, like one’s artistic preference and taste for a certain colour – it seems fair to conclude that the choice might be desirable for one but not for another. Yet, the logic of “good for one, bad for another”, can at times be misleading in morality. The example of colour blindness mentioned by Piers Benn seems to deliver concrete proof of how relativism remains a questionable doctrine. Assuming red-green colour blindness was on the rise, the majority would likely quality the affected as “seeing things differently” and not less correctly. This logic however is flawed when applied in other circumstances such as: if half of the population had a disorder that affected their orientation and ability to size objects, they would surely be causing severe injuries to themselves and others; in that case they would be considered as “wrong”.
The analogy of colour “seeing things differently” seems more adequate for morality in subjective matters of personal taste; however, that concept is unlikely to work globally in other domains because it also cancels out dialectical debates, and disregards disparities in factual, logical and philosophical reasoning, discursive, creative, managerial, intellectual and/or political skills – which is an unrealistic outcome since the judgement of the mediocre majority of faillible humans is clouded by stubborn and selfish emotions that lead many to lie, deceive and misguide in order to stay in or get to power, especially in industrialised and mechanical societies that lack moral conscience and humane philosophies; third world countries where the level of education is poor; and some countries under strict religious laws that restrict intellectual and philosophical discourse, leading to a naive majority among their people, and hence an illusory and atavistic democracy that is simply the combined self-destructive voices of the naive and mediocre.
Image: Sunday Art Fair, Londres, 2019
Hence, the analogy of colour which simply views different opinions as “seeing things differently” is acceptable for philosophical arguments related to matters of personal taste, such as artistic preferences, but fails in matters related to the management of society because it would wrongly entice that each culture is right in its own choice, a concept that could allow unreasonable and insensitive political groups to create the illusion of a peaceful society where many have no other options but to suffer in silence – as we know from historical cases of political abuse [e.g. Idi Amin] in third world countries in Africa.
To conclude, the examples mentioned seem to bring ethical relativism to just a matter of adopting a tolerant attitude towards others in personal matters of taste, even if it goes against yours. While relativism does not seem to provide absolute solutions to debates related to the management of civilisation, it does help parties cope with their differences with an element of fairness: accepting the fact that judgements of personal taste & lifestyle differs from one individual to another – what may be deemed as ‘perfect’ to an individual may in fact be a horrific and torturous nightmare to others [who may even be in the direct bloodline, network, culture, nationality, class, IQ group, etc].
Image: “Marius prisonnier à Minturnes” par Jean-Germain Drouais (Paris 1763 – Rome 1788) au Musée du Louvre
Reality has always existed and took civilisation from the prehistoric times to the modern world and reality evolves with knowledge and sophistication. Reality can only be known through debates which must be accompanied with the freedom that promotes free speech along with the ability to support opposing views and sometimes accept the superiority of another. It is this kind of open society that allows the respecful clash of ideas on the construction of a universal reality that will put an end to ridiculous ideologies that are not true, but are simply useful to some groups who use it to promote violence and impose an unreasonable power on others. As Charles Rojzman reminded in an essay in Causeur, Jules Romains during World War II said: « nous sommes payés pour savoir que la jeunesse d’un peuple s’empoisonne avec facilité, et qu’ensuite cela peut coûter cher, et à ce peuple, et à la civilisation générale. » [French for: “we are paid to know that the youth of a nation are easily poisoned, and that this can be costly both to that nation and to general civilisation.“]
Auditorium, site François-Mitterrand – © Nicolas Gallon – BnF
___________________________________________
Références
- Alvarez, G., Ceballos, F. and Quinteiro, C., (2009). The Role of Inbreeding in the Extinction of a European Royal Dynasty. PLoS ONE, 4(4), p.e5174.
- Benn P. (2006) Ethics. pp1-29. Cornwall: TJ International Ltd
- Blackburn S. (2002) Think Autumn. pp83-88
- Ceballos, F. and Álvarez, G., (2013). Royal dynasties as human inbreeding laboratories: the Habsburgs. Heredity, 111(2), pp.114-121.
- D’purb, D., (2021). History on Western Philosophy, Religious cultures, Science, Medicine & Secularisation. dpurb.com essais
- D’purb, D., (2021). Psychological Explanations of Prejudice & Discrimination. dpurb.com essais
- D’purb, D., (2021). Psychology: The Concept of Self. dpurb.com essais
- Grodin, E. and White, T., (2015). The neuroanatomical delineation of agentic and affiliative extraversion. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 15(2), pp.321-334.
