Category: Ontology

Categories
Epistemology Ontology

Yeah, it was always

a steaming pile of crap! But I have to say, the priggish, moralistic preening of the Left is one of the most unlovely things about Leftism.

But in the clip from the debate that was most widely shared, a young Hispanic guy asks Seder about his objections to supposed religious fundamentalists and then, as the kids say, he proceeds to absolutely own Seder. Essentially, the question put before Seder is this: If he objects to traditional religious values as a foundation for guiding America’s collective political and legal decisions, what does he think should be the basis for morality? [emphasis added]

That is always the question. Upon what do you base your morality? What is basic and real and … how do you know? In one of the Socratic “Dialogues” (written by Plato) we see Socrates hammer the crap out of Theatetus.  Socrates asks, if all knowledge is derived from physical sensations, why should we believe you over a dog-faced baboon or some stranger creature still that has sensation? I mean, a baboon or a tadpole has sensation, so isn’t a baboon or a tadpole arguably “the measure of all things?” At least just as much as anything else is… And it is a great question.

Upon what is morality based? And if popular post-modern theory says that there are no “facts“ and all is merely a Nietzschean exertion of a will-to-power, then what “space” is left for morality as we have traditionally known it?

According to Post-Modernism, there is no transcendent morality, anyway. It is all based merely on personal preferences and power. And there’s no way to show that one “preference” is better than any other. Nothing is for sure, and nothing is transcendental. And of course, there is no morality. There is only what I like and what I don’t like. And, of course, your mileage may differ–real knowledge simply doesn’t exist. Even “science” is merely a disguised power-grab.

In short, we are adrift on a Godless sea. We are just being blown wherever the wind and waves take us, having no rudder or sail with which to steer. All we are is dust in the wind…

One can baldly assert moral superiority, and that is exactly what the Left has routinely done. And they have made it pay handsomely. But it’s rather a castle in the sky. There is no real foundation, according to them.

I mean, upon just what is that alleged moral superiority based? Me? I think it’s all a political strategy. I don’t think that their supposed moral superiority actually exists. It’s just bald preference. At least, that is the logical endpoint of their Post-Modern argument.

Categories
Moral Agency Ontology

Here’s a radical idea:

Without moral agency there is no moral existence at all. See, if all we are boils down to being “a very complex hammer,” then ALL we do is merely necessary. There simply is no moral meaning to a hammer hitting a nail–or your thumb! The hammer is not morally bad for hitting your thumb.

The hammer simply doesn’t exist as a moral agent! It is not something to act, it is just something to be acted upon. It’s not a morally bad hammer for hitting your thumb–it’s just a hammer, impelled by previous forces in a never-ending “turtles all the way down” infinite regress sort of pseudo-explanation.

In a similar fashion, if all WE do is merely metaphysically necessary, there is no moral meaning to our actions at all. I just do what I’m “programmed” by experience to do, and there is no moral aspect to it–no “right” or “wrong.”

So maybe I’m Pol Pot or Stalin or Hitler, but what those folks did is not morally bad, it is simply necessary–just like the hammer doesn’t “choose” where to strike, their actions were impelled by other, previous causes and thus not morally wrong at all. They are just a complex hammer. I may prefer or not prefer their actions (in au courant post-modern style), but there is no moral meaning attached!

That also precludes knowledge (except of the most banal and meaningless type), but I’m not going into that here. But it does.

Categories
Ontology

Indeed, the

insurmountable problem for Evolutionary Theory is the beginning.

To steal a phrase, the theory can indeed explain the survival of the fittest. But it can’t explain the arrival of the fittest.

The process of evolution requires at least one atom of matter either to exist eternally, or somehow to come into existence, in order for the processes of macro and micro evolution to begin, but evolutionary theory has no explanation for the origin of that first atom.

That fact leads some down the path of some form of Theistic Evolution. That is,

… they believe in the God of creation and that evolution is the tool He used to populate the Earth with a multiplicity of species.

But that runs head-on into some gnarly logical problems and is most often just a form of Deism. You know, God kicked the ball to get it rolling and then went off to make a sandwich or something…

But STILL it doesn’t give any scientific explanation for a beginning. No, a Deistic explanation just logically won’t work with the idea of ongoing revelation and intervention by God. An imminent God. If one prays, there is no logical reason to fall prey to Deism!

Categories
Ontology

Funny, I was just

cogitating this morning about how if you are not a theist, the ONLY other logical option is to be an Existentialist/Nihilist (OK, I’m odd). Quite a coincidence to see someone else talking about it! But I’m pretty “up” on such things, and it seems very clear to me that those are the only options.

So go ahead, make your choice. But if you choose Nihilism, you really have no moral leg to stand on. There simply is no Truth. ALL is just preference and a will-to-power. There IS no Truth! There IS no right or wrong. There IS no moral existence at all! At best there is mere mechanism, but just as a hammer doesn’t choose to hit a nail (and therefore doesn’t exist as a moral entity), YOU are merely a mechanism. YOU don’t exist as a moral entity! Maybe you are more complex, but you are still every bit as much of a mechanism as a hammer or a dishwasher or a USB hub.

See, without God and without moral agency, there IS no moral existence!

If you’ve read The Stranger by Albert Camus, the argument is quite clear: Sure. I killed him on the beach, but that was because it was hot and the sun was beating down on me, and that is no more or less moral or meaningful than not killing him.

Even you punishing me for the killing is meaningless.

ALL is vanity!

Sure, Camus tried to salvage some form of morality by ultimately saying that though you are literally in the place of Sisyphus, it would not be noble to kill yourself.

Really, Albert? So you spend years making an argument that there is no transcendent morality, and then at the end, ground your argument in… transcendent morality in order to make it work and to avoid a conclusion you don’t like? Wow!