http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07Brooks.html Basically this changing intellectual trend does away with the need to seek legitimacy for one's beliefs according to the ground rules set up those who would oppose it. After all, what's so legitimate about their emotional beliefs?
A casual observation I have made is that for all practical purposes, we are seen as if our (individual) moral system is set, that it doesn't develop, that we just 'have it', that it is a given the same as our natural eye color, for example. That 'you are who you are', and that there is no development. And that if a person does show signs of change, this is seen as hypocrisy. (Despite the great volumes that developmental psychology produced on the topic of moral reasoning and its development.) I think such an outlook ('you are who you are') can lead to not reflecting on one's moral judgments, and to not trying to see if they are justified or not.
Which came first the chicken or the egg? I would say that emotions are the output of the subconsious mind's interpretation of what is right/wrong. What does this mean? It means that if you look at the situations where people "feel" something is wrong logically, there is a clear belief set that links the situations together. When people realize this, they become consious of that belief set and then talk about "what they believe is right". In truth morality is perfectly logical and easy to understand in general - its just when you get into specifics that it gets complicated. Don't act selfishly or the people you hurt will gang up and stop you. That's it - from there its just an issue of defining "seflish". Is it selfish to speed on the highway or selfish for people to ask you not to? etc.
Perhaps your right. It was the title of the article so I just thought to run with it. It goes a bit further than that. The rise and now dominance of this emotional approach to morality is an epochal change. It challenges all sorts of traditions. It challenges the bookish way philosophy is conceived by most people. It challenges the Talmudic tradition, with its hyper-rational scrutiny of texts. It challenges the new atheists, who see themselves involved in a war of reason against faith and who have an unwarranted faith in the power of pure reason and in the purity of their own reasoning. IOW it also suggests that reason is predominantly called upon to bolster an emotional response/opinion, as opposed to establish a level playing field.
I don't see that at all. The entire article, including what you've quoted here, is specific in its context: ethics. I'm not saying it's not a worthwhile topic, I just don't see how it reaches beyond the ethical scope...
By suggesting that we first call upon what we deem "ethical" before embarking on discussions of logic, as opposed to logic alone being the last call for a level playing field.
Even standard models of pedagogy recognize that the individual has many systems in place to resist a change to their value system ..... even if their entire environment is crashing down around them.
Hmmm. I didn't see that notion indicated. Still, I have to say, if it's to be the case that ethics must be granted some kind of primacy then I would have to agree with the notion that this harkens the 'end of philosophy'. Of course, I'd never accept such a silly premiss, so it's no problem for me.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Man, these are desperate times. The more reasonable a non-believer, the more belief philosophers reach deeper into the depths of the claim legitimacy jar, thus further enhancing the delusion. At least it gives both sides something different to talk about. It's a Shepherd's Hook, keeping the flock together.
I agree, to me, this seems also to be the trend nowadays: First decide what is right and wrong, and then justify it. As if our sense of right and wrong would be preset and beyond analysis.
The problem with 'general morality' is that it is just too general, allowing for a miriad of interpretations.
In the wider picture of philosophy, I think it is always dynamic (or to say it another way, mental speculation alone is incapable of reaching a conclusion). What we see in the way of philosophical "trends" is an antithesis to how it is applied. In this case, we have an antithesis to ..... It challenges the bookish way philosophy is conceived by most people. It challenges the Talmudic tradition, with its hyper-rational scrutiny of texts. It challenges the new atheists, who see themselves involved in a war of reason against faith and who have an unwarranted faith in the power of pure reason and in the purity of their own reasoning. IOW while wearing the cloak of logic, these philosophical approaches are blatantly flaunting (and somewhat blind of) their emotional underpinnings. I think sci is testimony to this.
That's simply your emotional determination speaking Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ahhh. OK. Now I see what you're getting at here. I like your analogy here. Hmmm. Well, my response to that would simply be: isn't that always the case for everyone? Why single out philosophical practice? "sci"??
Because it is divorced from experience I would say - or to put it another way....this kind of speculation presumes it has in memory enough experience to draw conclusions. That it truly can add this abstraction to that one and know all that can be included and all that cannot be in the shared set. I agree with this, though I would not start with ethics. I think a radical investigation of what one does not want to notice - and any other significant experiential and conceptual distortions one may have. I cannot see any other way to do this than to move beyond and underneath the chatter in the mind. Could you expand on this point?
Hence "the end of philosophy is nigh", after all, what makes your emotional underpinnings more valid than mine? reason on sciforums is an abused donkey labouring under the stress of the enormous emotional demands placed on it by its owners (how's that for an effective analogy?)
That doesn't answer my question: why say this is specific to philosophic endeavors? Ah. I thought you mean SciForums; just wasn't sure. You have some methodology other than reason to suggest?
I didn't need to hear that someone thinks it's logically sound for religious philosophers to basically have carte blanche, immunity or impunity....or whatever you want to call it when it comes to reporting their stunning insight. I don't think the SciForums' denizens will really feel too threatened by a bunch of condescending, religiously philosophical misfits. This will merely humor them.