![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
You seem to be saying that charity cannot be said to be a 'voluntary obligation' because you don't know what motivates each charitable act. So I will change my first question -- "Is there any type of charity motivation that could be described as a 'voluntary obligation'?"
My second question was "Could you please provide some 'feet-on-the-ground' examples of what you consider to be 'voluntary obligations'?" I will then know exactly what you are saying and I can research comparisons between secular and religious contributions in those fields.
"Be proud of being the mean between macrocosm and microcosm. Stand still and marvel. Try not to become a man of success, but a man of value. Look around at how people want to get more than he receives. Be creative, but make sure that what you create is not a curse for mankind.” Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 143.)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
So you could be marginally correct in that it looks as if a slightly higher percentage of secularists failed to exercise their voluntary obligation to vote than those of the various faiths in 2018.
Even so, it is not valid to sweepingly assert that 'secularists lack voluntary obligations'.
1948
"One never goes wrong following his feeling. I don’t mean emotions, I mean feeling, for feeling and intuition are one.” Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 95. – conversation on September 14, 1948)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
What we do know is that actions of conscience are natural expressions of values we re born with so remain consistent...
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Nick_A » May 16th, 2019, 9:14 pm wrote:Many charitable obligations are forced by the need for public acclaim. Giving to charity allows a person to feel important and superior to the one in need. A person may give $1000 to another for medical expenses and will be celebrated for their generosity. Giving is for the benefit of the giver.
What we do know is that actions of conscience are natural expressions of values we re born with so remain consistent.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
"If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom, but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows." ― Plato, Phaedrus
“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”
― George Orwell, 1984
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
― George Orwell, 1984
The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.
How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.
-- Albert Einstein, Science and Religion, NY Times, November 9, 1930. <-- Click for complete essay.
1940
Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration towards truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
I didn’t realize this before but philosophy on this site is defined as Behaviorism. Philosophy as the love of wisdom has been reduced to psychology. Where philosophy seeks to deepen the essential human questions, behaviorism demands and argues answers. The traditional purpose of philosophy is to help us remember what has been forgotten.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
No one has defined philosophy so narrowly here. And no, it's not defined here as behaviorism. You were challenged to provide some tiny mote of evidence for your assertion about conscience being innate, and some might possibly be found in the cognitive sciences (a field much broader in scope than behaviorism), which is why that field might, as many do, be somewhat pertinent to a philosophical exploration. Philosophy has expanded and grown a bit since Plato.
Dogmatic assertions don't fly here. If you say that certain moral values exist a priori in humans, then you need to make that case and not just wave your hands and call anyone who challenges your thinking a "secularist." Or use "they just don't get it" as an argument.
Behaviorism refers to a psychological approach which emphasizes scientific and objective methods of investigation. The approach is only concerned with observable stimulus-response behaviors, and states all behaviors are learned through interaction with the environment.....................
)1948
"One never goes wrong following his feeling. I don’t mean emotions, I mean feeling, for feeling and intuition are one.” Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 95. – conversation on September 14, 1948
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
charon » May 20th, 2019, 9:57 pm wrote:If the religions say conscience is god-given then why have religions made wars?
Why have the Christians, for example, not that it's confined to them, made war, tortured and burned the heretics, covered up paedophile priests, been unbelievably cruel to children, and all the rest of it?
It's not as though we're talking about a momentary slip here and there, we're talking prolonged, organised butchery and immorality over extremely long periods.
So apparently the conscience within these wonderful god-fearing folks
isn't
working
very
well.
In the Church, considered as a social organism, the mysteries inevitably degenerate into beliefs. Simone Weil
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Nick_A --- Behaviorism measures the results of interpretations of sensory influences. There is nothing wrong with it and is a very useful study. However, it shouldn’t be confused with the purpose of philosophy.
PaulN -- No one has defined philosophy so narrowly here. And no, it's not defined here as behaviorism.
Philosophy hasn’t grown.
PaulN -- Philosophy has expanded and grown a bit since Plato.
It only has devolved into more arguments over behaviorism.
Are you accusing Einstein of making dogmatic assertions?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
But when we get the feeling that something is wrong, or that we ourselves have done something wrong, is it truly the Voice of God or simply that something has gone wrong within the cultural environment we inhabit?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
distribution of 'higher' and 'lower' values amongst the religious and the irreligious
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Serpent » May 21st, 2019, 10:44 am wrote:I kind of missed a boat with this one, so I'll toss in an abbreviated version:
The hierarchical arrangement of mental processes as if they were a meritocracy, or arrangement by status suggests a system of valuation that can be very confusing.
Philosophers may rate their avocation above that of psychologists who might rate their discipline above that biologists. But does that attitude reflect reality?
Is a sense of duty a higher function than regulating adrenaline? Is imagination better than reason? Is the appreciation of beauty more important than pattern-perception?
I think there is a great danger of confusion in any hierarchical arrangement :
- We may not communicate the principle on which we built our pyramid - or worse, take for granted that we all have the same structure in mind.
- We may be leaving out, ignoring, neglecting crucial layers of function.
- We may be discounting the co-ordination of various functions in a state of mind, or even the making of a single decision.
Example: What brain activity is involved in the process of answering a subpoena?
Is a sense of duty a higher function than regulating adrenaline?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
I have mentioned my opinion in a couple of posts that in my opinion, 'obligations' and 'rights' are 'feet-on-the-ground' subjects and I have to admit that I personally see little value in the subject called 'Philosophy', because the terms and phraseology used are too vague. Conversations seem to go around in circles and achieve very little consensus -- at least that's my impression while attempting to follow chats in this forum.
