Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Getting back to the theme of this thread would you agree that the problematic concept of intelligence has very little to do with the formation of politcal ideologies? And isn’t it the case that without moral integrity no amount of ‘intelligence’ is a substitute? This places moral agency at the heart of political activity and therefore seems to undermine determinism.
TM -I refer to his elitist views concerning the ‘Übermensch’ who would rise, through his own will, and become a superior being. I was never able to discern a coherent political thesis in his work which is why he can be interpreted by almost all types of politics as one of their own – this is probably both a strength and certainly a weakness in his writing.
‘If you’re referring to the elected members of the government, educated – agreed, intelligent – perhaps not.’
It’s an old leftist cliché based on elitism that ‘if only people were more intelligent they would agree with us.’ Levels of intelligence have little or no influence on political ideologies. Some of the most brilliant scientists have appalling reactionary political views. Nietzsche and Heidegger were undoubtedly geniuses but just look at their politics!
‘Those who would are not likely to think in philosophical terms in the first place; unless they are the fictional villains of De Sade’s novels. (And i don’t think your unrepentant rapist or street thug is that bright).’
TM – Just to point out that some of the greatest criminals have been highly intelligent. The government is full of highly educated and intelligent people without one moral compass between them.
” Do you take moral responsibility for your actions? TM ‘Yes’.
A determinist and denier of free will would have to answer ‘no’ because he believes he has no control of his actions since they are all predetermined. ”So, Wez, you do not take responsibility for your actions, since you have said you reject free will too!
TM – That’s rather below you as you fail to quote me in full. In the next sentence I go on to say that I recognize the contradiction between taking moral responsibility for my actions and my belief in determinism. You do not recognize that problem – or perhaps you choose not to?
Do you take moral responsibility for your actions? TM ‘Yes’.
A determinist and denier of free will would have to answer ‘no’ because he believes he has no control of his actions since they are all predetermined. I agree that many ‘free-willies’ are unprincipled hypocrites and I too am a determinist but I do recognize the paradox of our position in this respect and although I have read a great deal on the subject nobody seems to be able to resolve it satisfactorily – for me.‘Societies have different codes of morality.’
True but they also share a great deal. I notice you didn’t answer my question – do you take moral responsibility for your actions?TM – So when you have done something ‘immoral’ do you not feel guilt? Do you not hold yourself to account for your actions? Or do you blame your dysfunctional family for what you did? Surely a moral compass together with taking responsibility for your actions is a prerequisite of maturity. I’m reminded of the many stories you hear from friends concerning traffic accidents – it’s always the other guy’s fault. Your statement concerning ‘grafting our morality onto the universe’ overlooks the fact that we are part of that universe – we do not live outside of it so it follows that our ideas have their origins within it.
TM – You seem to be ‘putting the cart before the horse’ here – before we consider the punishment or restraint of those who act profoundly anti-socially we first have to consider if they’re ‘victims’ of their environment or take individual responsibility for them. I speak of the here and now rather than of what may pertain within a socialist society. If we have no will to decide what our actions will be how can we be blamed for them? Do you not consider this a dilemma?
Presumably the problem of human moral agency has been addressed? If it has then ignore the following. One of the major problems with advocating determinism and the denial of free will has always been the removal of individual moral responsibility. Can we absolve Hitler of moral responsibility by reference to his childhood etc.? As a fellow materialist/determinist I reject the theory of free will but am unable to resolve this particular problem. Perhaps we have to make a presumption of moral agency in the full knowledge that it doesn’t exist for the sake of social cohesion?
‘It is sufficient to admit that every feeling and thought springs from what precedes it. That’s easy enough.’
That would appear to be an extremely naïve statement psychologically. Free will or, for that matter, any other ideological component might well derive from completely unconnected trauma. The desperate and illusory need for control could lead to the ideological clinging to the concept of free will. Many times any link or coherent relationship between ideas and feelings will be broken. There’s nothing ‘easy’ about the relationship between the conscious and unconscious mind.
‘They do not analyse their own feelings and thoughts and what lies behind them. If you have a thought or feeling, you should be able to follow it back, for a while, through its antecedents.
Nothing springs from nothing.’
TM – You make it sound easy. Repression and the inability ‘analyze their own feelings’ lies at the root of all reactionary ideology.
‘Now, you are using the expression Don’t you’
I have no idea what that means.‘For me, it has been discredited because most workers believe that socialism/communism is dictatorship, they do not know that it has been distorted because they do not know the meaning of real socialism.’
Er, well that’s our job to correct this.‘The important issue is that there is a possible confrontation between Guyana and Venezuela’
Workers have no interest in this dispute between capitalists.Almamater – ‘Probably the term socialism should not be used either because it has been discredited by those nationalists, state capitalists, and supporters of dictatorship, wars, nationalism/patriotism, and national liberation.’
Don’t you mean ‘distorted’ rather than ‘discredited’? We must not give up ground to those who use language in such an Orwellian fashion. Such usage of language always betrays the fact that those who use it do not know what they are talking about and emphasizes how important it is that the integrity of our main way to communicate (language) must be defended.ALB – Don’t you think that we should be more careful using terms like ‘Marxism’ and Marxist’? They imply ideologies that some how differ or are associated with socialism – which is why Marx himself flatly denied that he was a ‘Marxist’. I think the term Marxian is more appropriate since it emphasizes that it represents a type of analysis rather than an ideology, which ironically, was its whole raison d’etra.
