by find one value at a time, u create an ethics, a set of values
and that is why you want to be good
because u have limits
limits of how much pain is tolerable and such
i want to be good because i want to uphold the rights of all people
because i want to live, therefore life is valuable to me
yeah, that is an important distinct people forget, if one says slavery is intolerable and then makes the master the slave, he is contradicting himself and place something above enduring
(understood he sorry)
which has its weaknesses I admit
as an argument, but I am working on it
capital punishment contradicts the value it's trying to protect. man I soo shoulda used that for my research paper
well isn't that what cames was trying to get at?
I would, if I were u, read more on Camus, for he would probably say it better than i can
yeah, he focuses on that because think about how systematic killings are justified through law
what is unclear to me is the freedom part of it. maybe you just haven't gotten there yet. don't you think a slave can be ethical?
He was working on these theories during and after WWII
"we're protecting out lives by taking yours"
a slave can be ethical, because a great deal of morality is natural, pain, empathy, whatnot)
it is just that some more abstract things like equality need to be values by a process
DOes that make sense?
yah i think so
how long have you been working on this?
starting from nothing on Camus, 2 years
I am still working on him, because I have not spent every waking hour memorizing and focusing on what he means
A good book to read, a novel of his, is called THe Plague
it will explain things for a beginner in Camus, but I have forgotten some of his arguments
I am currently working on The Rebel, a book length essay
i will look into it next time im in the library
what's it about?
It is about the difference between rebellion and revolution
and what do you think of it so far?
while rebellion is a protestation, with no specific leader, and has a sense of resulting from injustice to life or enduring (to not rebell against the injustice of Southern Jim Crow laws was to starve, to be disenfranchised into subhuamnness)
I like it, though his essays can be difficult
to read, because it is translated from French with specific terms from a specialized philosophy
Revolution is All or Nothing for the cuase
and because of this, it risks putting something above life
well isn't the cause usually about your quality of life?
THe French Revolution started out as a rebellion, quality of life, then became equality, liberty, fraternity
they killed off all the aristocrats as being iconic as against those values
THomas Paine came to France and argued against systematic murdering of the higher classes and the hysteria of killing off sympathizers and was duely imrisoned
So this is the All or Nothing approach and rhetoric on revolutions often
i guess I mean to say that equality and liberty is a part of life. i guess you could call it a right. but didn't you determine that it was worth establishing a slave's liberty because you value his life?
America had ran the risk of that, but the revolution was actually fairly small (most people were very loyal and did not join the revolution) and England did not have the resources to continue the fight long enough to make it All or Nothing
Equality is good for life so long as one does not maintain it with absolute justice (as one may remember the limits)
the limits of equality?
For instance it would be bad to make everyone equal in the sense of wealth, intelligence, ability to play sports
because in order to do that one would have to reduce the quality of life for even the moderately well off
In a way that is was communist tried
in order to get rid of class struggle
now it is John Rawls who explains the best way to approach equality
i wish i remembered the name of it, but there was this short story we had to read in junior english, this dystopian place with extreme equality. this huge guy was covered in "handicapps", things that lessened his strength so that he wasn't superior. basically he had to go around with heavy metal objects strapped to his body
He maintains that if we did not know who we are, and we had to choose what society we were to live in, we would try to make the worst off better because we would not want to risk being in their position
I read that story as well, and that is what I was thinking of
do you remember what it was called?
So you learn anything
ya i mean, obviously the things you're saying make sense. People just usually don't challenge me to draw conclusions like that because most people don't think about it
I guess they leave it up to the philosophers hah
well, it shouldnt be just the philosophers who know about it or think about or we have a lot of people being revolutionists (think of tea party)
Just a nice thing to say, when you laugh at a joke, remember that there is a language game behind it, and that language game is what philosophers do (smostly not comicly)
i totally wish i knew what you meant by that
... jokes are philosophy in a sense
they question our expectations and what we mean by words
they make logical mistakes that are understood
why did he do that? because he thought...
I recently wrote an article for a blog and got it published
a link for it is on my wall
oh yah, me too. its about quantum physics
haha, playing with my catagorical trust of friends
lol were you impressed?
yes, for it shows ingenuity and teaches me to assume less about people
wait until evidence before believing something that has not shown to be an interest of said friend
but that is just rationalizing this, but u were funny
well, I try
well, if u are ever interested, u can read my articles, i post them every once in awhile, i got some things i want to do right now
okay. i have the browser up actually for a while i just suddenly got popular on facebook im. but i'll read it and talk to you later
so you said you had some things you want to do right now ad I thought you meant you were going off to do things
just left my comp on