Of course it had been stupid of me to express it in quite that way, but nevertheless the point was worth pondering: does there exist in man a natural attraction to truth and to the struggle for truth that is stronger than the natural attraction to pleasure? The history of religion in the west seems by and large to rest on the assumption that the answer is no. Therefore, externally induced emotions of egoistic fear (hellfire), anticipation of pleasure (heaven), vengeance, etc., have been marshaled to keep people in the faith.
noesis (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles)
dianoia (discursive thought)
pistis (belief or confidence)
eikasia (delusion or sheer conjecture)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Nick_A » May 21st, 2019, 12:48 pm wrote:Is a sense of duty really an expression of a higher function? Suppose a woman does her duty by demonstrating in support of abortions? Is this really an expression of a higher function or just social conditioning?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Nick_A » Wed May 22, 2019 4:24 am wrote:DoogiesI have mentioned my opinion in a couple of posts that in my opinion, 'obligations' and 'rights' are 'feet-on-the-ground' subjects and I have to admit that I personally see little value in the subject called 'Philosophy', because the terms and phraseology used are too vague. Conversations seem to go around in circles and achieve very little consensus -- at least that's my impression while attempting to follow chats in this forum.
Jacob Needleman in his book "Lost Christianity" says the following after a lecture he had been giving took an unexpected turn:Of course it had been stupid of me to express it in quite that way, but nevertheless the point was worth pondering: does there exist in man a natural attraction to truth and to the struggle for truth that is stronger than the natural attraction to pleasure? The history of religion in the west seems by and large to rest on the assumption that the answer is no. Therefore, externally induced emotions of egoistic fear (hellfire), anticipation of pleasure (heaven), vengeance, etc., have been marshaled to keep people in the faith.
The feet on the ground approach examines world history and must admit the answer is no for humanity as a whole. the desire for pleasure is far more important than the experience of truth as a necessary part of the need to experience objective meaning. Can philosophy show the way to experience meaning which is beyond the pleasure of facts?
Plato describes four cognitive states and/or modes of thinking. From highest to lowest, these are:noesis (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles)
dianoia (discursive thought)
pistis (belief or confidence)
eikasia (delusion or sheer conjecture)
Philosophy then provides the means for the transition between feet on the ground dianoia and the experience of noesis or immediate intuition. Impartial dianoia can invite the contemplative states which enables remembrance. What is remembered enables a person to value the good of truth over transient pleasure.
The problem IMO is that only a small minority in the era of technology will be willing to make the transition between dianoia and noesis so the growing dissatisfaction with the lust for transient pleasure will create a catastrophe I do not want to be a part of. I hope I'm wrong but without recognizing the value of moving from dianoia towards noesis I don't see how the necessary balance between voluntary obligations and rights can be possible. It isn't logical for the dominant pleasure seekers.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Nick_A, once gain I'm having trouble with your dogmatic assertions and circumlocution. You state "The feet on the ground approach examines world history and must admit the answer is no for humanity as a whole. The desire for pleasure is far more important than the experience of truth as a necessary part of the need to experience objective meaning."
Wherever do these assertions come from
Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a motivational theory in psychology comprising a five-tier model of human needs, often depicted as hierarchical levels within a pyramid. ... From the bottom of the hierarchy upwards, the needs are: physiological, safety, love and belonging, esteem and self-actualization.
I've said that I have trouble getting a clear picture in my mind of the points you are making. I think you are knocking 'transient pleasure' but could be wrong.
I'll rephrase my last concluding statement using Plato's terminology, but I know this is probably not your belief on the matter. I'm fairly sure that the main thrust of this thread is that those of us without religious faith are unlikely to achieve 'noesis'. This belief and confidence that you seem to have in your assertions, suggests that you are thinking at Plato's level of 'pistis'.
Simone Weil — 'When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door.'
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
"The defense of freedom requires recognition of the principles supporting it." We could look at this assertion a number of ways and come up with a number of possibilities. One for example -- It only requires a firearm and knowledge of how to use it. Another is to make sure everyone has an equal vote in issues affecting them. The principles don't matter.
"Principles depend on voluntary obligations while rights only depend on the intensity of the demand and political connections." I would put the first assertion in this sentence the other way around. Voluntary obligations depend on a person's principles, simply because they are voluntary. I believe rights have nothing to do with demand and political connections. IMO 'Rights' are spelt out by 'Rules' at every level of group living. For example, the rules in any given household are spelt out by the parents -- usually orally; children have a degree of 'freedom' that can vary from zero to equal depending on the degree that parents allow them to have a say in the household rules. Our rights at National level are spelt out in every Act of Parliament passed by our reps whom we voted in on the basis of one person, one vote. The only philosophy behind these 'rights' is to give everyone a 'fair go' and equal chance in life.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
"Simone Weil understood the relationship of rights to obligations."This makes it sound as if she was an authority and that anything she said on the subject should be taken as Gospel. Wouldn't it be more open-minded and broad-minded to say that "Simone Weil expressed opinions about the relation of 'rights' and 'obligations' that suited your mode of thinking."? You can see from my last paragraph that I have my own opinions.
Obviously I would agree with you that encouragement to adhere to the rules is helpful (moral influence).
This, of course, directly contradicts your Simone Weil's statement that "The notion of obligations comes before that of rights, which is subordinate and relative to the former."Rights, by my reasoning, come first as the rules spelt out by groups. Then we have the obligations and the responsibility to conform to these rules which spell out our rights..
![]() |
![]() |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests