mecylee:

huxley I have been following your critics and aguement against religion, God of the bible and his creations and am yet to know or understand what you relly believe in, please could you let me know where you stand is [color=#006600][/color]

What is your question?

huxley:

I don't understand.   What does existential mean.   Can you explain to me how you understand it and how it relates to your question?

I don't know what to say to this.  Firstly you are a man that claims to be very interested in philosophy yet you do not know what Existential means!  Or perhaps you have been selective in your philosophical reading, limiting yourself only to books that attack religion.

Secondly, I've already provided you with the wiki definition of the word and you are still asking.  So I don't know whether you read my post or not.  Yet you responded so you obviously read it.  Wikipedia defines it as:

Existential philosophy is characterized by what has been called the "explicit conceptual manifestation of an existential attitude"[5] that begins with a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world.[6][7]

Perhaps you don't understand the english.  Let me try to rephrase what it says. 
When faced with meaninglessness or absurdity in the world, it has the effect of disorientating people.  This state of disorientation is called the existential state.  My question to you is how does one create an ethical system in such a state of disorientation. 
Ethics give you a scale of values (moral values), do they not?  Ideals exist at the top of the scale and they are striven for, while at the bottom of the scale are the lowly valued things and they are striven against.  Thus Ethics give us an orientation.  We are oriented towards the ideals.
If however the basic state of reality is acknowledged to be existential (ie. disorientated) then on what are the Ethics to be based on.

mecylee:

huxley I have been following your critics and aguement against religion, God of the bible and his creations and am yet to know or understand what you relly believe in, please could you let me know where you stand is [color=#006600][/color]

Huxley claims to be a Humanist. That is his ideology. Or his religion, if you will.

At least christians and muslims stand up for their beliefs but Huxley will never answer a straight question about his humanism.

I would just like to make a recapitulation of this thread as things have progressed thus far. 

I stated early on that I wanted to use the Paul Kurtz video to make an exposition of my main beefs against Humanism and it is this that I have sought to do through out, though It would seem that Huxley was more interested in making the thread more of an attack on Christianity, as if there are not enough other threads doing just that in Nairaland. 

Many points have been raised by both sides, and I have even seen points where I erred and I feel pressed to address these.   Mainly where he claims a lineage that harks back to Ancient Athens.  It is true that from what we have left of the writings of the likes of Democritus and Epicurus we can say that a philosophic tradition existed in Athens that was reductionist and that denied the existence of Gods.  I've put that in bold to emphasize it.  I was taking certain strands of Philosophy to represent the whole of Athenian philosophy and thus erred. 

However I still hold firm that Religion was not necessarily created to provide ethics but rather Ethics emerge naturally from spiritual awareness.  That is not to say that historically religion has not been manipulated for various social purposes.  But rather that there is more to religion than the machinations of politicians and social engineers.

Spirituality, like Light via eyes, is something that is experienced via our faculties and that experience is the basis of it.   Ethics emerge from this as indeed the game of darts emerges from our ability to see light.

You haven't really addressed these points that I raised.

I then went on to show that Reason as the likes of Plato meant it referred to another faculty of perception other than the Senses.  Yet you claim to not understand what that means.  You said that you couldn't carry on the conversation unless I told you what I meant by Reason.
I tried to further elucidate by quoting Plato directly where he says that Reason gives perception of the Eternal while the Senses give us perception of the Temporal world. 

You still haven't responded as to whether you now understand it. 

I say that Religions point to an appropriation in the essential core of man and that it is on this appropriation that the Ideals of an ethical system are to be built.  All the while you seem to have deftly avoided the whole issue of the creation of an Ethical System which is the very topic of this thread. 

I attacked Kurtz's statement about the need to move from Being to Becoming as kaka and a misappropriation of the terms and their meanings.  You have yet to address that.

The sum of you responses have been a rant about christianity and then numerous requests for me to define the terms I'm using before you can talk to me.

You asked for my definition of Reason, and I provided that which Plato used.  No response.

You asked for a definition of Spirituality, and I provided one.  Namely a reality not composed of material bodies.  Till date, no response.

I'll like to further refine my definition of Spiritual and say that they are Forms (formal entities) that are not composed of material bodies.

All this has little to do with the claims of Paul Kurtz.  In order to get back on topic I then asked you how you intend to go about building your ethical system.  To which you responded with a request for the definition of Existential.  I'd provided it when I initially asked the question but I then repeated the definition in a rephrased version. 

As for your response, I'm still waiting . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

zzzzzz . . . . . zzzzzzz. . . .


zzzzzzz, ,  . huh, sorry to nod off , I'm waiting for a certain Huxley  . ,  . .


zzzz . . . zzz ,  Waiting for Godot . . . . . . .

I shall come back to this later today cuz I have not got the time now to give it my full attention.

Let's get one thing clear before I proceed. I posted this video because I agreed with most of the things I heard him (Paul Kurtz) address in the video. I think many of his ideas were sound and I have read some of his books which champion these ideas. But that is a far cry from being a worshipper or devotee of the man. I don't know him, but given the chance I would like to get to know him just as you may want to meet people with stimulating ideas that agree with yours. I go for the ideas first, then the man second. Should I know him as a friend, then the order might be different. SO cut out all the worshipper rubbish you are wont to make.

Pastor AIO:

I would just like to make a recapitulation of this thread as things have progressed thus far. 

