Dark Energy - 06 April 2011 05:02 PM
Can you see the problem when the term “morality” is accepted as an actuality and then its source is sought?
When the essential emptiness of self is apperceived, all terms that apply to its behavior become meaningless.
Factor out the self and free will and morality has no where to stick.
Morality is part of experienced reality for humans.
(t)
One could also say that angels are part of experienced reality for some humans.
I am suggesting that that which the mind labels “morality” is nothing but a naturally evolved consideration for others.
It is biologically advantageous to any gene pool when the individuals within help each other and those helping qualities are passed on to the next generation.
Cooperation, reciprocity and empathy are simply evolved qualities that help the organism survive and reproduce.
When he concept “morality” can be seen as the survival of the kindest it is stripped of its popular grandiose, puffed up meaning.
Humans act on it or use it to explain their actions.
(t)
I would suggest that humans re re-act to circumstances based on their acquired wiring and that their reactions can’t be called “moral” of “amoral” anymore than that of a helpful dog or horse.
It may eventually boil down to nothing more than a language game in which we are lured by our deceptive brains.
(t)
Indeed.
Words used to sort out word problems.
But that does not render the phenomenon non-existent. Your question seems to suggest that a priori knowledge of ultimate origin of phenomena is needed to grant existence to the phenomenon in question itself.
(t)
Au contraire.
I am saying that mind invents the idea “truth” and then sets out to discover the ultimate meaning of its own concept.
It can deal with those “things” that have a physical counterpart.
Those that do not will remain forever beyond its conceptual grasp simply because they exist only as ideas.
IOW you are restating over and over your claim that no truth exists without knowledge of ultimate absolute truth.
(t)
I am saying that there is no such thing as truth…......ultimate of otherwise.
What is “true” in nature?
The claim itself is an appeal to truth but knowing that it has no absolute basis should make you reconsider your claim.
As I have explained in my last post, your requirement has nothing to do with the meaning we define in terms of experienced reality. Feel free to suppose some unattainable reality forever hidden for human enquiry,like Kant supposed the Noumenon,
(t)
The thinking mind cannot “see” anything unless it has a name for it.
If it can be objectified it ain’t reality.
It’s a heck of a problem.
But only for the conceptual mind and its spurious self.
but don’t infer from it that no meaningfull statements can be made in relation to experienced reality. It does not follow from the lack of access to absolute truth that all truth statements based in experienced reality are without meaning. On the contrary, meaning can only be rooted in experienced reality and can within that reality be defined in terms of predictability and explaining capability.
(t)
Mind evolved to make connections.
It can predict the seasons and migrations.
The problem occurs when is mistakes its conceptual overlay for reality.
Compare this with the observation of Einstein that there is no special frame of reference in nature. Still every observer measures the same speed of light. Before Einstein every thinker who delved into the enigma of constant light speed in all directions figured that there had to be a special frame of reference. Einstein turned this around and took the contant lightspeed for every observer as a fundamental principle of nature. Hence he was able to better predict and model many natural phenomena.
(t)
The speed of light can be measured.
Determining the quality of truth or love is a little more difficult.
Morality as a set of guidelines for human behaviour does not need free will, it only needs some understanding of causality, of the observed relation between action and consequences.
(t)
That, I believe, is what Mr Harris tries to point out in his recent book.
Morality loses all relevance without free will.
If it is merely a reaction dictated by evolution the attempt to call it good or bad is just plain silly.
Mind conceptually separates its perceptions from within its personal, self-referential point of view.
Individual events exist only within its own frame of reference.
The quality of each event is determined by how it is imagined to help or harm the individual.
There are no separate events.
The imagined “choice” between them is an illusion: but the thinking mind of man can never see that.
Without a basis of free will in physical reality, there still is the perception of freedom, there is the feedback from thinking about the relation between actions and consequences on behavior in newly arising situations and there is growing control over our future with the aid of accumulated knowledge (science, medicine). We cannot will our actions from the ground up but we can influence our actions by learning about desired and avoidable consequences. Freedom evolves.
