tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post8033223864915415801..comments2024-03-29T00:09:53.914-07:00Comments on Wrestling with Philosophy : Why Be Moral? Plato, The Republic Book IIAmitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-37455304544124530842013-11-21T13:06:35.437-08:002013-11-21T13:06:35.437-08:00Strange: I didn't mention 'original conten...Strange: I didn't mention 'original content', but rather indicated that the blog content was made more interesting to read (and comment upon) by you expressing your own opinion by at least choosing to agree with someone else, which was lacking in previous posts I've read. So that makes roughly two thirds of your response irrelevant.<br />Re: (2) certainly, the professor could have been wrong, but you could also have misinterpreted his meaning, as many have misinterpreted Nietzsche himself.<br />Re: (3) actually, my main 'criticism' of the article was in the informal (poor) use of English, which is unlikely to help struggling students understand the material. The rest of my comment, far from being irrelevant to the content of the post, was an outright and substantive disagreement with the opinion you decided to express throughout, with which I completely undermined your claim (by using your own citations, no less) that there is no reason to behave morally except to obtain the benefits of being perceived as a moral person and explained (as did 'Anonymous November 12, 2013 at 5:09 PM') that this is sociopathic thinking.<br />If this is indeed an expression of your own opinion, it would seem to indicate that your intent in entering the teaching profession is not a noble one, i.e. that you amorally seek to obtain the perceived benefits of being a teacher without the onus. That being said, you never answered my parenthetical question regarding having sex with your students....gfreeteknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-30514145265204191422013-11-18T15:56:01.954-08:002013-11-18T15:56:01.954-08:00Dear gfreetek,
Again, thank you for taking the tim...Dear gfreetek,<br />Again, thank you for taking the time to comment on my blog. Here are a couple of replies to what you have said:<br />(1) Regarding original content: (a) As stated in the header of the blog, the main intent of this blog is to provide summaries of articles and issues that philosophy undergrads will likely encounter. The intent is not to produce new philosophical work. <br />(b) I understand how you might perceive my lack of original work as a sign of intellectual poverty, however, I think this is to misunderstand good scholarship. Consider an analogy to science. Modern science has been around (arguably) for 300 years--depending on where you want to mark the beginning. With this in mind, how would we regard someone who, without reading and engaging with previous literature, went out to "prove" some hypothesis? I think most would regard this as foolish and perhaps a bit arrogant. Now consider philosophy. For most major issues, there is not just 300 years of thought and literature but well over 2000 years. To my mind it would be positively foolish and arrogant for me to come up with my own philosophical theories on these matters without having a good grasp of what has already been said. As I understand it, the point of academia is to engage in an ongoing dialogue and to eventually contribute something original to it. This cannot occur without prior engagement and comprehension. Of course, one might say that after an MA one should know all there is to know about the respective dialogue. But this assumption would betray that persons ignorance regarding the sheer quantity of views, arguments, counter-arguments, and replies there are on any given topic. An MA only gives me a superficial knowledge of what the major positions are. Perhaps, there are people more gifted than I that can immediately contribute in original ways without repeating what was already said millennia ago...Unfortunately my cognitive abilities are limited in that respect.<br />(2) Regarding the Nietzsche comment I consulted a professor who teaches classes on Nietzsche before including it. I suppose he could be wrong... Also, as I'm sure you well know, Nietzsche was very well read in Plato and drew quite heavily on aspects his ethics (see: GofM).<br />(3) Your primary criticism of this article concerns a parenthetical remark about Nietzsche. I thank you for your subsequent discourse on Nietzsche's ethics however it is largely irrelevant to the content of the post. If you have any substantive constructive criticism (i.e., not typos or minor grammatical errors) regarding how I am explaining the actual passage I'm addressing in the post, I and subsequent readers would be very grateful. <br /><br />Once again, I appreciate your input and will continue to take it into account in future posts. Amitabha Palmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-7029100074018827632013-11-12T17:16:29.545-08:002013-11-12T17:16:29.545-08:00Mr. P