I stated early on that I wanted to use the Paul Kurtz video to make an exposition of my main beefs against Humanism and it is this that I have sought to do through out, though It would seem that Huxley was more interested in making the thread more of an attack on Christianity, as if there are not enough other threads doing just that in Nairaland. 

Many points have been raised by both sides, and I have even seen points where I erred and I feel pressed to address these.   Mainly where he claims a lineage that harks back to Ancient Athens.  It is true that from what we have left of the writings of the likes of Democritus and Epicurus we can say that a philosophic tradition existed in Athens that was reductionist and that denied the existence of Gods.  I've put that in bold to emphasize it.  I was taking certain strands of Philosophy to represent the whole of Athenian philosophy and thus erred.

I made a comment earlier to the effect that most of Western Philosophy traces its roots back to Greece, in one form or the other. So, in the generally sense, Kurtz is right in saying that his philosophy derives from Greece. I was particularly disappointed to realise that you could not appreciate this fact. But in the very direct sense Epicurus and Democritus are forebears of the humanist project. In fact, the Greek humanist project dates as far back as the sixth BCE with people like Thales of Miletus, Xenophanes of Colophon, Anaxogoras, Pericles, Protagoras, Epicurus, Democritus, etc, etc, etc. This culminated with the development of the concept of eudaimonia (well-being or happiness). Kurtz is championing a modern-day version of eudaimonia, called Eupraxsophy, which gets parts of its name from eudaimonia.

Eu - means "good", "well".
Praxis - means "action, doing or practice"

Eupraxia - means "right action" or "good conduct"

Sophia - means "wisdom"

So Eupraxsophy means not only the love of wisdom, but also the practice of wisdom. There is more to this that I cannot go into now for time pressure. I give this to show you how he is justified in tracing back his philosophy to the ancient Greeks. I am relieved you have conceded the point.

Pastor AIO:
 

However I still hold firm that Religion was not necessarily created to provide ethics but rather Ethics emerge naturally from spiritual awareness.  That is not to say that historically religion has not been manipulated for various social purposes.  But rather that there is more to religion than the machinations of politicians and social engineers.

Spirituality, like Light via eyes, is something that is experienced via our faculties and that experience is the basis of it.   Ethics emerge from this as indeed the game of darts emerges from our ability to see light.

You haven't really addressed these points that I raised.

I then went on to show that Reason as the likes of Plato meant it referred to another faculty of perception other than the Senses.  Yet you claim to not understand what that means.  You said that you couldn't carry on the conversation unless I told you what I meant by Reason.
I tried to further elucidate by quoting Plato directly where he says that Reason gives perception of the Eternal while the Senses give us perception of the Temporal world. 

You still haven't responded as to whether you now understand it. 

No one can now say definitively how and why humans got or derive religions, being such an apparent early development in the human specie. In fact, it is believed by most anthropologist that other forms of humanoids like Neanderthals practised form of religions not dissimilar from ours. So human religions go back a long time. That is has survive this long suggest that it served a useful purpose, some of which would include things like bonding communities together, providing a framework for societal and cultural identification, moral/ethical grounding, satisfying a longing for the unknown and unknowable.

In fact, man's first attempts at science was embedded in the local religion. How else would you explain why nearly all religion have some sort of answers for the bigs questions of reality, question that are now being answered in a far more satisfactory manner by the scientific method.

You say Ethic emerge from Spiritual awareness. I beg to differ. Modern philosophical thought argues for ethic emerging naturally as a result of sociability. Basically, as organism begin to live in some sort of social groups, various forms of ethical systems emerge naturally that govern their behaviour and interactions. This has been studies widely amongst animals like chimps, ants, bats, bonobos, elephants, etc, etc. Some of thes animals show some degrees of altruism, sympathy, courage, etc, etc. And would dish out "penalties" to their kinds that break the societal ethical norms. Are you gonna argue that these animals have also developed spiritual awareness?

I was surprise that you based your definition of Reason on Plato's. I thought a more contemporary definition could have worked quite as well if not better. Anyway, let's look at what you had to say:

We must in my opinion begin by distinguishing between that which always is and never becomes (ie. the eternal) from that which is always becoming but never is (the temporal).

In other words he is saying that there is an eternal reality and a temporal reality. The Eternal is the world of BEING. While the Temporal world is the world of BECOMING. There is a distinction between things Being, and remaining in their state of Being and Things BECOMING, ie in flux in a state of constant change. Things are continually becoming. If you cannot grasp these concepts that you should just stop deceiving yourself and give up on philosophy altogether.

The one is apprehensible by INTELLIGENCE with the aid of REASONING, being eternally the same, the other is the object of opinion and irrational sensation, coming to be and ceasing to be, but never fully real

And there's your definition for you. Reason and Intelligence are the faculties that we use to perceive Eternal things, while opinion and irrational sensation are what we use to perceive Temporal things.
I agree that the use of these terms have changed over the centuries and irrational sensation is now equated with Reason but Plato would be shocked at this development. Today, the word Sensible is now the same as intelligent. When they say you are a sensible guy, you are being praised. Yet originally it meant to be overly affected by the senses, to be influenced by the emotions.

Now, the idea of asking for definition is to help aid understanding. I asked for defintions of words like REASON, INTELLIGENCE, etc and you have explained them by making reference even more unfamiliar word and concept like Eternal things/Temporal things, being and becoming, etc, without defining what eternal and temporal things are. Can you provide some CONCRETE example of what these are and their various associations.

Pastor AIO:


I say that Religions point to an appropriation in the essential core of man and that it is on this appropriation that the Ideals of an ethical system are to be built.  All the while you seem to have deftly avoided the whole issue of the creation of an Ethical System which is the very topic of this thread. 

I attacked Kurtz's statement about the need to move from Being to Becoming as kaka and a misappropriation of the terms and their meanings.  You have yet to address that.

The sum of you responses have been a rant about christianity and then numerous requests for me to define the terms I'm using before you can talk to me.

I avoided the issue because your use of terminology is rather sloppy and that is why I asked for definitions, which did not make things any better.

Pastor AIO:


You asked for my definition of Reason, and I provided that which Plato used.  No response.

You asked for a definition of Spirituality, and I provided one.  Namely a reality not composed of material bodies.  Till date, no response.

I'll like to further refine my definition of Spiritual and say that they are Forms (formal entities) that are not composed of material bodies.

See above. Can you elaborate on the concepts like Spirituality, which I don't think you have. Have other organisms got spirituality?

Pastor AIO:



All this has little to do with the claims of Paul Kurtz.  In order to get back on topic I then asked you how you intend to go about building your ethical system.  To which you responded with a request for the definition of Existential.  I'd provided it when I initially asked the question but I then repeated the definition in a rephrased version. 

As for your response, I'm still waiting . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

zzzzzz . . . . . zzzzzzz. . . .


zzzzzzz, ,  . huh, sorry to nod off , I'm waiting for a certain Huxley  . ,  . .


zzzz . . . zzz ,  Waiting for Godot . . . . . . .

   

I asked for what you understood by existentialism and you simply copied a rather tedius definition from wikipedia. I also asked how you would relate ethics with mans existential needs, and I am yet to see you response. How am I suppose to make sense of what you are saying when your ideas are so flaky? Man, buckle them up, buckly them up.

huxley:

Let's get one thing clear before I proceed. I posted this video because I agreed with most of the things I heard him (Paul Kurtz) address in the video. I think many of his ideas were sound and I have read some of his books which champion these ideas. But that is a far cry from being a worshipper or devotee of the man. I don't know him, but given the chance I would like to get to know him just as you may want to meet people with stimulating ideas that agree with yours. I go for the ideas first, then the man second. Should I know him as a friend, then the order might be different. SO cut out all the worshipper rubbish you are wont to make.


I made a comment earlier to the effect that most of Western Philosophy traces its roots back to Greece, in one form or the other. So, in the generally sense, Kurtz is right in saying that his philosophy derives from Greece. I was particularly disappointed to realise that you could not appreciate this fact. But in the very direct sense Epicurus and Democritus are forebears of the humanist project. In fact, the Greek humanist project dates as far back as the sixth BCE with people like Thales of Miletus, Xenophanes of Colophon, Anaxogoras, Pericles, Protagoras, Epicurus, Democritus, etc, etc, etc. This culminated with the development of the concept of eudaimonia (well-being or happiness). Kurtz is championing a modern-day version of eudaimonia, called Eupraxsophy, which gets parts of its name from eudaimonia.

Eu - means "good", "well".
Praxis - means "action, doing or practice"

Eupraxia - means "right action" or "good conduct"

Sophia - means "wisdom"

So Eupraxsophy means not only the love of wisdom, but also the practice of wisdom. There is more to this that I cannot go into now for time pressure. I give this to show you how he is justified in tracing back his philosophy to the ancient Greeks. I am relieved you have conceded the point.



No one can now say definitively how and why humans got or derive religions, being such an apparent early development in the human specie. In fact, it is believed by most anthropologist that other forms of humanoids like Neanderthals practised form of religions not dissimilar from ours. So human religions go back a long time. That is has survive this long suggest that it served a useful purpose, some of which would include things like bonding communities together, providing a framework for societal and cultural identification, moral/ethical grounding, satisfying a longing for the unknown and unknowable.

In fact, man's first attempts at science was embedded in the local religion. How else would you explain why nearly all religion have some sort of answers for the bigs questions of reality, question that are now being answered in a far more satisfactory manner by the scientific method.

You say Ethic emerge from Spiritual awareness. I beg to differ. Modern philosophical thought argues for ethic emerging naturally as a result of sociability. Basically, as organism begin to live in some sort of social groups, various forms of ethical systems emerge naturally that govern their behaviour and interactions. This has been studies widely amongst animals like chimps, ants, bats, bonobos, elephants, etc, etc. Some of thes animals show some degrees of altruism, sympathy, courage, etc, etc. And would dish out "penalties" to their kinds that break the societal ethical norms. Are you gonna argue that these animals have also developed spiritual awareness?

I was surprise that you based your definition of Reason on Plato's. I thought a more contemporary definition could have worked quite as well if not better. Anyway, let's look at what you had to say:



Now, the idea of asking for definition is to help aid understanding. I asked for defintions of words like REASON, INTELLIGENCE, etc and you have explained them by making reference even more unfamiliar word and concept like Eternal things/Temporal things, being and becoming, etc, without defining what eternal and temporal things are. Can you provide some CONCRETE example of what these are and their various associations.




I avoided the issue because your use of terminology is rather sloppy and that is why I asked for definitions, which did not make things any better.



