Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Lagayascienza]

Chinese philosophers [url="https://plato. stanford .edu/entries /confucius/"]Confucius[/url] (the paragon of Chinese sages) and [url="https://plato .stanford .edu/entries/mencius/"]Mencius[/url] would have "looked down upon a blatant recklessness toward animals".

Mencius, a prominent philosopher in Chinese history, strongly advocated for pacifism and the prevention of war. He believed in practicing benevolence and righteousness as a way to ascend to political dominance without the need for warfare. Mencius rejected the idea of "righteous" wars in ancient records and emphasized that the benevolent have no enemies under Heaven.

The beautiful comment of chewybrian in a recent topic, shows a similar perspective: We should all be on the same team if we declare we are engaging in philosophy.

I wrote the following in a topic about racist hate, Honesty about Racism:

Intellect and reason is a higher good than hate and revenge. Therefore my argument: philosophy can and should be held responsible.

"Within the context of reason, there is no place for hate and evil."

Kant wrote in "Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason,": "pure reason is the faculty of concepts, and concepts are not concerned with the inclinations, but only with the understanding and its object"

Therefore, according to Kant (who authored one of the most profound works on reason), pure reason cannot be the source of hate and evil, which arises from the inclinations and desires of the human will. Kant believed that every human being has the capacity to resist evil and choose the moral path, which is the path of reason.

It is evident that pure philosophy doesn't allow racist hate, not by prohibiting it, but by fundamentally making it irrational, a priori.

More appropriate might be to ask, will humanity choose the intelligible path, e.g. Kant's 'path of reason'? Will humanity join in on 'the same team' for the higher good interest of intellectual progress? It appears to me that such an intention would align with Universal values and that governments would follow suit.

Are values universal? What makes them universal? You allude to Kant's attempt at moral rationality and universality. But Kant's deontological moral system based on his Categorical Imperative is highly abstract and largely unworkable. That is partly because we are not entirely rational beings and partly because, even if we were entirely rational, it is not clear that a system like Kant's is itself rational, or that it is one that we would choose if we were rational. For one thing, it produces unacceptable outcomes. For example, it tells us not to lie. But sometimes we need to lie to prevent a much more horrible consequence that would ensue if we told the truth.

People choose sides in the Palestinian conflict. But we can see wrong on both sides and no overarching moral system such as Kant's can show objectively that one side is right and the other wrong. That is because there are no objective values. Unless we can come up with an entirely rational moral system that we all agree to, (which we cannot because we are not entirely rational or objective), we are stuck with the subjective moral sentiments that were bestowed on us by evolution, along with all the squabbling between groups that those moral sentiments give rise to.

Our morality was selected for by evolution because it allowed the members of small bands out on the savanna to cooperate rather than compete against each other in a zero-sum game. Our evolved, subjective moral sentiments enhanced the survival prospects of those who could cooperate in smallish groups and so achieve benefits that could not be achieved alone. However, whilst our evolved morality promoted cooperation WITHIN groups, it did not necessarily promote cooperation BETWEEN groups. And that, in part, is the reason we still have wars.

Of course, our moral sentiments are a work in progress. We can try to develop and refine them along the lines of what today may seem to us like rational principles. But, for now, our subjective moral sentiments are not much changed from those of our forebears out on the savanna. We may want to change, and we can try to change, but we are sailing into the wind and will need to tack.

[value]

That's the question. At this stage, the tragedy of the commons is playing out. I suppose it will continue to do so until the tragedies pile up to a critical threshold.

But intellectual evolution prohibits just that and demands that philosophy overcomes that 'error', by taking on responsibility.

I have seen from up close that it works through my involvement with a critical philosophical blog on psychiatry. By showing a path of intellect and reason, people who endured the most grave abuses of human rights (think forced electroshock treatment), are able to overcome the most profound hate and inclinations of revenge. Staying true to an ethical self enables people to win.

I provided an example of MacGyver in this topic, who, in an attempt to stop a young gang member in a developing culture of hate from seeking revenge for the murder of his brother, said "You are smarter than this" and with that incited a Lévinasian eschatological vision in him that broke the hate and cycle of violence.

An intelligible path is a path that humans rather subscribe to than war and revenge. An intelligible path isn't easy or given like a fact of science, but philosophy can do it. MacGyver could do it.

Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas did it. He wrote: "The first "vision" of eschatology reveals the very possibility of eschatology, that is, the breach of the totality, the possibility of a signification without context (intelligence before practice). The experience of morality does not proceed from this vision - it consummates this vision; ethics is an optics. But it is a vision without image, bereft of the synoptics and totalizing objectifying virtues of vision, a relation or an intentionality of a wholly different type - which this work seeks to describe."

Emmanuel Lévinas is considered difficult to read, even for academic philosophers. What would be needed, is strategy, the chewing out of the wisdom into bits that can be used to craft human culture.

"Intelligence before practice" is a common wisdom, and it would be as simple as that as a foundational argument to break with the history of errors, or in Lévinas words, "... to break with the totality of wars and empires in which one does not speak. Peace is produced as this aptitude for speech. The eschatological vision does not envisage the end of history within being understood as a totality, but institutes a relation with the infinity of being which exceeds the totality.".

How can the complex work of Lévinas be applied to enable philosophy to take on responsibility for securing and optimizing an intelligible path for humanity? A path without wars, not by violence and prohibition, but by making those 'errors' fundamentally irrational from a cultural (and therewith natural inner feeling) perspective, a priori?

Lévinas wrote: "the peace of empires issued from war rests on war.". Waiting for a critical situation to turn things around, would be irresponsible from an intellectual position. As in the saying of Albert Einstein, a pioneer for global peace: "intellectuals solve problems, geniuses prevent them".

Therefore I remain with my argument: philosophy should be held responsible. It is then that one can appreciate the content and value of complex philosophical works such as that of Lévinas, and beyond, that enable to secure actual peace.

[Sy Borg]

That's the question. At this stage, the tragedy of the commons is playing out. I suppose it will continue to do so until the tragedies pile up to a critical threshold.

But intellectual evolution prohibits just that and demands that philosophy overcomes that 'error', by taking on responsibility.

The I suggest you tell the US, China, Russia, NK and Iran exactly what they need to do. I'm sure they will be receptive.

[value]

As in the openings sentence of the book ☯ Tao Te Ching by Chinese philosopher Laozi (Lao Tzu):

"The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name."

The argument 'philosophy should be held responsible' wouldn't concern anyone telling how the world should be (e.g. 'listen to philosophers!') but rather a cultural manifestation of the idea expressed by chewybrian: "We should all be on the same team if we declare we are engaging in philosophy.", on behalf of the higher good interest 'intellectual progress'.

The ethical responsibility expressed by Albert Einstein and the Levinasian eschatological motive expressed by MacGyver, combined, provide a basis for the pursuit of non-violent pro-active solutions that bring people together and that support a path of intellectual progress for humanity and beyond.

Reason and intellect is a higher good than war and revenge. Philosophy can make it happen, without forcing anyone.

[Gertie]

That's the question. At this stage, the tragedy of the commons is playing out. I suppose it will continue to do so until the tragedies pile up to a critical threshold.

But intellectual evolution prohibits just that and demands that philosophy overcomes that 'error', by taking on responsibility.

I have seen from up close that it works through my involvement with a critical philosophical blog on psychiatry. By showing a path of intellect and reason, people who endured the most grave abuses of human rights (think forced electroshock treatment), are able to overcome the most profound hate and inclinations of revenge. Staying true to an ethical self enables people to win.

I provided an example of MacGyver in this topic, who, in an attempt to stop a young gang member in a developing culture of hate from seeking revenge for the murder of his brother, said "You are smarter than this" and with that incited a Lévinasian eschatological vision in him that broke the hate and cycle of violence.

An intelligible path is a path that humans rather subscribe to than war and revenge. An intelligible path isn't easy or given like a fact of science, but philosophy can do it. MacGyver could do it.

Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas did it. He wrote: "The first "vision" of eschatology reveals the very possibility of eschatology, that is, the breach of the totality, the possibility of a signification without context (intelligence before practice). The experience of morality does not proceed from this vision - it consummates this vision; ethics is an optics. But it is a vision without image, bereft of the synoptics and totalizing objectifying virtues of vision, a relation or an intentionality of a wholly different type - which this work seeks to describe."

Emmanuel Lévinas is considered difficult to read, even for academic philosophers. What would be needed, is strategy, the chewing out of the wisdom into bits that can be used to craft human culture.

"Intelligence before practice" is a common wisdom, and it would be as simple as that as a foundational argument to break with the history of errors, or in Lévinas words, "... to break with the totality of wars and empires in which one does not speak. Peace is produced as this aptitude for speech. The eschatological vision does not envisage the end of history within being understood as a totality, but institutes a relation with the infinity of being which exceeds the totality.".

How can the complex work of Lévinas be applied to enable philosophy to take on responsibility for securing and optimizing an intelligible path for humanity? A path without wars, not by violence and prohibition, but by making those 'errors' fundamentally irrational from a cultural (and therewith natural inner feeling) perspective, a priori?

Lévinas wrote: "the peace of empires issued from war rests on war.". Waiting for a critical situation to turn things around, would be irresponsible from an intellectual position. As in the saying of Albert Einstein, a pioneer for global peace: "intellectuals solve problems, geniuses prevent them".

Therefore I remain with my argument: philosophy should be held responsible. It is then that one can appreciate the content and value of complex philosophical works such as that of Lévinas, and beyond, that enable to secure actual peace.

I completely agree philosophy should take on the responsibility of giving us a moral framework and foundation to fill the post-modern and post-religion void.

I don't think it needs to be complex and intellectual tho. Or endlessly try to justify right and wrong through objectivity or reason.

Philosophy could simply re-frame right and wrong in terms of 'Mattering', as Goldstein puts it. It's something everyone can relate to - we are experiencing beings with a quality of life which matters to us. We can flourish and suffer. We all know this, and that it matters. If I deliberately and indiscriminately bomb you and your loved ones, steal your land, destroy your home and infrastructure, cut off your food, water and medicines, there's no question I'm harming you - and it matters. It's wrong. Genocide is wrong.

The moral response would therefore be to cease fire and strive towards a just rapprochement which reduces harm and helps all involved flourish. No matter how frustrating or difficult. It's bleedin obvious without having to invoke eschatology or vague concepts. Millions marching for peace across the world don't need Levinas to tell us that.

Doing it in practice is a different matter, sadly. But philosophy should definitely be doing its small part by providing such a foundational framework for people to turn to and invoke.

[Lagayascienza]

Well said, Gertie. I agree with Rebecca Goldstein. Things matter to us and that mattering is objectively real. In ethics, philosophy should run with that instead of trying to prove that the moral properties "right" and "wrong" exist objectively in some platonic realm or are made real by the dictates of imaginary gods. That is dehumanizing. The only place in the universe that mattering happens is in the brains of beings like us. And things matter to all of us whether we are Palestinians, Israelis, Sudanese or Americans. Trying to prove that one side in a conflict is objectively right and the other objectively wrong is unhelpful. The starting place has to be our common humanity. As you say, it is still difficult to work out what the best course of action is, but our common humanity and the objective fact that things matter to us, would be a good starting point.

[value]

I completely agree philosophy should take on the responsibility of giving us a moral framework and foundation to fill the post-modern and post-religion void.

I don't think it needs to be complex and intellectual tho. Or endlessly try to justify right and wrong through objectivity or reason.

Philosophy could simply re-frame right and wrong in terms of 'Mattering', as Goldstein puts it. It's something everyone can relate to - we are experiencing beings with a quality of life which matters to us. We can flourish and suffer. We all know this, and that it matters. If I deliberately and indiscriminately bomb you and your loved ones, steal your land, destroy your home and infrastructure, cut off your food, water and medicines, there's no question I'm harming you - and it matters. It's wrong. Genocide is wrong.

The moral response would therefore be to cease fire and strive towards a just rapprochement which reduces harm and helps all involved flourish. No matter how frustrating or difficult. It's bleedin obvious without having to invoke eschatology or vague concepts. Millions marching for peace across the world don't need Levinas to tell us that.

Doing it in practice is a different matter, sadly. But philosophy should definitely be doing its small part by providing such a foundational framework for people to turn to and invoke.

I would disagree that philosophy shouldn't be considered of primary significance. Emotions and passions are nice, and to act upon them can provide meaning and fulfilment in life. But when people march for peace, it would be nice that they would march in the right direction. And philosophy, for example that of Levinas, can provide a philosophical grounding for that, to 'secure peace' as part of intellectual progress, a higher good for humanity as a whole. Philosophy can make it about more than a subjective experience based endeavour that can be contested on the mere basis of that mystical-emotional grounding.

Why peace, one might ask, when faced with a history of terror, atrocities and a developing culture of hate? The emotions of group of people who advocate for peace might not affect some people, while philosophy grounded endeavours, on behalf of intellectual progress, may actually reach people in any situation, and can pull them out of it, for a higher interest. An interest worthy to fight for.

Bertrand Russell, a prominent activist against war, once said "the [philosophical] truth is essentially neutral, it is the same for anyone.".

Chewybrian recently wrote: "We should all be on the same team if we declare we are engaging in philosophy.".

Philosophy wouldn't need to concern the question what is right or wrong, which is actually ethics which belongs to politics. Philosophy can facilitate an eschatological vision that enables people to overcome the darkness that leads to hate.

[Gertie]

Well said, Gertie. I agree with Rebecca Goldstein. Things matter to us and that mattering is objectively real. In ethics, philosophy should run with that instead of trying to prove that the moral properties "right" and "wrong" exist objectively in some platonic realm or are made real by the dictates of imaginary gods. That is dehumanizing. The only place in the universe that mattering happens is in the brains of beings like us. And things matter to all of us whether we are Palestinians, Israelis, Sudanese or Americans. Trying to prove that one side in a conflict is objectively right and the other objectively wrong is unhelpful. The starting place has to be our common humanity. As you say, it is still difficult to work out what the best course of action is, but our common humanity and the objective fact that things matter to us, would be a good starting point.

Thanks! This is exactly what I've been trying to get at elsewhere with establishing a moral foundation like ''To try to promote the wellbeing of conscious creatures''. Maybe not clearly enough! It's mattering, or interests, which is the appropriate perspective to establish a justification for oughts imo.

[Gertie]

I completely agree philosophy should take on the responsibility of giving us a moral framework and foundation to fill the post-modern and post-religion void.

I don't think it needs to be complex and intellectual tho. Or endlessly try to justify right and wrong through objectivity or reason.

Philosophy could simply re-frame right and wrong in terms of 'Mattering', as Goldstein puts it. It's something everyone can relate to - we are experiencing beings with a quality of life which matters to us. We can flourish and suffer. We all know this, and that it matters. If I deliberately and indiscriminately bomb you and your loved ones, steal your land, destroy your home and infrastructure, cut off your food, water and medicines, there's no question I'm harming you - and it matters. It's wrong. Genocide is wrong.

The moral response would therefore be to cease fire and strive towards a just rapprochement which reduces harm and helps all involved flourish. No matter how frustrating or difficult. It's bleedin obvious without having to invoke eschatology or vague concepts. Millions marching for peace across the world don't need Levinas to tell us that.

Doing it in practice is a different matter, sadly. But philosophy should definitely be doing its small part by providing such a foundational framework for people to turn to and invoke.

I would disagree that philosophy shouldn't be considered of primary significance. Emotions and passions are nice, and to act upon them can provide meaning and fulfilment in life. But when people march for peace, it would be nice that they would march in the right direction. And philosophy, for example that of Levinas, can provide a philosophical grounding for that, to 'secure peace' as part of intellectual progress, a higher good for humanity as a whole. Philosophy can make it about more than a subjective experience based endeavour that can be contested on the mere basis of that mystical-emotional grounding.

As I said, I think we're facing a particular difficulty in our modern globalised world where neither religion or modernist/Enlightment optimism seem up to the task of securing moral and interactional guidelines we can cohere around. That's the role philosophy can play, and I agree its important. Setting up a possible universalising framework is only one step tho. And there are increasingly powerful factors and players pulling us towards tribal Us/Them thinking, as a way of dealing with the pressures and de-stabilisation globalisation inevitably brings.

Why peace, one might ask, when faced with a history of terror, atrocities and a developing culture of hate? The emotions of group of people who advocate for peace might not affect some people, while philosophy grounded endeavours, on behalf of intellectual progress, may actually reach people in any situation, and can pull them out of it, for a higher interest. An interest worthy to fight for.

Yes I think a philosophical approach can infiltrate the zeitgeist via our education systems. My position on ''Mattering'' has philosophical grounding as well as intuitive appeal. To have both is better imo.

Bertrand Russell, a prominent activist against war, once said "the [philosophical] truth is essentially neutral, it is the same for anyone.".

Chewybrian recently wrote: "We should all be on the same team if we declare we are engaging in philosophy.".

Philosophy wouldn't need to concern the question what is right or wrong, which is actually ethics which belongs to politics. Philosophy can facilitate an eschatological vision that enables people to overcome the darkness that leads to hate.

I've only heard of eschatology as a religious term, I don't know what you mean by it here.

If it's being used religiously - then you don't overcome the religious clashes a globalised world presents, because different religions have different eschatological views - at least on how you'll be judged. Which often make enemies of each other, or at least reinforces Us v Them, the saved and the damned, the righteous and the infidel, the good and the evil.

And to the non-religious it's meaningless.

[value]

The Lévinasian eschatological vision is different from religious eschatology.

He wrote the following:

"The first "vision" of eschatology (hereby distinguished from the revealed opinions of positive religions) reveals the very possibility of eschatology, that is, the breach of the totality, the possibility of a signification without context."

AI's comment: "According to Lévinas, the eschatological vision he presents is distinct from religious eschatology, as it goes beyond the revealed opinions of positive religions. In his writing, he highlights that this vision unveils the fundamental essence of eschatology itself, showcasing the potential for eschatology to exist independently of specific religious doctrines.

