rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/29/84)
[ODD NUMBERS OF '>'s = SARGENT; EVEN NUMBERS OF '>'s = ROSEN] >> A bad reason to get precepts out of books of wisdom is precisely because >> these people may have thought up some rational things (occasionally), but >> they failed to explain the reasoning behind their thinking, and as I've >> already mentioned, if there's no clear cut reason why a law exists, it's >> worthless. > I don't know the answer to the following question, but did ALL ancient > writers of books of wisdom fail to give reasons for what they suggested? > When I said "books of wisdom" rather than just "the Bible", I was intending > to include those of other philosophers, e.g. the ancient Greeks. Check > yourself. Do you make a point of opposing only the Bible (under the guise > of "rationalism"), or do you deny all past wisdom? First, rationalism is not a "guise". Second, yes, many books of wisdom have offered explanations of the universe and ways to live. *And* they have actually provided explanations for their reasoning. In many cases, their reasoning has been proven faulty based on newly acquired evidence, and rational people discard their previous notions in light of the new evidence. "Past wisdom" is only as valid as its validity, and is not to be taken at face value just because it comes from "wise" people of now or then. [Check out the current discussion on brain/mind in various newsgroups including net.sci] To jump the gun: next, you might say "Well, by your own admission, you are constantly changing your point of view based on new evidence. Why do that when the bible offers the final truth already laid out for you by god?" To which the only logical answer is "Yeah. Right. Sure." In light of evidence uncovered about the nature of the origins of the bible, and in light of the total lack of evidence found therein (and the debunking [which means disproving, not attacking, as some would have you believe] of the things put forth *as* evidence), what other answer can one give? Can one rationally give the same direct rejection to books of science? Only if one has uncovered new *evidence* to formulate a new scientific model... >> It makes more sense to formulate rules for a society of imperfect people by >> using rationality rather than wisdom. Rationality means that you design >> laws and give reasons for their existence.... Wisdom is just a bunch of >> words in a book that YOU happen to agree with (like the empty words of Lewis >> or McDowell). One person's wisdom is another person's jokebook. > We have different definitions of wisdom. My working definition is something > like "a knowledge of how people are inside and how they function, and what > happens/how they feel when they do certain things, and how to act so as to > optimize life." Wisdom is a quality of character possessed by living people > as well as ancient writers, particularly by older people who have had time to > observe a lot of life. BTW, I would hesitate to consider the words of a man > of Lewis's intelligence "empty". I *did* hesitate. Then I re-read what he said. Now I don't hesitate anymore. Lewis' intelligence is irrelevant. His words are what is relevant. If they are correct observations and he has the IQ of a melon, then the words are still correct and quite worthy of note. If he is of considerable intelligence and his words are not worth the paper they're printed on, then it's the words that must stand the test, regardless of the "But he's an intelligent man" arguments. > I think the reason that the reasons for, e.g., the > BIblical morality were omitted because the effects (or possible effects) of > doing otherwise would be obvious. (Consider the state of the Roman Empire > during the first century A.D., when the New Testament was being written; > Seneca, I think, wrote "Innocence was not rare in the Roman Empire; it was > nonexistent." Much like today.) Huh? What possible effects are you talking about? The only ones I can think of involve an enlightened populace. How quickly you forget WHEN the morality sections were written---not in Roman times, but thousands of years before, when there was no "excuse" not to give a reason for a given "law". (Upon re-reading, it seems that you might have meant some deleterious effect from Roman authority; I still have no idea what you may be referring to for sure.) (Perhaps, the ultimate blasphemy, there WERE NO REASONS...) >> Just because there are some things in the book [the Bible] that make sense >> doesn't mean that the whole book should be used a pattern for living, nor >> does it mean that the book is divinely authored. > This reminds me of something Rich wrote to me in a private letter > (approximate quote from memory): "A morality based de facto on a book is > a bankrupt concept." The key words here are "de facto". I agree with this > statement! If you're doing nothing but following the book, you're missing > out on the real life and freedom (again, not political, but personal) of > Christ, as Paul wrote to the Galatians. The Bible is a good set of > guidelines, but