See above. Can you elaborate on the concepts like Spirituality, which I don't think you have. Have other organisms got spirituality?


I asked for what you understood by existentialism and you simply copied a rather tedius definition from wikipedia. I also asked how you would relate ethics with mans existential needs, and I am yet to see you response. How am I suppose to make sense of what you are saying when your ideas are so flaky? Man, buckle them up, buckly them up.

Okay, Huxley. I see that this will not get anywhere like this. Can we forget everything that I've said. Let us say that I never made any comments and we're starting afresh. All I want to ask is one question:

How do you INVENT an ethical system? If not you, how does Paul Kurtz do it? What is it based on?

Pastor AIO:

Okay, Huxley. I see that this will not get anywhere like this. Can we forget everything that I've said. Let us say that I never made any comments and we're starting afresh. All I want to ask is one question:

How do you INVENT an ethical system? If not you, how does Paul Kurtz do it? What is it based on?

OK, if you want to talk about ethic, I am game for that. I shall deal in greater details much later when I return from work, but I shall leave you for now with the following questions:

1) Did you say you work in the sciences and have done science based research?

2) Have you ever had to apply for approval to proceed with your work from an ethical committee?

3) How did the modern world arrive at modern day ethical guidelines and principles that govern things like sciences and medicine, environmental policies, business ethics, etc, etc? How did these evolve?

huxley:

OK, if you want to talk about ethic, I am game for that. I shall deal in greater details much later when I return from work, but I shall leave you for now with the following questions:

1) Did you say you work in the sciences and have done science based research?

2) Have you ever had to apply for approval to proceed with your work from an ethical committee?

3) How did the modern world arrive at modern day ethical guidelines and principles that govern things like sciences and medicine, environmental policies, business ethics, etc, etc? How did these evolve?

You this Huxley guy, I'm give you serious warning now. Stop it!! Just Stop it, already!!
Answer a simple question and stop asking questions back in response to my questions. I've spoken straight with you and all you done is ask for this definition or that definition. I decided to stop giving my opinion and simply ask you for yours.

But shock and horror!! All you can do is respond with more questions. Please just tell me what your position is. I don't want to answer anymore of your questions.

Pastor AIO:

Okay, Huxley. I see that this will not get anywhere like this. Can we forget everything that I've said. Let us say that I never made any comments and we're starting afresh. All I want to ask is one question:

How do you INVENT an ethical system? If not you, how does Paul Kurtz do it? What is it based on?

OK, since you seem to prefer quick snappy answers, here we go;

INVENT is the wrong word for things like ethical systems. Ethical systems develop slowly over time. In fact, you could use the word EVOLVE over time to better describe how ethical system develop.


The better Ethical systems are the product of the slow, considered opinion of people of a society/community. It tends to be the consensus view of how best society should function.

Ethical systems based on commanded authority usually from a deity tend to be problematic and least able to adapt to the needs of a society.

Are you familiar with the Divine Command paradox? Chech it out.


There you go - the better ethical systems evolve slow over time and is directed and informed by the general consensus of the society.

What happened to this thread?

I'll come back to it, but sometimes my mind gets distracted from certain topics. I'm gonna spend the next 24 hours psyching myself up for more of this. okay.

Flattered to know that you're missing me.

huxley:


OK, since you seem to prefer quick snappy answers, here we go;

INVENT is the wrong word for things like ethical systems. Ethical systems develop slowly over time. In fact, you could use the word EVOLVE over time to better describe how ethical system develop.


The better Ethical systems are the product of the slow, considered opinion of people of a society/community. It tends to be the consensus view of how best society should function.

Ethical systems based on commanded authority usually from a deity tend to be problematic and least able to adapt to the needs of a society.

Are you familiar with the Divine Command paradox? Chech it out.


There you go - the better ethical systems evolve slow over time and is directed and informed by the general consensus of the society.

Okay Huxley, Here I come. At first I wanted to say that what you've said above is a far cry from what Paul Kurtz said because I was under the notion that he was looking to create a non-religious ethical system. But then I looked again and what the interviewer said was that he was 'searching for an ethical alternative to religiousity'. So I guess by that he is not trying to invent one but rather discover one without recourse to religion.

I would agree with you that ethical systems evolve over time. I would even go further and say that there is no such thing as a universal absolute ethics. But rather they differ from individual to individual and from epoch to epoch.

Where I would disagree with you is where you say that ethics is the product of a 'slow, considered opinion of a people of a society/community'. I take ethics to be more than the subjective opinion of people but rather a objective influence on events. Saying it is the opinion of a people, no matter how well considered, amounts to saying that it is invented. I say that it is discovered. It is there already as a part of creation.

Whether God has anything to do with it is tied into the whole issue of What God has to do with the creation of the universe at all which is a topic I know that you and I can go on arguing about until the cows come home without resolution.

The Divine Command theory is mired in the fact that God is nothing more than a Concept in most text based religions. As I've stated before elsewhere, My belief in God is based primarily on experience. Any attempt to discuss or articulate such an ineffable experience will only leave one tied up in all sorts of convoluted knots.

was it on this thread?

Pastor AIO:

Okay Huxley, Here I come. At first I wanted to say that what you've said above is a far cry from what Paul Kurtz said because I was under the notion that he was looking to create a non-religious ethical system. But then I looked again and what the interviewer said was that he was 'searching for an ethical alternative to religiousity'. So I guess by that he is not trying to invent one but rather discover one without recourse to religion.

