Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 7^th, 2011 at 3:57pm:


My morality is based on personal preference, and no doubt influenced by upbringing and life experience, as is yours.

But to answer your question re. morality and intent, as referenced by Lisa, I can only repeat what I said when you raised this subject on D&R, that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.l

Quote:


Kant spoke of intentions, which is why I mentioned him. Nietzsche speaks of a morality of courage, strength, and independence, which is why I mentioned him. Nietzsche's critique of morality does point to it as personal preference. One of his major points was that morality is never abstracted from the person practicing it, which the neo-Platonists claim to do. While neo-Platonists speak of "spirit", "god" etc. it's all a mask; the morality still comes from them. Do you think Nietzsche was detached from his "master morality"? No. He was intimately tied with it; that's why he supported it. As I said, it's personal preference.

Quote:


Strawman.

Quote:


Which is why I referenced Kant and Nietzsche. I never made a claim I personally invented it.

Quote:


Again, this is a strawman. I've been clear from the beginning on who my personal view is influenced by - Kant, Nietzsche - never have I claimed to have a morality that is akin to a "private language".
It's odd you accuse me of having a "private langauge" when this is actually very close to what the mystics and religious folk argue; that morality is based on some form that transcends space, time, and causality.

a "nation" is a shared unitary cultural consciousness which prompts community co-support and action, imho. As in what immigration policy would better be.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 9^th, 2011 at 5:07am:


LOL

What you mean is, that such 'pretensions' are mere vanity.

True, often.

And especially if we are speak of ourselves, of our own culture, today.

But what about our respect for others, and for those of former times?



e.g.
I admire the founding fathers of the USA.
Browse the constitution, and the preamble of the constitution of the USA some time.
It is stirring stuff.

Google;
"we the people"

Was the system of government which the founding fathers of the USA tried to establish perfect?

No.

But those people were light years ahead of its time in the late 1700's, imo!

And, to be admired, imo.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 10^th, 2011 at 2:12am:


But my reading of those events, was that the colonists did not seek war with Britain.

Rather, that [many of] the colonists tried to negotiate a measure of self determination and self government for their colonies, and thereby tried to avoid any direct [political] conflict with the British powers of the day.

But in the end, the colonists fought a war with British powers,
...so as to try to secure the religious and political freedoms which they collectively aspired to.




NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 10^th, 2011 at 2:12am:



And shouldn't citizens of the USA today, be proud of what their founding fathers [at least initially] achieved??

IMO, they should.

IMO, it appears that the USA, in its system of government, has been the greatest exponent of human freedoms and good human aspirations in this world.

But imo, many of those ideals [espoused by their founding fathers] have been betrayed and undermined by the apathy and greed of recent generations, and subsequent US government administrations, seeking to relieve the people of their authority and rights.

The ideal that most citizens have, is that their government should serve the people.

Human history shows us that [over time] many, many 'democratic' governments of men, eventually [, like the people they serve ?? ] corrupt themselves, and government authority morphs into a tyranny which becomes largely unaccountable to the people, and which begin to oppress the people, so as to secure their own 'primacy'.

i.e.
Many so called 'democracies' today, have morphed into a system of government, which is effectively an 'elected' dictatorship, or autocracy  [e.g. In recent years, Italy has become in some measure an autocracy, ruled by media tycoon, Silvio Berlusconi ] .
Every 3-5 years, we elect a group of 'representatives', who then proceed to rule over us.
I suppose we 'the people' should be grateful, that every few years our politicians, again, allow us to select our rulers from among them.   

Dictionary;
democracy = = a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives. Ø a state governed in such a way. Ø control of a group by the majority of its members.

Soren wrote on Feb 11^th, 2011 at 8:14am:



A nice quote comes to mind;

The measure of a civilization is not only, in how great its material achievements are in the world around it, but also, what measure of dignity and justice a civilization affords to its weakest, most powerless members.

Or words to that effect.

Google;
the measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members

Yadda wrote on Jan 20^th, 2011 at 11:50am:



Its sense of humour. Maate.

Different horses for different courses then.
Seems to be the original point I was making.