Through a glass darkly

By -
When one asserts that there is a transcendent moral order, and that the idea of quote "personal, subjective" morality is nonsense -- that would not be morality at all, but just whims! -- that claim is often mistaken for a claim that one sees that transcendent moral order perfectly.

But each and every one of us, down here in the cesspit of the universe, sees only through a glass darkly.

The difference is like this: the subjectivist astronomer argues that believing in the Andromeda galaxy is just a "personal choice." The astronomical realist says "No, it is really out there, 2.5 million light years away."

That does not mean the realist thinks he knows every star and planet in that galaxy!

Comments

  1. Lord2:39 PM

    What we have are personal subjective perspectives of that morality, possibly less darkly.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Greg Pandatshang6:16 PM

    I assume you don't believe that anything personal and subjective is a whim. For instance, personally, I love my mother. That's not a whim, is it? So, what is it about the hypothetical personal-and-subjective-equivalent-of-morality that makes it a whim?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Samson Corwell7:43 PM

      The reason is that the love you have for your mother is not something that is the subject of dispute.

      Delete
    2. Greg Pandatshang6:34 PM

      I'm not sure I follow you. Something is a whim if it is subjective/personal and subject to dispute? That doesn't sound right. Care to expand on that?

      As far as I can tell, "whim" is simply being used here as invective: it links "subjective" to "unserious", which is a bad thing in a serious context, such as morality or mother love.

      The thread you linked to, in which Callahan also believes aesthetics is objective, is interesting because it leads me to wonder if I actually know what "objective" and "subjective" mean in context.

      Delete
    3. gcallah9:44 PM

      Well, for one, I would deny your love for your mother is subjective: does not she feel you love her? Wouldn't friends who know you well be likely to comment, "Greg certainly loves his mother?" Could even a stranger observe it in your actions?

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more