I would agree with you that ethical systems evolve over time. I would even go further and say that there is no such thing as a universal absolute ethics. But rather they differ from individual to individual and from epoch to epoch.

Where I would disagree with you is where you say that ethics is the product of a 'slow, considered opinion of a people of a society/community'. I take ethics to be more than the subjective opinion of people but rather a objective influence on events. Saying it is the opinion of a people, no matter how well considered, amounts to saying that it is invented. I say that it is discovered. It is there already as a part of creation.

Whether God has anything to do with it is tied into the whole issue of What God has to do with the creation of the universe at all which is a topic I know that you and I can go on arguing about until the cows come home without resolution.

The Divine Command theory is mired in the fact that God is nothing more than a Concept in most text based religions. As I've stated before elsewhere, My belief in God is based primarily on experience. Any attempt to discuss or articulate such an ineffable experience will only leave one tied up in all sorts of convoluted knots.

As you might expect, I have issues with the notion of discoverying ethical codes, as this suggests that these are obsolutes facts out there in the world that are just awaiting our uncovering. The obvious question with regards to the notion of discoverying ethics is the following:

Is it ever possible to KNOW whether one has discovery the optimum or best ethical code for a given situation? If so, how does one know that what one has at hand is the "best" ethical code?



Let us play consider the following scenarios that require sometimes very acute ethical evaluations:

1) Consider the ethical systems that were founded on the idea that human life started at the moment of conception, ie, the union of the eggs and the sperm. It bears to note that this system held sway for about 2000 years. When this system was discovered, was it the case that they had made the correct and proper discovery at the time, or was it a wrong discovery, or not an optimum discovery? How does one know when the best ethical decision has been discovered where say, a pregnant mother's life is a risk as a direct result of the fetus she is carrying inside her?

2) Consider the case of using embroynic cells for stem cell therapy and research? How do we go about discoverying THE ethical code about this one?

Let us not forget why we've come back to this thread after soo many weeks.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-315294.192.html#msg4490575

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-315294.192.html#msg4490714

in which you said:

I did NOT say I did not know the meaning of the word "existential".  What I was disputing was your use and understanding of said word.  That is why I asked you to provide a definition.  For goodness sake, do you think going to a book or wikipedia is beyond me?

Since you insist that Ethical systems are invented, rather than discovered, I ask once again, "
. . . So Huxley How do you INVENT an ethical system that is free from the spectre of Existentialism? "

By Existentialism I said I meant,"When faced with meaninglessness or absurdity in the world, it has the effect of disorientating people.  This state of disorientation is called the existential state.  My question to you is how does one create an ethical system in such a state of disorientation. 
Ethics give you a scale of values (moral values), do they not?  Ideals exist at the top of the scale and they are striven for, while at the bottom of the scale are the lowly valued things and they are striven against.  Thus Ethics give us an orientation.  We are oriented towards the ideals.
If however the basic state of reality is acknowledged to be existential (ie. disorientated) then on what are the Ethics to be based on. "

If my buckle is still not tight enough for you I'll attempt to tighten it one further notch. 

Ethics is a scheme that evaluates events and orders them from Ideal/Good to Bad/wrong/evil.  Ethics orientates us towards achieving the Ideal/the Good.  This is the first point.  Do you agree or do you not agree?

The state of existentialism does quite the opposite and leaves one disorientated.  Things are pointless.  And there are no value schemes.  Nothing is better than the other.  or more preferable than the other.  This is the second point.  Do you agree or do you not agree?

Then finally, how do you reconcile the invention of an Ethical system with an existential reality?

I know that you are quite expert at picking apart weak arguments.  You demonstrate this all the time.  It is only with me that instead of picking the argument apart you decide to turn your nose up at it disdainfully as if I were too stupid to be worth your while.  If you like this time keep insisting that I don't understand what existential is, I will accept that and look forward to your explanation of what it really means and how it has no bearing on the creation of an ethical system.

Pastor AIO:

Let us not forget why we've come back to this thread after soo many weeks.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-315294.192.html#msg4490575

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-315294.192.html#msg4490714

in which you said:
Since you insist that Ethical systems are invented, rather than discovered, I ask once again, "
. . . So Huxley How do you INVENT an ethical system that is free from the spectre of Existentialism? "

By Existentialism I said I meant,"When faced with meaninglessness or absurdity in the world, it has the effect of disorientating people.  This state of disorientation is called the existential state.  My question to you is how does one create an ethical system in such a state of disorientation. 
Ethics give you a scale of values (moral values), do they not?  Ideals exist at the top of the scale and they are striven for, while at the bottom of the scale are the lowly valued things and they are striven against.  Thus Ethics give us an orientation.  We are oriented towards the ideals.
If however the basic state of reality is acknowledged to be existential (ie. disorientated) then on what are the Ethics to be based on. "

My view of existentialism is the following - It is the point of view or philosophy which seeks to address the putative meaninglessness of human existence, especially by focusing on issues that directly impact or have consequences on human thriving. 