In essence, Lévinas's eschatological vision transcends conventional religious frameworks by focusing on the profound significance of eschatology as a concept that can exist beyond specific religious traditions. It underscores the idea of a transformative and meaningful end or purpose that is not confined by traditional religious dogma but rather explores the potential for profound significance and transcendence outside of established contexts."

I provided an example of MacGyver in this topic, who, in an attempt to stop a young gang member in a developing culture of hate from seeking revenge for the murder of his brother, said "You are smarter than this" and with that incited a Lévinasian eschatological vision in him that broke the hate and cycle of violence.

AI's comment: "MacGyver's statement "You are smarter than this" could be seen as an example of a Lévinasian eschatological vision, as it encourages the person to rise above the cycle of violence and revenge, and to choose a more intelligent and peaceful path. This aligns with Lévinas' view that eschatological vision allows for a transcendence of the totality and a relation to infinity."

What would be your idea of the notion that the first "vision" of eschatology reveals the very possibility of eschatology and therefore provides grounding for purpose in life, and in turn, enables to overcome hate and evil, and secure actual peace?

What do you think of the idea that MacGyver's statement "You are smarter than this" would have a psychological effect in the by hate consumed person, in line with a Lévinasian eschatological vision, that was able to drag him out of it at the moment that he would have taken revenge from within a long ongoing developing culture of hate?

Lévinas wrote: "The peace of empires issued from war rests on war." which explains his statement that peace is only possible through his philosophical eschatological vision that transcends the totality and establishes a relation to ∞ infinity. "Of peace there can only be an eschatology."

[Gertie]

The Lévinasian eschatological vision is different from religious eschatology.

He wrote the following:

"The first "vision" of eschatology (hereby distinguished from the revealed opinions of positive religions) reveals the very possibility of eschatology, that is, the breach of the totality, the possibility of a signification without context."

AI's comment: "According to Lévinas, the eschatological vision he presents is distinct from religious eschatology, as it goes beyond the revealed opinions of positive religions. In his writing, he highlights that this vision unveils the fundamental essence of eschatology itself, showcasing the potential for eschatology to exist independently of specific religious doctrines.

In essence, Lévinas's eschatological vision transcends conventional religious frameworks by focusing on the profound significance of eschatology as a concept that can exist beyond specific religious traditions. It underscores the idea of a transformative and meaningful end or purpose that is not confined by traditional religious dogma but rather explores the potential for profound significance and transcendence outside of established contexts."

OK, so for L ''eschatology'' means ''a transformative and meaningful end or purpose''

I provided an example of MacGyver in this topic, who, in an attempt to stop a young gang member in a developing culture of hate from seeking revenge for the murder of his brother, said "You are smarter than this" and with that incited a Lévinasian eschatological vision in him that broke the hate and cycle of violence.

AI's comment: "MacGyver's statement "You are smarter than this" could be seen as an example of a Lévinasian eschatological vision, as it encourages the person to rise above the cycle of violence and revenge, and to choose a more intelligent and peaceful path. This aligns with Lévinas' view that eschatological vision allows for a transcendence of the totality and a relation to infinity."

I don't know what ''eschatological vision allows for a transcendence of the totality and a relation to infinity.'' means.

What would be your idea of the notion that the first "vision" of eschatology reveals the very possibility of eschatology and therefore provides grounding for purpose in life, and in turn, enables to overcome hate and evil, and secure actual peace?

It's still obscure to me. Obviously there are meaningful purposes in individuals' lives which can over-ride impulsive responses. And if that meaningful purpose enables individuals to overcome hate and evil, then sure. That would be a simple statement to make tho, and he's using grander and more ambiguous terms, so I suspect he's pointing to something more...

What do you think of the idea that MacGyver's statement "You are smarter than this" would have a psychological effect in the by hate consumed person, in line with a Lévinasian eschatological vision, that was able to drag him out of it at the moment that he would have taken revenge from within a long ongoing developing culture of hate?

It's a straightforward invocation not to continue the cycle of hate and suffering, appealing to a sense of self as a better person. Does that align with L's claim about a meaningful sense of purpose an individual may have - could do if that individual values that purpose in their life.

Lévinas wrote: "The peace of empires issued from war rests on war." which explains his statement that peace is only possible through his philosophical eschatological vision that transcends the totality and establishes a relation to ∞ infinity. "Of peace there can only be an eschatology."

That's an obscure phrase which has yet to be clarified or justified - to me at least.

