Good and evil

  • Thread starter mikelus
  • Start date
  • #76
Aesthetic Bombast

Thanks for recognizing my bombast and verbosity. I would not have minded if you had also mentioned my confusion and uncertainty. Even so, I hope I see part of your point, about progressing through "knowledge."

But what happens when we reach the point where it becomes strongly intuitive that what we can learn from knowledge is simply not going to be enough? What happens when we realize that there must exist some explanations that will simply forever be beyond our finite perspective? On old maps, perhaps they wrote, "beyond here there be dragons." Nowadays, instead of dragons, we think, "beyond here there be aesthetic, parsimonious metaphors."

If science can arrive at a point of being comfortable with a "final" explanation based on aesthetic metaphors (like under string theory), then why cannot philosophy recognize the possibility of an aesthetic metaphor that underlies our relativistic notions about values? Cannot scientific theories and philosophical values meet at a parsimonious point of aesthetics?

Apparently, scientists, in their faith, do not see ultimate aesthetic metaphors as being devoid of meaning or value. So, I am simply wondering whether an honest concsideration of parsimonious aesthetics as an ultimate justification for values might also be worthwhile? Might it: allow us to be more honest about needing to rely on faith about ultimates that we cannot know; about recognizing needs that can reinforce communities in search of common moral guidance? Kept at a general, parsimonious level, would that be a bad thing?
 
Last edited:
  • #77
316
2
In one book of pictures of Galaxies, there is a most arresting image. One huge spiral galaxy, intersects another at right angles, and surely there is some destruction on a grand scheme there. I am sure this is far away, and long ago, and who knows what the ultimate outcome will be? What would the good/evil of it be? I mean, does the one galaxy get a ticket, for running into the other one, or is the injured galaxy in a no parking zone? I think the good and evil construct, is about victim vs victor mentality. We would do much better if we applied compassion, rather than moral judgement. Then there would be no victims or victors.
 
  • #78
90
0
Dayle Record said:
We would do much better if we applied compassion, rather than moral judgement. Then there would be no victims or victors.
Beautiful, I totally agree.
 
  • #79
Dlan: 'Parsimonious metaphors'

I have no doubt the human race will one day be able to agree on certain ethics. However, in the human world, most of existence is subjective. Since every individual is unique and there will always be different ideas on what is correct, I'm not sure if philosophy will reach an end point, your parsimonious metaphor.

Science itself, is a never ending chain of discovery, rediscovery, change in both understanding and method. It is so much like the rest of philosophy in some ways, that I don't think it will reach an end point either. The Universe itself is always changing and so are our ideas on it.

The tricky part about both science and other philosophies is that everything changes, both the physical world and our ideas, as I have said above.

Now, what will happen if we decide to abandon our human form and become robotic? The human race, like the Universe, is constantly evolving and diverging into new paths.

Along string theory, there is an idea that there was a Universe before the big bang. Since new scientific ideas about existence, some have questioned if there ever was a state of nothingness but always a Universe.

Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of a never ending cycle of creation and destruction, whereby branes or other universes collide perpetually? If one believes in God or some creator(s), then that makes sense. Why create a existence, only to see it destroyed finally? If one were conducting a lab experiment, they would want it to repeat itself and perhaps even, in endlessly new forms.
 
  • #80
Dlan: 'Parsimonious metaphors'

I have no doubt the human race will one day be able to agree on certain ethics. However, in the human world, most of existence is subjective. Since every individual is unique and there will always be different ideas on what is correct, I'm not sure if philosophy will reach an end point, your parsimonious metaphor.

Science itself, is a never ending chain of discovery, rediscovery, change in both understanding and method. It is so much like the rest of philosophy in some ways, that I don't think it will reach an end point either. The Universe itself is always changing and so are our ideas on it.

The tricky part about both science and other philosophies is that everything changes, both the physical world and our ideas, as I have said above.

Now, what will happen if we decide to abandon our human form and become robotic? The human race, like the Universe, is constantly evolving and diverging into new paths.

Along string theory, there is an idea that there was a Universe before the big bang. Since new scientific ideas about existence, some have questioned if there ever was a state of nothingness but always a Universe.

Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of a never ending cycle of creation and destruction, whereby branes or other universes collide perpetually? If one believes in God or some creator(s), then that makes sense. Why create a existence, only to see it destroyed finally? If one were conducting a lab experiment, they would want it to repeat itself and perhaps even, in endlessly new forms.

So here is good and evil, ideas caught between a constantly changing world and human ideals.
 
  • #81
Psycho Fish:
I think I agree with your inference that life might be nearly intolerable if we all shared the same tastes and values in the same degrees. If God exists, I assume God needs variety, even upon the risk of war. So, I do not expect that agreement on a common point of parsimonious reference for moral values should end controversy or conflict. Even so, a natural point of agreement in principle from which to try to find ways to resolve conflicts short of all out war would seem a good thing. So, my query is: might we ever intuit a common pyramid of general values?

At the top of such a pyramid, might there be a sort of “great commandment” responsibility to the material and spiritual environment that nurtures us, resting on a “golden rule” or “rule of the veil” that commands responsibility for fulfilling our present, potential, mutual, and enlightened bliss? Such precepts would not seem inconsistent with a fundamental, perennial philosophy, and most other virtues or values would seem amenable of being rationalized under them.

At a minimum, were we to find some such beginning point of reference, however ambiguous, might we then at least hope to avoid killing and terrorizing each other over whose “God” metaphor for an Ultimate General Source Of Values is “really” correct?
 
  • #82
I believe the human race will find common ground, in terms of some ethics, some day. However, it isn't ideology we fight over most, it is economic interests. Thusly, a world united by economy is one with common values.

Globalization is becoming ever more prevalant, fast mass communication and efficient transportation across large distances is becoming more advanced.

Therefore, by force of economy and accessibility, the human race will mix more and I believe there will be a starting "point" to resolve issues by. A sort of secular Ten Commandments, an agreed upon course of conduct. Yet this won't come over night and it won't come easily.

After all, it took a century of religious warfare in Europe for philosophical tolerance to arise.
 
  • #83
Your points make considerable sense to me. Thanks.
 

Related Threads on Good and evil

  • Last Post
2
Replies
29
Views
6K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
87
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
52
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
597
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
47
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Top