[FoRK] [Stupid Idea Series] The Reenlightenment?
dl at silcom.com
Mon Mar 15 18:21:09 PST 2004
> So, there is this concept of a solving the same problem, helping people
> to develop a useful, fulfilling pilosophy and habit (this is the goal of
> the other book, right?), but through rational humanistic and ethical,
> moral (from first principles and policy calculus, not mystic
> commandments) scientific ways. (Yes, that was a parse test. It's the
> way I think, and this audience should have the IQ points; deal with
> it.) That is a rebuttal of sorts by solving the problem in a better and
> pure  way.
I'm not sure that such a philosophy
would contain enough teleology for
people who would rather have their
purposes assigned than discovered.
Would it work to approach the problem
from the other direction? Take a set
of useful, fulfilling philosophies and
habits, and show that they also happen
to be derivable from first principles?
:: :: ::
Do unto others ...
a) Objection! what's an other?
b) ... as you would have them do unto you
c) ... before they do unto you
d) Objection! I never *do* unto others.
They make their own choices, and have
to be responsible for the consequences.
:: :: ::
 if one ever needs recourse to
impure effects, there's always the
possibility of expressing them in
the Spirituality Monad, right?
 with all due respect to the
tradition of hot-button-hitting
if one wants an equivalent for
be much more appropriate than
which is really much closer to
jh newman:christian mythology?
More information about the FoRK