Now,  why would human existence seem potentially meaningless?  How could one organise their live so as to obviate this feeling of meaninglessness?
It is obvious that any thought person, upon contemplating the status and condition of humans in this universe would inevitably be driven to regard this existence as meaningless within this existence, in the grand scheme of things;  we are but a very very small portion of a unimaginably vast universe, to the extend that if our solar system were to vaporise right now (as will soon happen ) it will make not a dent in the overall mechanism of the functioning of our galaxy, nevermind the universe.  Upon realising just how insignificant we are in the grand scheme of the universe, and how soon we are fated to be even less insignificant, how would we derive or impact meaning to our that would so very soon be extinguished, like the 99.9% of all other living things that have already gone that way.  The spectre of not existing, after having basked very briefly in the sunshine, is frightening for very many people.  So, how do we deal with such frightening thoughts, that emptiness of the future, that thought of relative insignificance?  That is what existentialism seeks to address.

Pastor AIO:


If my buckle is still not tight enough for you I'll attempt to tighten it one further notch. 

Ethics is a scheme that evaluates events and orders them from Ideal/Good to Bad/wrong/evil.  Ethics orientates us towards achieving the Ideal/the Good.  This is the first point.  Do you agree or do you not agree?

The state of existentialism does quite the opposite and leaves one disorientated.  Things are pointless.  And there are no value schemes.  Nothing is better than the other.  or more preferable than the other.  This is the second point.  Do you agree or do you not agree?

Then finally, how do you reconcile the invention of an Ethical system with an existential reality?

I know that you are quite expert at picking apart weak arguments.  You demonstrate this all the time.  It is only with me that instead of picking the argument apart you decide to turn your nose up at it disdainfully as if I were too stupid to be worth your while.  If you like this time keep insisting that I don't understand what existential is, I will accept that and look forward to your explanation of what it really means and how it has no bearing on the creation of an ethical system. 

Ethics, on the other hand, is a system of thought and practice aimed at regulating the interfaces of human interactions with other humans (and latterly with the environment). For instance, it deals with such issues as:

1)  What is good
2)  How we ought to behave


So, on the whole, I do agree with the definition of existentialism and ethics that you have given here.  The problem I had with your questions, namely,

                                               How do you INVENT an ethical system that is free from the spectre of Existentialism, or

                                               How do you reconcile the invention of an Ethical system with an existential reality?

is rather one of my own inadequacy and lack of strong grounding in these hefty subjects (existentialism and ethics).  From my limited perspective, I am not able to see how ethics are related or directly address humankinds existential needs. Allow me to paint a little autobiographical picture to illustrate.

What do I do for my existential consolation?  How do I address the putative problem of meaninglessness in my life?  I shall start by saying that my life is very meaningful to me and to my friends and family.   How do I derive this meaningfulness amid such overwhelming spectre of meaninglessness? Well, for me, it is primarily my way of thinking, acting and behaving.

First and foremost,  I regard this present life and existence as the only one I shall ever get.  That empowers me and frees me from the subjugations of superstitions thus allowing me  to make it as good a life as I ever can  in the little time I have available in this sunshine.  I engage in jobs I find meaningful and interesting, I take a keen interest in the welfare of my friends and family, I engage in activities that gives full expression to my skills and talents (such as playing football, dancing, debating on NL with you ,  cooking, reading, etc, etc), I try as little as possible to sit down and brood in things, tend to have little regrets on the whole, etc, etc.  I accept that as natural entities in a cold and dispassionate universe, we are inevitable subjects to the vagaries of nature and happenstance. I hope you get my drift.  I summerise my attitude with the following:

                                                                             All the world is a stage 

                                                                         Perform rather than spectate

The above is a quick broadbrush summary of how a address my existential needs.  You could do well my reading some of the ancient philosophers on these subjects - Seneca and Epicurus are great.  Check out the book "The Consolations of Philosophy" by Alan de Boton.  It a great read.

Now,each of the activities I listed above has ethical dimensions.   For instance, when I engage in team contact sports, would it be good for me to deliberately seek to hurt the opposition, or cheat at the game?   For me, the answer is a resounding NO.


BUT do ethics seek to directly address the question of meaninglessness in human life?  For me, the answers seems to be NO.  This is not what ethics is supposed to do.  Whatever gives meaning to your life, it does not seem to me to  be the role of ethics to prescribe a method of impact such meaningfulness in your life.

Ethics does not say you ought to the polite to your neighbours because that will engender friendly relations with them.

Ethics does not require you to visit your parents regularly

Ethics make no compulsion of you to take up any hobbies, or activities of enrich your life

Ethic does not make requirements of you to seek consolations in the supernatural

etc, etc, etc.


I hope I have done a better job at explaining my position this time.  And I apologise for not responding to this directly earlier.  Far from being disdainful to you, I find my discussions with you rather more engaging than the normal rabble here at NL, and you know I have said as much in the past.

huxley:


So, on the whole, I do agree with the definition of existentialism and ethics that you have given here.  The problem I had with your questions, namely,

                                               How do you INVENT an ethical system that is free from the spectre of Existentialism, or

                                               How do you reconcile the invention of an Ethical system with an existential reality?

is rather one of my own inadequacy and lack of strong grounding in these hefty subjects (existentialism and ethics).  From my limited perspective, I am not able to see how ethics are related or directly address humankinds existential needs.

What do I do for my existential consolation?  How do I address the putative problem of meaninglessness in my life?  I shall start by saying that my life is very meaningful to me and to my friends and family.   How do I derive this meaningfulness amid such overwhelming spectre of meaninglessness? Well, for me, it is primarily my way of thinking, acting and behaving.