Here's the prob I see - You can't just borrow a term which refers specifically to End Times ultimate justice in a specific context (God's judgement or somesuch), and replace it with some transcendent , infinite purpose - without saying what the source of the purpose or justice is.

L says that just by co-opting the religious concept of eschatology, minus what would make it makes it a real thing with causal effects (the End Times and God parts) there is still something left which can effect transformative change. Right? But concepts themselves aren't mind-independant causal forces. The concept of ''Purpose'' can't do anything. Such concepts have to be instantiated in something specific (even if only a mind) to cause transformative change. I'm not seeing yet what that instantiation is meant to be. In religious eschatology it's clear because it's specified. Eg if you believe you will be judged by an Almighty God in the End Times, and your eternal fate depends on it, you have a purpose in this life and 'a relationship with infinity'.



Where-as I can make a philosophical case for a moral solution using the moral foundation ''Try to promote the wellbeing of conscious creatures''. Which would see the goal as a peaceful agreement between warring parties, and finding a way of reducing suffering and promoting flourishing for both. Easier said than done, of course.

[value]

"The first "vision" of eschatology (hereby distinguished from the revealed opinions of positive religions) reveals the very possibility of eschatology, that is, the breach of the totality, the possibility of a signification without context."

OK, so for L ''eschatology'' means ''a transformative and meaningful end or purpose''

While it may be related to purpose, the eschatological vision itself is quite the opposite from an end or defined purpose. Therefore, in the example given of MacGyver, the one spoken to wasn't told what to do but rather a vision was incited in him of something higher, of an aspect that could be called many names, including 'beauty'.

"MacGyver's statement "You are smarter than this" could be seen as an example of a Lévinasian eschatological vision, as it encourages the person to rise above the cycle of violence and revenge, and to choose a more intelligent and peaceful path. This aligns with Lévinas' view that eschatological vision allows for a transcendence of the totality and a relation to infinity."

I don't know what ''eschatological vision allows for a transcendence of the totality and a relation to infinity.'' means.

Perhaps it would be most appropriate in this case to suggest to read Lévinas his work Totality and Infinity, because in that work he dedicates specifically to making a case for it. He wrote:

"The first "vision" of eschatology (hereby distinguished from the revealed opinions of positive religions) reveals the very possibility of eschatology, that is, the breach of the totality, the possibility of a signification without context. The experience of morality does not proceed from this vision - it consummates this vision; ethics is an optics. But it is a vision without image, bereft of the synoptics and totalizing objectifying virtues of vision, a relation or an intentionality of a wholly different type - which this work seeks to describe.""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totality_and_Infinity

It's still obscure to me. Obviously there are meaningful purposes in individuals' lives which can over-ride impulsive responses. And if that meaningful purpose enables individuals to overcome hate and evil, then sure. That would be a simple statement to make tho, and he's using grander and more ambiguous terms, so I suspect he's pointing to something more...

The eschatological vision would involve something more fundamental than individual purpose. It would underlay purpose and existence and provide authenticity and meaning to individual purpose. It would grant purpose.

What do you think of the idea that MacGyver's statement "You are smarter than this" would have a psychological effect in the by hate consumed person, in line with a Lévinasian eschatological vision, that was able to drag him out of it at the moment that he would have taken revenge from within a long ongoing developing culture of hate?

It's a straightforward invocation not to continue the cycle of hate and suffering, appealing to a sense of self as a better person. Does that align with L's claim about a meaningful sense of purpose an individual may have - could do if that individual values that purpose in their life.

Lévinas his work concerns a case for fundamental theory that poses that 'respect' (ethics) lays at the root of existence. His work Totality and Infinity makes a case for the idea that ethics is the first philosophy (that it all starts with ethics).

While it may be straightforward for you to break the cycle of violence for all the benefits that you naturally may see for yourself, perhaps as part of the culture that you serve. It may not be straightforward for people who are entangled in a developing culture of hate, where parties have been increasingly attempting to harm each other, accompanied perhaps with ideas about honour and the obligation to take revenge. The argument is that MacGyver incited an eschatological vision that broke the cycle of violence in that condition, which makes it special.

"Reason and intellect is a higher good than war and revenge.".

The argument: When people can be shown an authentic path of intellect and reason, which MacGyver was able to do through his personal character and his relation to the individual, and which philosophy in general is able to do, people will rather choose that path.

That is the foundation for my argument in this topic that philosophy should be held responsible.

Where-as I can make a philosophical case for a moral solution using the moral foundation ''Try to promote the wellbeing of conscious creatures''. Which would see the goal as a peaceful agreement between warring parties, and finding a way of reducing suffering and promoting flourishing for both. Easier said than done, of course.

Well, perhaps your suggestion is the solution. I could subscribe to the idea. But wouldn't what you propose essentially involve a culture war to some extent, despite the 'good intentions' that you may have to force others to submit to your proposed way (of course not with the idea of actually forcing anyone, but it might simply concern changing some people's way)?

The argument that I attempted to make is that in theory (for which you would need to read Lévinas his work Totality and Infinity), a Lévinasian eschatological vision can enable people who are entangled in a developing culture of hate and revenge, to break the cycle of violence and 'fight' for a path aligned with intellect and reason, a higher good for humanity and beyond.

As opposed to an easy choice, it might be hard and require persistent dedication and a fight, for which the eschatological vision would grant the foundation for a purpose, a purpose of such a nature, that people will persevere and win, despite the condition or 'reality' that they are facing.

[Lagayascienza]

I managed to download Levinas' Totality and Infinity for free. Has anyone else here read it? I'd be happy to compare notes like I did with Hereandnow in respect of Husserl and Phenomenology and Chewybrian IRO Kastrup's online Analytic Idealism course.

Levinas looks scary difficult, like Husserl whose Cartesian Meditations I'm still struggling with. Maybe Levinas will provide me with a different slant on Phenomenology. But the main reason I want to read it is because you, value mention that, for Levinas, "ethics is the first philosophy" and philosophical ethics is my major philosophical interest. I'll start Levinas and come back to Husserl later. Heidegger will have to wait. Probably forever.

[value]

The following sources may provide more easy access to Lévinas his work, as in 'a 1 hour to few weeks quick check':

Emmanuel Levinas is one of the greatest thinkers of the twentieth, but the complexity of his thought, as well as Heidegger’s, prevents a real spread / democratization of his work. One of his most important works is Totality and Infinity: An essay on exteriority. In the latter, Levinas, according to a phenomenological method, describes how subjectivity arises from the idea of ​​infinity, and how infinite is a product of the relationship of self to another.
https://www.the-philosophy.com/levinas- ... ty-summary
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/levinas/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totality_and_Infinity

Emmanuel Levinas was born in Lithuania. He shortly fled to Ukraine during the war and then moved to France where he ultimately became a philosophy professor at the University of Paris. Levinas lost family and friends to the Nazis.

Philosopher Seth Paskin, one of the hosts of the podcast Partially Examined Life, studied Martin Heidegger in Freiburg, Germany, and later dedicated to Levinas.

Episode 145: Emmanuel Levinas: Why Be Ethical?
https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2016/ ... 1-levinas/

The following free ebook by the Dutch professor Adriaan Peperzak (University of Chicago) who is specialized in the history of Levinas, provides an insight in the history of Levinas.

To the Other: Introduction to the Philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas
https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/purduepress_ebooks/20/

User thrasymachus is a fan of Lévinas and once offered access to official ebooks through a forum PM request.

[Gertie]

"The first "vision" of eschatology (hereby distinguished from the revealed opinions of positive religions) reveals the very possibility of eschatology, that is, the breach of the totality, the possibility of a signification without context."

OK, so for L ''eschatology'' means ''a transformative and meaningful end or purpose''

While it may be related to purpose, the eschatological vision itself is quite the opposite from an end or defined purpose. Therefore, in the example given of MacGyver, the one spoken to wasn't told what to do but rather a vision was incited in him of something higher, of an aspect that could be called many names, including 'beauty'.

"MacGyver's statement "You are smarter than this" could be seen as an example of a Lévinasian eschatological vision, as it encourages the person to rise above the cycle of violence and revenge, and to choose a more intelligent and peaceful path. This aligns with Lévinas' view that eschatological vision allows for a transcendence of the totality and a relation to infinity."

I don't know what ''eschatological vision allows for a transcendence of the totality and a relation to infinity.'' means.

Perhaps it would be most appropriate in this case to suggest to read Lévinas his work Totality and Infinity, because in that work he dedicates specifically to making a case for it. He wrote:

"The first "vision" of eschatology (hereby distinguished from the revealed opinions of positive religions) reveals the very possibility of eschatology, that is, the breach of the totality, the possibility of a signification without context. The experience of morality does not proceed from this vision - it consummates this vision; ethics is an optics. But it is a vision without image, bereft of the synoptics and totalizing objectifying virtues of vision, a relation or an intentionality of a wholly different type - which this work seeks to describe.""

It's still obscure to me. Obviously there are meaningful purposes in individuals' lives which can over-ride impulsive responses. And if that meaningful purpose enables individuals to overcome hate and evil, then sure. That would be a simple statement to make tho, and he's using grander and more ambiguous terms, so I suspect he's pointing to something more...

The eschatological vision would involve something more fundamental than individual purpose. It would underlay purpose and existence and provide authenticity and meaning to individual purpose. It would grant purpose.

What do you think of the idea that MacGyver's statement "You are smarter than this" would have a psychological effect in the by hate consumed person, in line with a Lévinasian eschatological vision, that was able to drag him out of it at the moment that he would have taken revenge from within a long ongoing developing culture of hate?

It's a straightforward invocation not to continue the cycle of hate and suffering, appealing to a sense of self as a better person. Does that align with L's claim about a meaningful sense of purpose an individual may have - could do if that individual values that purpose in their life.

Lévinas his work concerns a case for fundamental theory that poses that 'respect' (ethics) lays at the root of existence. His work Totality and Infinity makes a case for the idea that ethics is the first philosophy (that it all starts with ethics).

While it may be straightforward for you to break the cycle of violence for all the benefits that you naturally may see for yourself, perhaps as part of the culture that you serve. It may not be straightforward for people who are entangled in a developing culture of hate, where parties have been increasingly attempting to harm each other, accompanied perhaps with ideas about honour and the obligation to take revenge. The argument is that MacGyver incited an eschatological vision that broke the cycle of violence in that condition, which makes it special.

"Reason and intellect is a higher good than war and revenge.".

The argument: When people can be shown an authentic path of intellect and reason, which MacGyver was able to do through his personal character and his relation to the individual, and which philosophy in general is able to do, people will rather choose that path.

That is the foundation for my argument in this topic that philosophy should be held responsible.

Where-as I can make a philosophical case for a moral solution using the moral foundation ''Try to promote the wellbeing of conscious creatures''. Which would see the goal as a peaceful agreement between warring parties, and finding a way of reducing suffering and promoting flourishing for both. Easier said than done, of course.

Well, perhaps your suggestion is the solution. I could subscribe to the idea. But wouldn't what you propose essentially involve a culture war to some extent, despite the 'good intentions' that you may have to force others to submit to your proposed way (of course not with the idea of actually forcing anyone, but it might simply concern changing some people's way)?

I'm not proposing philosophy (nevermind me) forces anyone to do anything. Like you, I believe philosophy has a responsibility to offer a universal grounding for morality, a resource which offers a normative foundation for putting aside our animosities for a greater good for all. An appeal to our common humanity as lagayscienza put it, rather than an appeal to some elusive higher 'vision' or authority. It's especially relevant in our globalised world when individual nations, factions and cultures are involved in mass tribal warfare. Or actual genocide in this case. To put an option on the table, as MacGyver did.

If we think in terms of Rawls' Veil of Ignorance I suspect that a majority of ordinary people currently living in fear and suffering would go for it, both as reasonable and as an 'empathy prompt'. And if it becomes part of the zeitgeist it's a way to put pressure on intransigents and leaders with vested interests, because it's difficult to argue against imo, unless you're sociopathic.

Did you hear Glazer's speech at the Oscars? He wrote and directed Zone of Interest (stunning film) and said don't use my Jewish identity to justify genocide. But that's essentially what's been going on for years on both sides of Israel's wall, indoctrinating generations from birth into Us v Them, when really we need to shift it to just Us. That's what a universalised morality entails imo, an expansion of our instinctive circle of care, to realising we all matter in our own weird and wonderful ways.

The argument that I attempted to make is that in theory (for which you would need to read Lévinas his work Totality and Infinity),

I'd rather chew my own toes off . Seriously, this sort of philosophy writing actually offends my brain. I don't know why, some people obviously get something out of it I don't. But I'd be going ''What do you actually mean???'' every other sentence till I chuck it out the window, then it hits the next door neighbour, sparking a cycle of violent vengeance for generations to come! All in all, best not.

a Lévinasian eschatological vision can enable people who are entangled in a developing culture of hate and revenge, to break the cycle of violence and 'fight' for a path aligned with intellect and reason, a higher good for humanity and beyond.

As opposed to an easy choice, it might be hard and require persistent dedication and a fight, for which the eschatological vision would grant the foundation for a purpose, a purpose of such a nature, that people will persevere and win, despite the condition or 'reality' that they are facing.

Maybe. And kudos to Levinas for having a go. I just think we have purpose and meaning built in, and we matter, because that's the nature of being an experiencing conscious subject with a ''something it is like'' quality of life. We're flawed, often irrational, plain horrible and weird at times. But we still matter and deserve care, moral consideration, in our interactions. It's this mattering, the having a stake in the goings on of the world, which makes sense of the Is/Ought divide imo.