4 ms·
This article reminds me that A) Most philosophy writings sounds like the ramblings of cranks B) There is still a lot of value in thinking about them. I thin
by topkai22 5y ago
This article reminds me that
A) Most philosophy writings sounds like the ramblings of cranks
B) There is still a lot of value in thinking about them.
I think that this article is missing a few insights that I value. One is that I’ve come to view something like philosophical truth essentially unknowable- There may be universal truths, but proving that across all scenarios is not feasible. They may even (or likely) be contradictory. Even morality derived from written religious texts has been subject to countless interpretations and reinterpretations. This it’s best to treat morality as probabilistic- I might be highly confident that my stance is correct, but I must always accept that I may be wrong and update on new information.
The other is that authors desire to “give up tribalism” is too simplistic. Tribalism is deeply intertwined with identity, and I don’t think it’s possible to get humans to give up on the concept of identity. However, identity is a complex multilayered thing. I identify as an engineer, as an American, as a man, as a Catholic, as an ethnic Jew, as a Seahawks fan, as a skier, as an alumnus, and many other things. These groups do not share a common morality, but I find ways of coping and moving between them. I think we'd have more success getting people to embrace multiple identities and seeking tolerance between them then to abandon tribe seeking behavior.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- mariusor 5y ago> One is that I’ve come to view something like philosophical truth essentially unknowable "Any human life holds the same intrinsic value". To me this looks like a moral absolute that "can be known". :) There can be discussions on the side of it about how this "value" can come to fruition, or how it can be extended to encompass all sentient life, or just all life, but you can take it as it is and it represents an objective moral absolute that has no influence from "the inside", as prof. Fitzpatrick put it. Do you think I am wrong?