BUT do ethics seek to directly address the question of meaninglessness in human life?  For me, the answers seems to be NO.  This is not what ethics is supposed to do.  Whatever gives meaning to your life, it does not seem to me to  be the role of ethics to prescribe a method of impact such meaningfulness in your life.

Na wa for you o, Huxley. Fela sang a song called opposite people about nigerian people that do their things in a topsy turvy way. It seems that that affliction also exists in Cameroon. Or is it in Manchester that you learnt it?

As far as I can recall this conversation is about ETHICS and I asked how you are to invent an ethical system whilst aware of the realities of existentialism.

Mister Opposite, I wasn't asking about existentialism and how you propose to deal with existentialism. I didn't ask how your ethics affects your existential reality. I asked how Existentialism affects your Ethics.

Please answer my question again.

How do you INVENT an ethical system that is free from the spectre of Existentialism, or

Pastor AIO:

Na wa for you o, Huxley. Fela sang a song called opposite people about nigerian people that do their things in a topsy turvy way. It seems that that affliction also exists in Cameroon. Or is it in Manchester that you learnt it?

As far as I can recall this conversation is about ETHICS and I asked how you are to invent an ethical system whilst aware of the realities of existentialism.

Mister Opposite, I wasn't asking about existentialism and how you propose to deal with existentialism. I didn't ask how your ethics affects your existential reality. I asked how Existentialism affects your Ethics.

Please answer my question again.

How do you INVENT an ethical system that is free from the spectre of Existentialism, or

Ya own too much. You no sabi say some quesshun di pass me.

Like I said, I am not sure whether ethical systems have a obligation to deal with existential issues. If you think that ethics should include or specifically seek to exclude existential issues, it is for you to show me how and why?

My view is that ethic has no link with existentialism and therefore as we invent new ethical systems existentialism should not be brought it. But I stand to be correct by the superior knowledge.

I find it surprising that you still do not see the connection. Your ethics will tell you what you ought to do. However you've got to ask, by what authority am I compelled to act.

A person who has come to an existential realisation does not value anything above anything else, nothing matters. Why save lives? What difference does it make whether dead or alive, nothing matters. Why build hospitals, Why work on any project, why bother with anything? Everything is meaningless. Nothing matters. We are insignificant in the vastness of this meaningless universe.

Yet Ethics tells us what is worth doing, what is the better option when we are faced with choices. Ethics might tell us that it is better to save lives if we can. Or it might tell us that it is better to unplug the life support machine and save money for other more worthwhile projects. Ethics presumes a world infused with meanings/values.

So once you accept an existential reality (meaningless) it is impossible to justify any ethical system (system of meaning).

Ethics requires an Authority to justify it. Without the authority we can always ask, 'why bother'? and there'll be no answer.

Authority itself suggests an Author. If an author creates a world for a certain purpose then we can make authoritative pronouncements like 'killing people is wrong'. Why? 'Because the Author of the world did not intend for us to do so, we are not built for it, we are not supposed to do so'.

So how does an existentialist build an ethical system? Answer: With great difficulty involving a great dose of self delusion.

Pastor AIO:

I find it surprising that you still do not see the connection. Your ethics will tell you what you ought to do. However you've got to ask, by what authority am I compelled to act.

A person who has come to an existential realisation does not value anything above anything else, nothing matters. Why save lives? What difference does it make whether dead or alive, nothing matters. Why build hospitals, Why work on any project, why bother with anything? Everything is meaningless. Nothing matters. We are insignificant in the vastness of this meaningless universe.

Yet Ethics tells us what is worth doing, what is the better option when we are faced with choices. Ethics might tell us that it is better to save lives if we can. Or it might tell us that it is better to unplug the life support machine and save money for other more worthwhile projects. Ethics presumes a world infused with meanings/values.

So once you accept an existential reality (meaningless) it is impossible to justify any ethical system (system of meaning).

Ethics requires an Authority to justify it. Without the authority we can always ask, 'why bother'? and there'll be no answer.

Authority itself suggests an Author. If an author creates a world for a certain purpose then we can make authoritative pronouncements like 'killing people is wrong'. Why? 'Because the Author of the world did not intend for us to do so, we are not built for it, we are not supposed to do so'.

So how does an existentialist build an ethical system? Answer: With great difficulty involving a great dose of self delusion.

I want to hammer this point in for the sake of another thread.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-335826.0.html
Pastor AIO: Come teach us the Truth

The very fact that we are moral creatures means that we operate under the presumption that there is an author to existence. That is the way our minds work whether we are theists or atheists.

Now I appreciate that this does not amount to the proof of an author but it demonstrates that if one is to live a meaningful life then at the premise of his thinking, whether he is consciously aware of it or not, there must be an author.

^^^ I did see this, but wanted to exhaust the "PASTOR AIO" thread first.

I guess we see eye to eye now! (if my last surmise in that thread is at home with you. . .)

@ PASTOR AIO. I don't understand ur post. Why do ethics require an authority? Are you saying someone find meaning without believing in a creator?

I think ethics help to create and sustain society. And that is where the meaning can come from. In wanting to live life in peace as a people, and not necessarily from an individual's beliefs.

