To enjoy and have others enjoy, without doing harm to yourself or anyone else
For the discerning reader, you can see the tinge of utilitarianism in this maxim. This however, reminds me of the article I read recently (Brian you remember) that talk of morality is no longer meaningful or something to that effect.
I think, echoing Nietszche and Onfray, that we have failed in creating a new morality. We are still caught up in the Platonic-Christian ethos though with a secular priestly.
Is it an absolute truth that there are *no* absolute truths. That had this been evident to our ancestors, human history at least of the last hundred of years would have been more peaceful.
Those who insist on having absolute truth, morality or something interest me. Have they examined how they got to this absolute? Was reason a guide? Have their examined differing opinion or this conviction is taken without consideration of differing opinion.
But it is one of those I like having. Maybe I am predisposed to like indefiniteness. Or maybe because most if not our knowledge is provisional and open to revision when our ways of gathering data improves or when a challenge is mounted on current knowledge that shows our understanding of a given topic has been wrong or misguided.
It could also be possible that whilst some questions have been settled, there is reluctance to accept the answers. And this reluctance could be sustained by the fact many believe the old answers without reflection or are afraid that accepting the new answers would turn their worlds topsy turvy. For example, it is settled that asses never spoke nor snakes walking upright or men fish eating men and surviving whole for 3 days under water or that some man was born without a father and then committed deicide. These are just a few of the old answers that we cannot accept as true knowledge.
Here, here, and here are some of the instances i have expressed myself on the question of free speech. I should make it clear in case I had not done so that in talking of freedom of speech, I mean the government shall not hinder the free expression of thought. I would extend this to include institutions of learning. I have read of several claims of students in universities in America demanding safe spaces and universities responding by prohibiting some forms of speech. I am of the opinion this shouldn’t be the case. What we end up with eventually is either the Rushdie affair of the Polish affair, both unfortunate.
In the third link above, I expressed my disagreement with the hate speech act that created the national cohesion commission as both a waste of funds and a means to stifle disagreement or dissent.
In the last post, I agreed with Pink that the humanitarian (term borrowed from J Rauch) challenge to free speech is quite a hard challenge but insist that in the face of reprehensible, offensive speech, more speech is what is required not restrictions.
You or me have no right not to be offended or give offense. Anyone who makes his business to create offense by saying reprehensible things should be ignored.
In the same context, all those attempts by different states in the Uneducated States of America to legislate teaching of creationism in schools should not even be taken seriously. No body has asked their parliament to legislate teaching of algebra, so what is this nonsense about creationism that should be given so much airtime?
This short video represent my final thoughts on the matter and I am open to criticism
When I last wrote on this topic which was yesterday, I did ask if the state should limit what we can say or what should be the consequences of saying stupid things. People should say whatever they want to say and only good ideas should survive. The text about killing witches still exists but it has been overtaken by better speech. And I think only criticism will deal with ignorance.
This brings me to a very interesting case where this is tested. Jill has posted this and I will just quote her
“God bless. Thank you for your courage. Keep your head up. You’ve done nothing wrong. Every rank and file police officer supports you. Don’t be discouraged by actions of the political class of law enforcement leadership.”
William was until last week a cop. Do you think the police department should have fired him for holding and expressing such opinion? Does suppressing such thinking address racism in the police force or work place generally? How is this different from the Rushdie affair or from the Charlie Hebdo affair? What is society to do with ideas/ speech that is unpleasant?
Among the very interesting debates of our times is the one around free speech and whether there should be limitations on what we can say or write. There are countries with laws against blasphemy- laws I call a victimless law-, laws against libel and so on. You can be sued for causing a panic, like shouting fire in a movie theatre or bomb in a plane. Or some such thing. Or you can be de-platformed, fired or hounded out of public life for saying not nice things.
My question is are there topics that should be a no no or should we have unrestricted free speech? Is there any place where this is the case?
Should there be libel suits?
What should governments do about speech that hurt my feelings or our feelings as a group that was previously oppressed (you know with the victimhood Olympics that is on TV currently)?
Is a question many atheists have been asked in one form or another. Many have given varied answers to the question and my contribution, though not new, is to say evidence that would be accepted by any reasonable person/observer.
But who is a reasonable observer/person?
Abstract philosophy and exercise is only suited for that person who is well fed and housed. The practical man or woman has use for philosophy to the extent to which it is relevant to their lives and until professional philosophers address issues of practical men and women, their works will remain in university bookshelves read only by other professional philosophers.
Before you say not again, Voltaire argues that all our actions are caused. And when there are two competing activities, the dominant idea will take precedence. He writes
The will, therefore, is not a faculty that one can call free. A free will is an expression absolutely void of sense, and what the scholastics have called will of indifference, that is to say willing without cause, is a chimera unworthy of being combated.
Free will by Voltaire
He concludes by saying we can only do what we will, but we can not will what we will do.
Schopenhauer in his essay on Freewill wrote
A free will would therefore be one that was not determined by grounds; and since everything determining something else must be a ground ± a real ground, i.e., a cause, in the case of real things ± a free will would be one that was determined by nothing at all. The particular manifestations of such a will (acts of will) would therefore proceed absolutely and quite originally from itself,without being brought about necessarily by antecedent conditions, and thus without being determined by anything according to a rule. In the case of such a concept clear thinking is at an end because the principle of sufficient reason in all its meanings is the essential form of our whole faculty of cognition, yet here it is supposed to be given up. However, we are not left without even a terminus technicus for this concept; it is liberum arbitrium indifferentiae. Moreover, this is the only clearly determined, firm, and settled concept of that which is called freedom of the will. Therefore one cannot depart from it without falling into vague and hazy explanations behind which lurks a hesitant insufficiency, as when one speaks of grounds that do not necessarily bring about their consequents. Every consequence of a ground is necessary, and every necessity is a consequence of a ground. From the assumption of such aliberum arbitrium indifferentiae, the immediate consequence that characterizes this concept itself and is therefore to be stated as its mark is that for a human individual endowed with it, under given external circumstances that are determined quite individually and thoroughly,two diametrically opposed actions are equally possible.
ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER Prize Essay on the Freedom of the Will
Most times this paradox is formulated as can god create a square triangle? To which many apologists have said their god can only do things that are logical. They have further argued that this doesn’t diminish omnipotence but I am not persuaded. Same apologists believe an ass has spoken, a snake walked and a floor covered the entire earth surface.
Can god make a tall person short? Or a black person white? If not, why? Is there any logical contradiction in the above questions?
These are unedited versions of my thoughts straight from the mind, a relieve from the ‘pressure cooker’, snippets and flotsam of a mundane existence, collected over time, at the early morning hours at sunrise. I have no intensions to start a self-help group or a forum for complains!
An online journal celebrating the joys of living bare with pride! This site usually publishes every Monday and Friday. I may be irreverent but I am no way irrelevant! My preferred personal pronouns are he, him, his.