In the example of the parent teaching the c...Mr. P<br /><br />In the example of the parent teaching the child to be just: they teach their child that “even without consequences in this life, there will be consequences in the afterlife”. But now comes the question: why would they say that, unless there WERE consequences, even unseen to the child, in THIS life, or at least they think there are? Moses bringing the Ten Commandments down was his way of saying, “Hey, I didn’t give you these laws, God did.” He darn well wanted the laws, so he said “God did it”. Parents know the intrinsic value of justifity, so they teach it like it’s God’s word (unless they’re economists). <br /><br />The statement “see contemporary American culture” is of those looking at some dude on a TV screen, not meeting him in real life! Real life is different. How many of your favourite musicians/actresses/politicians would you hate if you had to deal with them in real life? While at the same time I might become good friends with Kenny G. if I met him. But his music is pure evil. Also, take that favorite, @sshole musician, he might be a jerk just for the cameras because he thinks like you, “People like it”, but be a super-duper guy in real life. <br /><br />Just my humble opinion. <br /><br />Love the blog. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-67738722435475885572013-11-12T17:09:11.392-08:002013-11-12T17:09:11.392-08:00Mr. Amitabha,
Maybe the unjust man’s life is ha...Mr. Amitabha, <br /><br /><br />Maybe the unjust man’s life is happy, but he spreads negative consequences around. Maybe the just man’s life is misunderstood but he spreads justice around. Perceived or not, it can be added in the aggregate and to all the people who’s lives he has touched. In the aggregate, the just man’s life is WAY better. From a personal perspective, his life sucks. It sucks to be misunderstood (Elvis and The Animals know). However that is one man’s life against all the justice he brings to others! Bring it on Justice Man. He knows for himself about all that aggregate good he does. The perception of the unjust man is equivalent in the opposite direction. Lots of people love him though he does them wrong. Reminds me of certain presidents. <br /><br />Nex queshon. In the example of the extreme unjust man: will an unjust man’s life be happy if he always has to concern himself with getting the better of others by treating them unjustly? Maybe he’ll get caught one day. It doesn’t happen because this is a made up scenario, but it might! He’ll never know until his head hits that last pillow. How many criminals live an unhappy life, even when they succeed? Happy unjust people have a name: sociopath. <br /><br /><br />Dan Ariely in “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty” found that it wasn’t the getting caught that caused people to be honest, it was the social contract, personal dignity or facing the disappointment of a loved one if they found out...in other words “social and personal consequences”. <br /><br />Thank you Dr. Brown. He seems like a Just Man. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-6478573310502796802013-11-12T03:37:35.381-08:002013-11-12T03:37:35.381-08:00Dear gfreetek,
I thank you for your valuable feed...Dear gfreetek, <br />I thank you for your valuable feedback and the time and care with which you wrote it. I won't have time to adequately respond to your criticism this week, but I will make an effort to reply over the weekend. In the meantime, I'll do my best to curtail my sociopathic tendencies. Also, you'll be happy to know that my job comes with health insurance and so I will look into whether is covers clinical treatment for my sociopathic condition. I'll keep you posted.Amitabha Palmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-21203348344596262022013-11-11T03:29:45.850-08:002013-11-11T03:29:45.850-08:00An accurate sense of self-worth alone is sufficien...An accurate sense of self-worth alone is sufficient to enable a person to determine that which is ‘moral/just/good’, as you describe in your post, setting aside any concept of divine or societal judgement: a ‘noble man’ conducts himself in such a fashion that his own sense of self-worth is not compromised by his behaviour, that he may live a life without regretting his actions at the end thereof. Nietzsche saw and explained this quite clearly in the concepts of ‘nobility’ and ‘honour’. There is a simple reason why you were not able to comprehend this for yourself: you lack what Nietzsche would have described as ‘nobility’, i.e. that which sets a man apart as a person of substance and self-determination, that which makes him a ‘master’, instead of a ‘slave’ characterized by pessimism and cynicism, exerting one's will not by masterful strengths of character but by careful, passive-aggressive subversions.