it does little good without the living presence of Christ. It's difficult to get through to people who think freedom means "being able to know what's best for me and then do it". The evidence for the "living presence of Christ" notwithstanding, a belief in such a "presence" manifests itself in belief in the book that describes that "presence", thus such a belief system is a self-perpetuating circle. Believing in that book without evidence for doing so is tantamount to wanting the knowledge of what is "best" for your life without have to go through living to get it, and, face it, Mikey, they don't make that brand of breakfast cereal!! >> So much for C.S. Lewis' need to see such things as external to humanity. > Twice in his article, Rich, in his hypothetical rational societies, used the > example that murder is irrational. But Lewis's argument did not deal on such > a high level. His point was that there is an idea of fair play, a push to do > the good thing even if you have to risk yourself to do it, a standard for > daily behavior which we recognize, but to which none of us fully conforms. > Two of his examples were: 1) When people quarrel, often one sees that one > party has done something not nice and the second party is taking the first > to task because of the first's unfairness or whatever -- appealing to a > standard of fairness or good behavior; and the first party accepts the > standard and tries to excuse his behavior as not really being a violation > of that standard. 2) If you hear a call for help from a drowning person, > you will have two impulses: an impulse to help the person, and an impulse > to preserve your own safety. But there will be a third thing within you, > an idea that you ought to follow the impulse to help the victim, quite > separate from that impulse itself. > Now Rich, in example #2, would probably let the person drown unless the > person meant a lot to him, because it would seem "rational" to preserve > his own safety. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) In example 1 above, I don't jump to the conclusions that Jeff apparently does so readily. I don't assume anything about one person having wronged the other. Perhaps someone else has screwed both of them and each believes the other one is responsible. Perhaps any number of other things. In example 2, I don't know about you, but I feel only the two impulses, and I would weigh whether my attempt to help the other person would be useful in saving him/her and/or whether I might only get myself killed in the process, and determine my actions accordingly. In answer to Jeff's other assumptions about *my* actions, I would "let" the person drown (i.e., not attempt to save them----"letting them drown" has this morality baggage associated with it based on one's being a cruel heartless fiend for not doing anything) if there was nothing that my actions could do to save them. No, I would not flail about in the water and kill myself (I'm a terrible swimmer) just to show that I have made the effort to save someone. *That* would be really irrational. I *would* do my best to make sure that action was taken to save them. I still have seen no evidence that Lewis' notion of "fair play" as being divinely inspired in human beings is nothing more than just *his* notion. The third impulse Jeff describes, the one that "tells" you to risk your life anyway because "it is the right thing to do", seems more to be an outgrowth of Christian indoctrination than anything else. Not that this form of altruistic behavior is a bad thing, but, as Ayn Rand pointed out (I never thought I'd be using Rand to support my viewpoint!), pure altruism as a goal for its own sake is pointless, especially when it is used as a guilt inducer ("Perform your obligations to X, or you're a bad person!" "But why does that make me bad?" "Uhhh...") Of course, Randians take the opposite extreme: that doing only what is good for one's self is appropriate and NOTHING ELSE. On the one extreme, you have people being set up to be altruists and saints on one side, selfish brutes (some would say libertarians) on the other. There is a middle ground, one that accommodates one's needs and the needs of a society that one belongs to. Yes, societies have needs, that should be laid out up front; but the needs of the society are nowhere near as important as the needs of the individuals. Anyway, so much for Lewis' idea that this "impulse" is some sort of divine external prodding or whatever. > Sorry, but Rich seems to be an excellent fulfillment of the prophecy > "Having eyes they do not see, and having ears they do not hear." ... which, I guess, makes Jeff the perfect example of using those eyes and ears to see and hear only what he wants to see and hear... Are there any other prophecies that I can help fulfill by your using generic pithy phrases to describe my actions? Maybe you can make me out to be the antichrist! :-) -- "So, it was all a dream!" --Mr. Pither "No, dear, this is the dream; you're still in the cell." --his mother Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr