4 ms·

Indeed. I have heard it said that the French Revolution marked the end of the Enlightenment. No doubt that the founders of the French Revolution didn't quite h

by javert 11y ago

Indeed. I have heard it said that the French Revolution marked the end of the Enlightenment. No doubt that the founders of the French Revolution didn't quite have the intellectual framework they needed. Neither did the US Founding Fathers---their "natural rights" (granted by a "Creator") was extremely close, but has not withstood the test of time. edit: I wrote a long and thoughtful response to a grandchild of this comment, but then could not post it because I am "submitting too fast"---fuck you too, HN.

virmundi 11y ago
The only intellectual framework that could work, outside of a Creator, is a state of nature. The problem with the Founders' and the French's state of nature argument is theirs wasn't the Nihilists' state of nature. The Nihilists are right. If there is no creator, all morality and power structures are arbitrary. Without a foundation on which to build or an authority to appeal, everything is permissible. We might say that something's wrong. Unfortunately it's only wrong as long as a society arbitrarily says so. That goes for everything. Nothing has any meaning apart from what we say. Everything will be forgotten. This means that everything will have no speaker. Thus is will mean nothing. Most people can't live with that. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming years.
- javert 11y ago
  We get pleasure from sating our hunger, quenching our thirst, getting warm when cold, getting cold when warm. Moreover, our brains just naturally produce pleasure chemicals when we are not in a state of fear, pain, anxiety, or severe need. That is why each of us values his life---or should. Now if we value our lives, we have to find a way to get along and not kill one another---and perhaps we can even trade with one another to mutual benefit. Thus, governments are instituted among men, by men, to serve men. What was that you were saying about nothing having "meaning"? The pleasure we get from living is the root that makes all other values meaningful. What was that about everything being permissible? Feel free to shoot yourself in the foot---just don't shoot mine, or I will shoot back. Feel free not to take care of and preserve that value that is your own life (per my first paragraph), but I will take care of and cherish mine.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  Nah - there are inherent moral intuitions in humans. Even gross abuse of political power has a footing in something real. The Founders played this great Deist trick of the light - they appealed to a nonspecific $PROVENANCE as a sort of sum of all the good, without the smiting and the killing and the glaivin. I think the real problem began with the Romantics, who were generally out of their depth. To the extent that this informed the French Revolution... so we have Burke, who take a sober look at it all and says some very intelligent things about it.
- wisty 11y ago
  I suppose it depends on whether you want prescriptive or descriptive morality, or some middle ground (perhaps a combination of utilitarian ethics, and descriptions of what seems to work).

by javert 11y ago

virmundi 11y ago

The only intellectual framework that could work, outside of a Creator, is a state of nature. The problem with the Founders' and the French's state of nature argument is theirs wasn't the Nihilists' state of nature. The Nihilists are right. If there is no creator, all morality and power structures are arbitrary. Without a foundation on which to build or an authority to appeal, everything is permissible. We might say that something's wrong. Unfortunately it's only wrong as long as a society arbitrarily says so. That goes for everything. Nothing has any meaning apart from what we say. Everything will be forgotten. This means that everything will have no speaker. Thus is will mean nothing. Most people can't live with that. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming years.

javert 11y ago
We get pleasure from sating our hunger, quenching our thirst, getting warm when cold, getting cold when warm. Moreover, our brains just naturally produce pleasure chemicals when we are not in a state of fear, pain, anxiety, or severe need. That is why each of us values his life---or should. Now if we value our lives, we have to find a way to get along and not kill one another---and perhaps we can even trade with one another to mutual benefit. Thus, governments are instituted among men, by men, to serve men. What was that you were saying about nothing having "meaning"? The pleasure we get from living is the root that makes all other values meaningful. What was that about everything being permissible? Feel free to shoot yourself in the foot---just don't shoot mine, or I will shoot back. Feel free not to take care of and preserve that value that is your own life (per my first paragraph), but I will take care of and cherish mine.
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
Nah - there are inherent moral intuitions in humans. Even gross abuse of political power has a footing in something real. The Founders played this great Deist trick of the light - they appealed to a nonspecific $PROVENANCE as a sort of sum of all the good, without the smiting and the killing and the glaivin. I think the real problem began with the Romantics, who were generally out of their depth. To the extent that this informed the French Revolution... so we have Burke, who take a sober look at it all and says some very intelligent things about it.
wisty 11y ago
I suppose it depends on whether you want prescriptive or descriptive morality, or some middle ground (perhaps a combination of utilitarian ethics, and descriptions of what seems to work).