- Rojzman, C. (2021). Le relativisme, suicide de la raison. Causeur Société. Causeur.
- Savage, J.E., Jansen, P.R., Stringer, S., et al. (2018). Genome-wide association meta-analysis in 269,867 individuals identifies new genetic and functional links to intelligence. Nat Genet 50, 912–919
- Langlois, M (2020). “Si Dieu Nous A Créés Avec Un Cerveau, C’Est Pour Qu’On S’En Serve !” Interview De M. Langlois, Spécialiste De La Bible (CNRS/Collège De France). Science et Foi. [online] Available at: <https://www.scienceetfoi.com/interview-de-m-langlois-specialiste-de-la-bible-cnrscollege-de-france> [Accessed 11 August 2020].
And a nod to Garo. A for sparking the question.
Danny D’Purb | DPURB.com
____________________________________________________
While the aim of the community at dpurb.com has been & will always be to focus on a modern & progressive culture, human progress, scientific research, philosophical advancement & a future in harmony with our natural environment; the tireless efforts in researching & providing our valued audience the latest & finest information in various fields unfortunately takes its toll on our very human admins, who along with the time sacrificed & the pleasure of contributing in advancing our world through sensitive discussions & progressive ideas, have to deal with the stresses that test even the toughest of minds. Your valued support would ensure our work remains at its standards and remind our admins that their efforts are appreciated while also allowing you to take pride in our journey towards an enlightened human civilization. Your support would benefit a cause that focuses on mankind, current & future generations.
Thank you once again for your time.
Please feel free to support us by considering a donation.
Sincerely,
The Team @ dpurb.com
P.S.
– If you are a group/organization or individual looking for consultancy services, email: info[AT]dpurb.com
– If you need to reach Danny J. D’Purb directly for any other queries or questions, email: danny[AT]dpurb.com [Inbox checked periodically / Responses may take up to 20 days or more depending on his schedule]
Stay connected by linking up with us on Facebook and Twitter
dpurb . com 
Philosophy Review: “The World as Will and Idea”, by Arthur Schopenhauer (1818)
Extract:
Schopenhauer, a pessimistic philosopher, focused on the dark side of life and mental evils and cruelty, which he considered inevitable and that we as psychologists, intellectuals and masters of the mind view as mental disorders that have a negative effect on both the character of the affected and the human environment at large exposed to the vile side of human nature.
This negative view of man’s behaviour and role in life was a sharp contrast to the other more euphoric philosophers who marked the spirits of the generation before him, and who embraced a more idealistic and perhaps a slightly exaggerated euphoric side of man’s mind and character. Though Schopenhauer’s work originally gained little attention at the time it was published [perhaps being too avant-garde for the atavistic institutions of his time], he expressed an interpretation of the world that was dragging and opposed the great ideal of who went before him, such as Victor Schelling and Hegel on some very important points but did not deny expressions of art such as the romantic movement in its various forms.
Schopenhauer who never refrained from publicly criticising people and ideas he disliked was very vocal in his complete contempt for these men, and regarded himself as their great opponent in the ring of the leaders delivering the “Real truth” to mankind and civilisation. Schopenhauer’s work in many ways could be viewed as an extension of another famous German philosopher, namely Immanuel Kant, who preceded him by one generation, delivering his major philosophical work, “a critique of pure reason”. Schopenhauer worked out a system in which reality is known inwardly by a kind of feeling where intellect is only an instrument of the will: the biological will to live and where process rather than result is ultimate…
Article: https://dpurb.com/2018/08/24/essay-philosophy-review-the-world-as-will-and-idea-by-arthur-schopenhauer-1818/
__________
__________
E.g. 1
Person A, “You can’t stop a rhino from charging if you were looking for trouble”
What an educated, philosophically conscious & psychologically reasoning person in the 21st century could likely grasp:
In Person A’s opinion [which he obviously firmly believes], a rhino could not be stopped if someone was disturbing the animal. This however is not a fact, but Person A’s opinion & belief; which may contain some truth and may be fairly obvious, but still it is not a fact. It will be my choice to choose whether to believe in his words, or not
_________
E.g. 2
Person B, “Faith is the light of Hope”
What an educated, philosophically conscious & psychologically reasoning person in the 21st century could likely grasp:
Faith seems to motivate and keep a person’s mindstate positive when struggling towards a goal and hoping to achieve it. It might make sense, but is faith the “light” of hope. Light here may have been used as a metaphor as something that enlightens [light chases the dark]. However, “Faith is the light of hope” is once again only Person B’s opinion, and although to some who may not be able to stretch their thinking and philosophically make “some sense” out of the claim, it still concludes to simply being an opinion for Person B, who [from his perspective] believes faith is the light of hope
_________
E.g. 3
Person C, “Real men treat women well…”
What an educated, philosophically conscious & psychologically reasoning person in the 21st century could likely grasp:
Once again, this would seem to be the same logic as E.g. 2. In Person C’s opinion, “real” [whatever this might imply] men treat women well [whatever this might also imply]. Further questions in an attempt to clear doubts over the meaning grasped would be to ask Person C to define the terms “real” and “well”.