@Pastor AIO

What more authority do I need beyond "Do as you would be done by"? That doesn't require an author now does it? I feel pain, and I can come to the realization that if I hurt others, they can come back to hurt me can't I? does that require any authority than my own self realization?

duduspace:

@Pastor AIO

What more authority do I need beyond "Do as you would be done by"? That doesn't require an author now does it? I feel pain, and I can come to the realization that if I hurt others, they can come back to hurt me can't I? does that require any authority than my own self realization?

I do not see how realising that I can be hurt should mean that I shouldn't hurt others. It could simply mean defend yourself appropriately so you are not hurt back while hurting others.
When you OUGHT to do something then there must be something compelling you to do it. What compels you to do what you ought to do?

Krayola:

@ PASTOR AIO. I don't understand your post. Why do ethics require an authority? Are you saying someone find meaning without believing in a creator?

I think ethics help to create and sustain society. And that is where the meaning can come from. In wanting to live life in peace as a people, and not necessarily from an individual's beliefs.

The very idea that something is Right, ie that it ought to be done depends on authority to compel you to do so. If there is no authority then why rather do one thing than another thing. There is no answer. Nothing compels you to appreciate one action more than the other.

@ PASTOR AIO

The very idea that something is Right, ie that it ought to be done depends on authority to compel you to do so.  If there is no authority then why rather do one thing than another thing. There is no answer.  Nothing compels you to appreciate one action more than the other.

I don't understand where the need for a supernatural authority, or any authority, comes in. We think the right actions are the ones that lead to good results. e.g. we know that hunger is bad, so we ought to try to feed the hungry. We know this through experience of hunger, and our ability to put ourselves in the shoes of others. People who are not sympathetic to the needs of the poor could be like that either because they don't know hunger, or have never learned empathy. Like I said our conscience is conditioned. If we are taught to care for others, not to lie, steal, etc, as kids, we internalize these values and they shape our actions. This "authority" you speak of, IMO, are these internalized values, which Freud identifies as constituting the super-ego.

Krayola:

@ PASTOR AIO

I don't understand where the need for a supernatural authority, or any authority, comes in. We think the right actions are the ones that lead to good results. e.g. we know that hunger is bad, so we ought to try to feed the hungry. We know this through experience of hunger, and our ability to put ourselves in the shoes of others. People who are not sympathetic to the needs of the poor could be like that either because they don't know hunger, or have never learned empathy. Like I said our conscience is conditioned. If we are taught to care for others, not to lie, steal, etc, as kids, we internalize these values and they shape our actions. This "authority" you speak of, IMO, are these internalized values, which Freud identifies as constituting the super-ego.

The Authority needn't be supernatural. When you say that 'right actions are the ones that lead to good results', what determines what results are 'good'.

I don't know that hunger is bad. There is a yoruba saying that when a man eats it is to better his life, and when a man fasts it is to better his life.

I could well believe that there are natural processes that determine and control human populations and that it is wrong to tamper with them. Eg if human population gets to a certain critical level it is natural adjusted by War, Plague or Famine. To allow the process to do it's thing without tampering is the best for the human species as a whole, though unfortunate for the members of that population that gets decimated.

There are no absolute values although anyone that has a moral code experiences it as if it were absolute, not relative. Its that absoluteness of it that is unjustifiable without an authority.

I don't believe anything is by definition "good" or "bad". I said we think things are good or bad. . . .

As far as hunger, don't eat for a week and get back to me  We'll see how good you feel.


We have a problem with war because people suffer, die, some of whom are our loved ones. Or we put ourselves in their shoes and realize how messed up that will be. Same with famine and disease. The welfare of others also directly or indirectly affects us. Poverty often leads to crime. . .Diseases can spread and affect us or our loved ones etc. The justification for our "moral" actions are all around us to see. Our responses come from our experience of life, and our desire to improve the quality of our lives.

Moral codes are not absolutes IMO, they are just established to help create and sustain societies so that people can live and be relatively happy. They are instituted as law for these same reasons.

Pastor/ Krayola -

If you will examine closely, you both are really saying the same thing.

@ deep sight

The very fact that we are moral creatures means that we operate under the presumption that there is an author to existence.  That is the way our minds work whether we are theists or atheists.

Now I appreciate that this does not amount to the proof of an author but it demonstrates that if one is to live a meaningful life then at the premise of his thinking, whether he is consciously aware of it or not, there must be an author.

Ethics requires an Authority to justify it.  Without the authority we can always ask, 'why bother'?  and there'll be no answer.

Authority itself suggests an Author.   If an author creates a world for a certain purpose then we can make authoritative pronouncements like 'killing people is wrong'.  Why?  'Because the Author of the world did not intend for us to do so, we are not built for it, we are not supposed to do so'.

That ^^ is what i don't agree with. That being moral creatures means we assume there is an author. I don't see the connection. At least not yet.

Krayola:

@ deep sight

That ^^ is what i don't agree with. That being moral creatures means we assume there is an author. I don't see the connection. At least not yet.

I believe that it is impossible to maintain a moral stance without the belief in the absolute validity of that moral stance. Even people who say morals are relative or claim to be liberals are quite absolute in denouncing any forms of fanaticism or extremism. To be liberal you need to be fanatically anti-fanaticism.
If right or wrong is relative then why fight tooth and nail for any position.

I think that the process that determines our moral position occurs so deep in our unconscious that we are not aware of it, and though we might rationalise it consciously, such rationalisation is only superficial.

There is no justification for the passion we throw into what we believe is right if indeed Rightness is relative.