Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Drank Right

Yah.

Drank right last night...

(I suppose that could be a country/western hit. Fill in the rest but NOT ON MY BLOG.)

Met an interesting fellow who does not believe in natural law (or inborn conscience)--and a delightful young ladyfriend of his who thinks he's nuts. She's right, but HE sits at the right hand of a Potentate du Bloggerdom. (She also knows her Plato/Phaedrus dialog and can distinguish Kant from previous post-Scholastic philosophers; impressive, as she doesn't look that old. As for the discussion, I erroneously brought up Kant but SHOULD have mentioned the Sohm-Harnack school.)

Talked with a fellow who's a distant relative of the folks who built a subsidiary of the late, lamented Milwaukee Cheese empire. I miss those pickles.

Visited with a favorite--AB, who rivals my annuation. We were the adults at the party, which may or may not be a good sign for the Republic.

Heard rumor that Chris called the Eagle/McMiller Right-Blog-Gun-Date for 9/30th. Trying to confirm.

Renewed acquaintance with beer-guzzling DCS and NeoConTastic who advised that two of their sisters will meet soon in Madistan for purposes of birthing, or some such.

Met the mysterious Confidentials lady who is a knockout. Too bad she's so ....mysterious.

Met Sean and renewed the debate. Ann Coulter rules, Sean. But she is NOT polite and she is NOT Jay Leno. She's actually Jim Sensenbrenner's alter ego.

Missed meeting Jeff Wagner who was being a sober election-results guy.

All the Big-Time Bloggers were attending Real Politician Events. Some were happy.

Missed other folks, as well. Maybe next time.

5 comments:

steveegg said...

Source of shooting rumor - Would September 30th work for the shooting event?

triticale said...

I was on the fringe of that philosophical debate early on, but drifted away both because it was too deep for me and because you two were talking right past each other. The difference of opinion went far beyond the point of contention.

Dad29 said...

You're right, Trit. I didn't start at the beginning with him, which would have been Y/N: are you atheist?

But he wasn't going to tell me how "society" came up with by-and-large consistent rules (across all civilizations.) That's key.

Further, I don't think that he was going to admit that the commonality was NOT an accident; IOW, that the commonality was present because of an inborn (albeit rough) sense of right/wrong.

Frankly, I don't know to what he attributed that commonality.

Wish you had jumped in. Woulda been fun.

Cantankerous said...

Dad..he attributes the commonality to a universal sense of need not morality.

A very rough outline of his argument goes like this:

It is out of necessity that societies were formed and rules were made, not out of a sense of moral obligation.

It's not that people are nice to each other because of a natural, inherent sense but rather, it's a hell of a lot easier to live if you're not trying to kill each other all the time.

So, if you're the first guy in the first society, the only reason you don't kill your neighbor is because you realize that working together will make your life easier. It's the whole selfish vs. selfless argument in disguise.

Now, as you know, I don't argue in favor of this line of thinking, but I think it's in fairness that his full version of the story should get out there.

There is not one philosopher who has ever proved moral sense, and a lot of them have tried. So, I guess he's not that crazy after all. In fact, a lot of moral theorists have argued in a vein similar to his. I just happen to disagree with all of them.

Anyway, it was a pleasure meeting you, as well. I thoroughly enjoyed our conversation, and hope to talk with you again.

On a side note, I knew that philosophy degree would come in handy, sometime!

Dad29 said...

That approximates what he said.

It is out of necessity that societies were formed and rules were made, not out of a sense of moral obligation

This bifurcates the argument. I maintain that "rules" are based on morals (and define "morals" as the result of the inborn knowledge of right/wrong.) Thus, "societal rules" generally comport with morals. Although not an anthropologist, the only deviations from Judaeo-Christian norms I recall reading about were deviations for 'religious' purposes: human sacrifice to the gods/god. IOW, "religious mandate" over-rode typical moral constraint--typical being "the rules" found across civilizations.

So, if you're the first guy in the first society, the only reason you don't kill your neighbor is because you realize that working together will make your life easier. It's the whole selfish vs. selfless argument in disguise.

Yes. But the argument can also be phrased in this way: that "selfless" and "selfish" co-incide for a reason. If you exculpt the first three of the Decalogue (those which deal with man-God relations) all the rest are essentially enshrined in "the rules." Respect for elders, don't knock off folks willy-nilly, keep away from another's wife, respect property and reputation, etc.

There is not one philosopher who has ever proved moral sense, and a lot of them have tried.

Only if you do not consider the work of St Paul "philosophical." But it was. He did not 'prove' the case, he simply asserted it a priori.

Just as much as no philosopher has been able to prove the case, so no philosopher has been able to DIS-prove the case.

Leaping over a few steps, then, we can conclude from reason that it is not a co-incidence that "the rules" and "morals" are the same.

I will grant that the assertion is faith-based; but that is not, ipso facto un-reasonable.

Nor do I maintain that he is crazy. He simply did not make his case. For in order to make his case, he would have to show that 'selfishness' and 'selflessness' although leading to the same "rules" results, are entirely disparate in ontology.

He didn't.