<br />The equivalent of 'nobility' in Buddhism, much admired by Nietzsche as a religion promoting critical thought processes, would be the quality of ‘wisdom’, by which, hand-in-hand with the complimentary qualities of courage and compassion, one is able to determine a course of action resulting in value-creation over those that do not, or those of more limited capacity such as those creating value only for oneself, i.e. selfish and self-promoting or nepotistic actions. Nietzsche's 'noble man' is capable of acting for the 'greater good' even in cases when this results in persecution for his actions, because when all is said and done he remains self-assured that he committed to the 'right/just/good/noble/etc.' course of action, and finds comfort and solace in this fact.<br />Should you take the trouble to look back over your life, I imagine you would see a pattern of such behaviour, wherein you used your persuasive skills (Phil 102) to subvert others into complying with your wishes and fulfilling your desires contrary to their own, thereby turning ‘masters’ into ‘slaves’ like yourself. This is not the behaviour of a ‘noble man’, as Nietzsche would have understood it.<br />Out of concern (but not ‘pity’) for your health I should point out at this stage that you have been identified by your words and deeds as expressing potentially sociopathic tendencies by a qualified mental health professional, and I strongly urge you to seek an independent clinical diagnosis and treatment for that condition. I refer you, and anyone who knows you, to the following website for further information:<br /><br />http://www.wikihow.com/Determine-if-Someone-Is-a-Sociopath<br /><br />I sincerely wish you the best, and hope that clinical treatment will ultimately lead to future value-creation in your life, and in the lives of those adversely affected.gfreeteknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-44019636146171579982013-11-11T03:27:52.752-08:002013-11-11T03:27:52.752-08:00Really? You’re teaching now? If that is the case, ...Really? You’re teaching now? If that is the case, and your blog posts are for educational purposes, then I must urge you to get a better grasp of the English language since there are numerous grammatical errors and peer-unsupported neologisms such that a student might find your posts confusing, at best, or misleading, at worst. Informality has its place, certainly, but is about as appropriate to an educational setting as having sex with your students (you didn't, right?).<br />I’m heartened to see you took my previous advice concerning the expression of your own opinions, instead of simply reiterating the opinions of others: it certainly affords a rhetorical value to your arguments that was previously lacking. However, regarding your section headed “Sympathy for the Wicked,” I feel I must counter that ‘understanding’ does not necessarily connote ‘sympathy’. Perhaps you are confused by the translation of the term ‘mitleid’, from Nietzsche’s native German, which correlates more closely with the English concept of ‘pity’ (see "The Anti-Christ," F. W. Nietzsche), being an emotional response that Nietzsche himself would have vilified.<br />One can ‘understand’ without either ‘sympathy’ or synonymous ‘pity’, since a more appropriate synonym for ‘understanding’ in this case is ‘cognizance’, which connotes how one can be in possession of awareness and knowledge on a purely intellectual level without feeling even the smallest degree of pity nor any other emotional response for a subject. A person who ‘understands’ the behaviour of sociopaths may be entirely 'unsympathetic' to their plight.<br />You boldly cite Nietzsche, but evidently without truly comprehending, beyond anything but the most superficial of levels, or perhaps wilfully misinterpreting to suit your own purposes (as did the German nationalists and neo-Nazis before you), his concept of ‘Noble/Master Morality’ which values open-mindedness, courage, truthfulness, trust and an accurate sense of self-worth: in describing possible reasons for moralistic behaviour, you entirely overlook that which Nietzsche held as central to his philosophy, i.e. that a ‘noble man’ is able to determine for himself (please forgive the masculo-centrism – this is antiquated source material that predates considerations for gender equality) that which accords honour to things, that which determines the creation of value, without the need for social consensus or public approval.gfreeteknoreply@blogger.com