__________
Conclusion:
In an attempt to lessen the burden of meaningless [at times] wastage of neural processes in daily [often useless] social “chit-chats” of insecurity in a platonic attempt to cultivate an “imaginary” sense of worth and acceptance through joint criticism [often biased] of strong individuals with strong opinions, people could try to lessen the burden on their mood and emotions by simply re-interpreting the words of [anyone] to the simple fact that all output from a person [any one in the world] is simply the product of their perception and [unless linked to an objective study, or research, or solid facts] are simply thoughts, ideas and visions that can only be critically explored and considered for possible action [positive or negative].
#Psychology #Radical #Empiricism [W.James works were influential to intellectuals such as Émile Durkheim, W. E. B. Du Bois, Edmund Husserl, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Hilary Putnam, and Richard Rorty]
Quote:
1890, Principles of Psychology:
“Millions of items of the outward order are present to my senses which never properly enter into my experience. Why? Because they have no interest for me. My experience is what I agree to attend to. Only those items which I notice shape my mind – without selective interest, experience is an utter chaos…”
__________________________
QUOTE:
“I am not in this world to live up to other people’s expectations, nor do I feel that the world must live up to mine.”
– Friedrich Salomon Perls (July 8, 1893 – March 14, 1970) // Psychiatrist and Psychotherapist who coined the ‘Gestalt therapy’
[Wikipedia: The core of the Gestalt Therapy process is enhanced awareness of sensation, perception, bodily feelings, emotion, and behavior, in the present moment.]
__________________________
__________________________
#Quote #Observation
“Questions seem to be best explored & tend to lead to solutions when directed at the right person.”
– Danny J. D’Purb // November 15, 2014
Phenomenology as a Resource for Patients
#Medicine #Philosophy #Health #Mind #MentalHealth #Society #Education #Culture
Extract:
Patient support tools have drawn on a variety of disciplines, including psychotherapy, social psychology, and social care. One discipline that has not so far been used to support patients is philosophy. This paper proposes that a particular philosophical approach, phenomenology, could prove useful for patients, giving them tools to reflect on and expand their understanding of their illness. I present a framework for a resource that could help patients to philosophically examine their illness, its impact on their life, and its meaning.
I explain the need for such a resource, provide philosophical grounding for it, and outline the epistemic and existential gains philosophy offers. Illness often begins as an intrusion on one’s life but with time becomes a way of being. I argue that this transition impacts on core human features such as the experience of space and time, human abilities, and adaptability. It therefore requires philosophical analysis and response. The paper uses ideas from Husserl and Merleau-Ponty to present such a response in the form of a phenomenological toolkit for patients.
