[FoRK] [Stupid Idea Series] The Reenlightenment?

Dave Long 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 [0] way.

I'm not sure that such a philosophy
would contain enough teleology for
people who would rather have their
purposes assigned than discovered[1].

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?

-Dave          

:: :: ::

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.

:: :: ::

[0] if one ever needs recourse to
impure effects, there's always the
possibility of expressing them in
the Spirituality Monad, right?

[1] with all due respect to the
tradition of hot-button-hitting
on FoRK:

if one wants an equivalent for
  christ:christian mythology 
wouldn't
  rama:hindu mythology
be much more appropriate than
  gandhi:hindu mythology
which is really much closer to
  jh newman:christian mythology?



More information about the FoRK mailing list