|
Aswad -> RE: Gorean Philosophy (7/5/2009 2:07:28 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
For instance: war and mutual co-operation are readily defined by common consent; whereas ideas of equality and honour will vary from person to person.
I was not aware that war required consent...
quote:
I really think the best approach to government and society is a pragmatic approach as opposed to one built on ideals such as equality and superiority etc.
From a naturalistic perspective, that might be considered an ideal in itself: that which works.
quote:
It is not an easy task to draw the line between that which is learned and that which is a natural preference.
Mine field may be understating it. That said, a lot of the factors you mentioned are ones for which there is clear evidence for a natural, genetic predisposition to one or the other. Many are directly linked to the structure, function or degree of activity in specific brain regions, and most are covariant with the occurence of traits considered to be mental disorders. Nurture does not have nearly as much impact on the existence of these predispositions as it does on their expression, however. In a racist environment, a person is likely to express the innate human xenophobia (reptilian or pre-reptilian evolutionary stage; theorized to be intended to induce avoidance of corpses, and possibly also to prevent interspecies breeding) in the manner typically associated with that environment. In another environment, other forms of expression are sought instead, potentially also with other targets.
While a bit of a stretch, one might say the notion of kink and the existence of BDSM communities is a peculiarity of the expression of human sexuality in a society which rejects natural human sexuality, and that- paraphrasing- fails to see that the breast is more noble than the shirt that covers it. Of course, any study on a taboo subject will be controversial (e.g. Kinsley et al, Rind et al, etc.), but there is at least some evidence to the effect that the occurence of such atypical forms of sexuality is lower in societies with a more liberal (one might say primitive or animalistic, which might be seen as a negative value judgment in another fora) attitude toward sexuality.
That would seem to be the point made in a quote discussed in another thread at the moment.
quote:
The Christian values that are ingrained in our society are a human construct and part of our evolution.
Actually, it would be far more accurate to say that some of them derive from such a thing. Until the modern era, there was a fairly limited degree of evolution in evidence, and the root was not evolution, but the work of a handful of men who aggressively persecuted opponents of their views and extensively revised the actual product of evolution. As such, the values in question are the constructs of a handful of humans, and might more properly be viewed as a demonstration of how diversity is required to avoid local maxima obscuring stronger maxima in such processes as evolution, as well as an abject lesson in the dangers of rejecting evolution (the unedited product) in favor of untested ideals.
Religion is indeed a critical part of human evolution, but modern Christianity is hardly a religion in that sense.
quote:
I suppose the point I'm making is that Nietzsche had a certain view of Christian values because of circumstances in his life outside of his control; they were a coping mechanism rather than the final word on the limitations of Christianity.
There are nearly always flaws in the works of one who starts out with rejecting something, which Nietzsche did write a bit about (slave morality, etc.). However, brilliant works tend to require some form of inspiration, and adversity can be one of the greatest inspirations there is. You may find that Ayn Rand's works are similarly flawed in starting from the position of rejecting what she was used to, rather than embracing what she was working towards, for example. The process of deciding which things have been seen clearly, and which have been clouded by "trauma" (for lack of a more suitable word), is up to the reader, always.
Nietzsche may have started from a position of having difficulties with life, family, and so forth, and of rejecting what he saw as wrong in Christianity, but he is not the only one to arrive at the same conclusions, and not always by the same route. If one proceeds from the assumption that Christianity was a good idea that went sour, and then applies scholarly research and rational thought to the process of sorting out which parts are from the original idea, and which parts are souring it up (e.g. editor bottlenecks and revisionism, pragmatic solutions to past problems causing present problems, political compromises, etc.), one may well end up with a religion whose ideals are very close to those espoused by Goreans. That's what I did, in any case.
quote:
Anyway - I'm not one for simply reading things - I prefer a discussion.
While I can relate, there really is a larger volume of past discussions in the archives than is likely for anyone to have the inclination and fortitude to reiterate here. Taken as a point of reference for a new discussion, however, they can provide you with the best of both worlds.
Health,
al-Aswad.
|
|
|
|