The toolkit includes viewing illness as a form of phenomenological reduction, thematizing illness, and examining illness as altering the ill person’s being in the world. I suggest that this toolkit could be offered to patients as a workshop, using phenomenological concepts, texts, and film clips to reflect on illness. I conclude by arguing that examining illness as a limit case of embodied existence deepens our understanding of phenomenology…
Oxford Journals | Journal of Medicine & Philosophy: http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/2/96.full
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
“Clubbed to Death II”, courtesy of Rob Dougan // Album: Furious Angels (1998)
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
Neural Correlates of Post-Conventional Moral Reasoning: A Voxel-Based Morphometry Study
Abstract:
Going back to Kohlberg, moral development research affirms that people progress through different stages of moral reasoning as cognitive abilities mature. Individuals at a lower level of moral reasoning judge moral issues mainly based on self-interest (personal interests schema) or based on adherence to laws and rules (maintaining norms schema), whereas individuals at the post-conventional level judge moral issues based on deeper principles and shared ideals. However, the extent to which moral development is reflected in structural brain architecture remains unknown. To investigate this question, we used voxel-based morphometry and examined the brain structure in a sample of 67 Master of Business Administration (MBA) students. Subjects completed the Defining Issues Test (DIT-2) which measures moral development in terms of cognitive schema preference. Results demonstrate that subjects at the post-conventional level of moral reasoning were characterized by increased gray matter volume in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and subgenual anterior cingulate cortex, compared with subjects at a lower level of moral reasoning. Our findings support an important role for both cognitive and emotional processes in moral reasoning and provide first evidence for individual differences in brain structure according to the stages of moral reasoning first proposed by Kohlberg decades ago.
Prehn, K., Korczykowski, M., Rao, H., Fang, Z., Detre, J. and Robertson, D. (2015). Neural Correlates of Post-Conventional Moral Reasoning: A Voxel-Based Morphometry Study. PLOS ONE, 10(6), p.e0122914.
_______________________________________
https://twitter.com/NietzscheAcadem/status/922816318314811393
An essay on intelligence
“The story of intelligence begins with Plato. In all his writings, he ascribes a very high value to thinking, declaring (through the mouth of Socrates) that the unexamined life is not worth living. Plato emerged from a world steeped in myth and mysticism to claim something new: that the truth about reality could be established through reason, or what we might consider today to be the application of intelligence. This led him to conclude, in The Republic, that the ideal ruler is ‘the philosopher king’, as only a philosopher can work out the proper order of things. And so he launched the idea that the cleverest should rule over the rest – an intellectual meritocracy…
[…]
The idea that intelligence defines humanity persisted into the Enlightenment. It was enthusiastically embraced by Immanuel Kant, probably the most influential moral philosopher since the ancients. For Kant, only reasoning creatures had moral standing. Rational beings were to be called ‘persons’ and were ‘ends in themselves’. Beings that were not rational, on the other hand, had ‘only a relative value as means, and are therefore called things’. We could do with them what we liked.
According to Kant, the reasoning being – today, we’d say the intelligent being – has infinite worth or dignity, whereas the unreasoning or unintelligent one has none. His arguments are more sophisticated, but essentially he arrives at the same conclusion as Aristotle: there are natural masters and natural slaves, and intelligence is what distinguishes them…
by Stephen Cave, executive director and senior research fellow of the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence at the University of Cambridge. A philosopher by training, he has also served as a British diplomat, and written widely on philosophical and scientific subjects
Full Article: https://aeon.co/essays/on-the-dark-history-of-intelligence-as-domination
_______________________________________________
https://twitter.com/TrueArtPage/status/928622376698499072
“I teach you Der Übermensch. Man is something which shall be surpassed.” -Friedrich Nietzsche
“Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.” -Euripides
“Common sense is the best distributed commodity in the world, for every man is convinced that he is well supplied with it.” -Rene Descartes
“I won’t talk to my colleagues about philosophy… They are too stupid.” -Colin McGinn
“All civil institutions assume the same mediocre type of man. It is therefore not suprising when we find them full of lies.” -Friedrich Nietzsche
“The truth is often a terrible weapon of aggression. It is possible to lie, even to murder, for the truth.” -Alfred Adler
“Education is not preparation for life; education is life itself.” -John Dewey
“You do pay a price for stating it simply, namely it’s easier for the professionals to misunderstand it.” -John Searle
“Many people are afraid of freedom. They are conditioned to be afraid of it.” -Herbert Marcuse
“There is no great genius without some touch of madness.” -Seneca
“The envious man thinks that if his neighbor breaks a leg, he will be able to walk better himself.” -Helmut Schoeck
