Re: So I've been thinking about it for a long time.aviolentrageOctober 7 2004, 00:59:37 UTC
I think you definitely have a point there: philosophy seeks to abstract--or generalize--a lot of really complicated empirical evidence, and as philosophers are all people who are fallible by nature, there's little chance that they can neatly and rationally compact all the elements of what it means to exist into an understandable set of moral guidelines. I don't know that I'd say it's impossible to have a rationally sound philosophy--I'm not studied or sharp enough to really dissect and analyze the logic of some difficult stuff like Plato--but it seems as though it'd definitely be a challenge, and it's likely a path that few--if any--philosophers have successfully navigated.
Well, when you combine all that with the fact that philosophers come from a multitude of cultures, have had different experiences, and are inclined to different modes of thought, it's understandable that no one philosopher could offer sentiments that perfectly mesh with my system of perceiving the world. Even if there is a philosopher who's right on the money (and I don't deny this is distinctly possible), my tendency to advocate, say, universal human rights above utilitarianism could easily turn me away from his/her teachings.
In terms of Bentham, I don't really think he was wrong, and that's what it seemed like Kyle (balladking) thought I was saying as well. Of course I'm not accusing Jeremy Bentham of being logically inconsistent: he was an intimidatingly intelligent man, and his ideas have had an absolutely colossal impact upon modern-day politics and, to a lesser extent, ethics. In fact, if my logic clashed directly with his on any specific issue, I'd more than likely believe that he was correct. But that doesn't apply here, so we have room to differ.
In terms of a philosophy "holding true," I picture a hypothetical starting point. If you start from the same point as a philosopher and arrive at the same conclusions he did, either his philosophy held true or you both made the same mistake. In the case of Bentham, I'm not saying he made any mistakes along the way, I'm simply saying I don't like the bases for his philosophical meanderings--I wouldn't have started from the same basic principles if I were him. I don't like that malicious violence isn't inherently evil, but only generally happens to be evil given a context in which more pain than pleasure is derived. There are many situations, like the hypothetical one I offered Kyle, in which actions I believe are repugnant could be considered perfectly just according to Bentham. This doesn't prove him wrong or illogical at all, and this is precisely because the assumptions he had going in to everything (pleasure is the ultimate good, the pleasure of the group is inherently of more value than any moral principle, like universal human rights) aren't testable assertions. They're assertions that are at odds with currently conventional methods of conceiving of good and evil, though, and that's likely why I find them so difficult to accept.
I hope that made sense.
In essence, I'm saying that in philosophy for me, it often comes down to finding a man who teaches lessons that are compatible with modern Western values. I find this in retrospect, of course: far be it from me to actively seek out philosophers only because I think their writings will reflect my previously held beliefs. That's not to say that I haven't learned anything or changed any of my opinions in the course of reading about philosophers, but it's no coincidence, I suspect, that the teachings I'm drawn to are the very ones that paved the way for many of the current values in our nation.
Well, when you combine all that with the fact that philosophers come from a multitude of cultures, have had different experiences, and are inclined to different modes of thought, it's understandable that no one philosopher could offer sentiments that perfectly mesh with my system of perceiving the world. Even if there is a philosopher who's right on the money (and I don't deny this is distinctly possible), my tendency to advocate, say, universal human rights above utilitarianism could easily turn me away from his/her teachings.
In terms of Bentham, I don't really think he was wrong, and that's what it seemed like Kyle (balladking) thought I was saying as well. Of course I'm not accusing Jeremy Bentham of being logically inconsistent: he was an intimidatingly intelligent man, and his ideas have had an absolutely colossal impact upon modern-day politics and, to a lesser extent, ethics. In fact, if my logic clashed directly with his on any specific issue, I'd more than likely believe that he was correct. But that doesn't apply here, so we have room to differ.
In terms of a philosophy "holding true," I picture a hypothetical starting point. If you start from the same point as a philosopher and arrive at the same conclusions he did, either his philosophy held true or you both made the same mistake. In the case of Bentham, I'm not saying he made any mistakes along the way, I'm simply saying I don't like the bases for his philosophical meanderings--I wouldn't have started from the same basic principles if I were him. I don't like that malicious violence isn't inherently evil, but only generally happens to be evil given a context in which more pain than pleasure is derived. There are many situations, like the hypothetical one I offered Kyle, in which actions I believe are repugnant could be considered perfectly just according to Bentham. This doesn't prove him wrong or illogical at all, and this is precisely because the assumptions he had going in to everything (pleasure is the ultimate good, the pleasure of the group is inherently of more value than any moral principle, like universal human rights) aren't testable assertions. They're assertions that are at odds with currently conventional methods of conceiving of good and evil, though, and that's likely why I find them so difficult to accept.
I hope that made sense.
In essence, I'm saying that in philosophy for me, it often comes down to finding a man who teaches lessons that are compatible with modern Western values. I find this in retrospect, of course: far be it from me to actively seek out philosophers only because I think their writings will reflect my previously held beliefs. That's not to say that I haven't learned anything or changed any of my opinions in the course of reading about philosophers, but it's no coincidence, I suspect, that the teachings I'm drawn to are the very ones that paved the way for many of the current values in our nation.
Reply
Leave a comment