| | GWL wrote in Post 14:
I expect you now realize that 'desire for love' and 'a shunning of destructive self-love through the subordination of the self to the moral good (God)' are not mutually contradictory.
I am what you call "God" -- and so are you whether you admit it or not. This is a rather innovative form of the argument from authority: make an assertion with the hidden premise "I am God," and no one can possibly disagree with you. :)
So of course, out of self-love, I will shun destructive forms of hedonism through subordination of that urge to the moral good -- "God" -- i.e. my own Self.
On the theistic understanding of God, God has certain attributes-- like omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. I don't know about you, but I can't claim to possess any of these properties, nor do I believe that any human "self" is in possession of them.
I think the "big mistake" of Christianity and all the other religions is that they mistake "God" for that part of the personality that knows all about you, monitors all your actions, all at the subconscious level and comes to the fore in times of extreme crisis to see you through.
Good for you. With respect, I think you're wrong.
Enough of this external, supernatural "being" already. It's in you stupid. Let's let down our hair for a moment and speak truthfully: people who claim to be God either end up in mental hospitals or live in obscurity, perhaps managing to publish a book or two, of the kind shelved in the "magick" or "metaphysical studies" sections of Borders.
I wrote:
According to the Christian tradition, self-love as an explicit motivation for action is actually self-defeating; that is, its very attempt to attain self-fullfilment and happiness through self-centered means becomes, inevitably, hopelessly counterproductive. William responded:
I don't know what "self-centered" means in this context. If it simply means pursuing one's own happiness as an end in itself, then I fail to see how this is self-defeating. Nor has any argument been given to justify such a claim. "Self-centered" in this context means acting according to the maxim "This is what I want for myself, irrespective of the concerns of others." It does not necessarily, but in fact could mean "pursuing one's own happiness as an end in itself," where one's happiness is pursued without the guidance of overarching moral considerations.
Indeed, no "argument has been given to justify such a claim" for the simple reason that no argument was intended to be given. If you'll note the initial phrase "According to the Christian tradition," you will see that I was only presenting a certain claim, not providing an argument for it.
The question is: what is man's ultimate value -- what is his highest moral purpose? It is, of course, his own happiness. Therefore, if he wants to achieve that purpose, then he must recognize and hold his own happiness explicitly as his final end or goal. I agree with you that man's highest moral purpose is his own happiness, but I find this sort of description misleading, because, you'll remember, on the Christian view, man's own happiness just is, ultimately, union with God. As we've discussed earlier, my position is that, though man may act with the ostensible purpose of achieving his own happiness, he often acts in ways which in fact do not work toward acheiving his own happiness. Therefore, because I believe that man's intentions may be mislead in this way, I believe that man's recognition of his own happiness as explicitly constitutive of his final end or goal is inherently self-defeating for him.
I don't know what is meant by saying that happiness is an "implicit" desire, unless that simply means that his own happiness is what man desires whether he recognizes it or not. That's precisely what is meant.
What you seem to be saying is that loving God and subordinating oneself to a religious morality is not the ultimate end of one's conduct but rather a means of attaining personal happiness. No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that loving God is the ultimate end of one's conduct, and subordinating oneself to the moral good is a manifestation of, and means toward, loving God.
Whether or not that's true is, of course, a factual question, whose answer presupposes further answers to the questions: Is there a God, and will adhering to his commandments lead to happiness? I agree.
To which the answers are quite clearly: No and no. There is no God, and obeying the Ten Commandments will not maximize one's happiness. In order to achieve happiness, one must satisfy one's needs as a certain kind of living organism, not obey some arbitrary set of rules dictated by a supernatural deity. You should know by now that 1) I am aware of your opinion in this regard, and 2) I disagree with it.
William reproduced a passage from Aristotle and then wrote:
Observe that nobility is an ethical concept, and as such presupposes a standard of the good, according to which an action is judged as noble. What that standard of the good is, Aristotle does not tell us. While it is very difficult to put one's finger on what, for Aristotle, is the standard of the good, in light of what I've studied of him, I would say his standard of goodness is the notion of the flourishing human being, which is ultimately measured in terms of divine activity: "Therefore the activity of God, which surpasses all others in blessedness, must be contemplative; and of human activities, therefore, that which is most akin to this must be most of the nature of happiness" (Nicomachean Ethics; book 10, ch. 8).
Why cannot the pursuit of wealth, honours and bodily pleasure -- things that Aristotle regards as the irrational element of the soul -- be considered honorable, if they contribute to one's happiness (which they surely do)? Because Aristotle would argue that things like wealth, honors, and bodily pleasure do not contribute to one's happiness-- appearances to the contrary notwithstanding.
Why instead is it honorable or moral to sacrifice one's wealth for the sake one's friends, or to sacrifice one's life for them or for one's country? Why is that a nobler form of self-love? Aristotle does not tell us Again, it's a tough question. Some Aristotelian commentators have contested that, though he never makes it explicit, Aristotle does have some sort of vague notion of afterlife for rational elements of the soul, elements which approach the activity of God through virtuous activity undertaken on earth.
-Leibniz
|
|