“Diseases of the soul are both more dangerous and more numerous than those of the body.” – Cicero
“The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.” -Daniel Dennett
“What you do not wish others should do unto you, do not do unto them.” -Confucius
“When you keep playing the same role, you keep attracting the same people.” -Jerry Corstens
“You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks.” – Winston S. Churchill
“Progress is impossible without change, & those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” -G.B. Shaw
“It is not surprising that I, or any ordinary man, should wander in perplexity.” -Socrates
“There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not already said it.” -Cicero
“Honor is the reward of virtue.” -Cicero
“It is the sign of a great mind to prefer things in measure to things in excess.” -Seneca
“Formation, méritocratie, ordre et amour… simple.” -Danny J. D’Purb
“Il n’y a pas de ‘social’…le social c’est simplement de l’interaction entre organismes. Donc le terme social n’est pas valide scientifiquement puis qu’il n’est pas précis. Il n’y a que l’individu, ses choix, sa langue, ses capacités [e.g. de synthèse culturelle] et son développement: les acteurs majeurs dans l’explication scientifique, philosophique et psychologique de la conception de l’individu [à noter que chaque conception est unique à l’individu comme ses empreintes digitaux, la forme de son crâne, ou la structure de son corps]” -Danny J. D’Purb
“Proving yourself to ‘others’ doesn’t prove anything. Realize you have nothing to prove.” – Jerry Corstens
“En 2018, en ce qui concerne la Théorie Organique, il n’y a pas vraiment de débat entre intellectuels dans la psychologie, mais simplement la découverte des nouvelles perspectives mécaniques/scientifiques qu’elle introduit pour expliquer la conception psychologique et philosophique de l’individu. Donc la formation, qui ‘peut être’ mécanique et structurée dans son application [e.g. l’apprentissage à distance par texte/video/audio], se développe indirectement pour créer et donner une dimension socio-culturelle à l’individu une fois adoptée, maîtrisée, et déployée.” -Danny J. D’Purb
Philosophie, Science et Société: https://philosciences.com/Pss/
_______________________________________________
Philosophy Review: “The World as Will and Idea”, by Arthur Schopenhauer (1818)
Extract:
Schopenhauer, a pessimistic philosopher, focused on the dark side of life and mental evils and cruelty, which he considered inevitable and that we as psychologists, intellectuals and masters of the mind view as mental disorders that have a negative effect on both the character of the affected and the human environment at large exposed to the vile side of human nature.
This negative view of man’s behaviour and role in life was a sharp contrast to the other more euphoric philosophers who marked the spirits of the generation before him, and who embraced a more idealistic and perhaps a slightly exaggerated euphoric side of man’s mind and character. Though Schopenhauer’s work originally gained little attention at the time it was published [perhaps being too avant-garde for the atavistic institutions of his time], he expressed an interpretation of the world that was dragging and opposed the great ideal of who went before him, such as Victor Schelling and Hegel on some very important points but did not deny expressions of art such as the romantic movement in its various forms.
Schopenhauer who never refrained from publicly criticising people and ideas he disliked was very vocal in his complete contempt for these men, and regarded himself as their great opponent in the ring of the leaders delivering the “Real truth” to mankind and civilisation. Schopenhauer’s work in many ways could be viewed as an extension of another famous German philosopher, namely Immanuel Kant, who preceded him by one generation, delivering his major philosophical work, “a critique of pure reason”. Schopenhauer worked out a system in which reality is known inwardly by a kind of feeling where intellect is only an instrument of the will: the biological will to live and where process rather than result is ultimate.
Schopenhauer’s pessimism lies in his very strong rejection of life. In fact, this rejection is so strong that he even had to address the question of suicide as a solution to life. He fortunately also rejected this “solution” to life, this rejection to life reflected influences with roots in Eastern philosophy, particularly Buddhism, and it is one of the most significant aspects of his work that he was the first Western philosopher to integrate Buddhist thought into Western philosophy. His preoccupation with the evil of the world and the tragedy of life was also somewhat reminiscent of ancient Hindu philosophies. His writings helped to stimulate in Germany an interest in Oriental thought and religion, which can also be seen in the work of many later German philosophers.
In “The World as Will and Idea”, Schopenhauer also considered the important question of the function of art. The value of arts to human life in far more depth than any of his predecessors, and even graded each of the arts, such as music, poetry, architecture [etc], from most important to least important. For that reason, his book had not only a profound effect on future philosophers, but also artists, particularly poets and composers, such as the enigmatic Wagner, who felt indebted to him and sent him a letter of gratitude when he was first introduced to Schopenhauer’s work.
Full Article: https://dpurb.com/2018/08/24/essay-philosophy-review-the-world-as-will-and-idea-by-arthur-schopenhauer-1818/
_______________________________________________