Love

 An overview

Love is such a widely used term, yet its definition is extremely challenging. On a lighter note it’s more likely the subject of entertainment and joyful delight, from a highly skeptical tone to the idealistic, romantic or even as catalyst to the passions and accompanying violence.  

On occasions we enjoy seeing children playing together and bringing to bear a world of love and laughter or in the love of a mother celebrating the newborn- well mostly except for occasional unwelcome feelings of depression.  

In a more imaginative mode the wide screen at the movies magnifies feelings and emotions. Those same passionate emotions of love have sustained the topic in literature, novels and the various musical genres but far less so than in the 19^th century.

In the dark side terrorism is always linked to the extreme form of love of a cause and none more so than that of the modern day suicide bomber.

Introduction.

The use of love has many more perspectives than those briefly previously mentioned; from personnel affection in intimacy, to devotion to a cause as in love for one’s country which can turn to war, to love as in sacrifice or in the desire or admiration for beautiful objects or art forms or when we simply say with sincerity “I love you.” Yet we are not clear on how love arises; the inclination is to link love as emanating from the heart to revert to feelings of love whilst others think love is a matter of daily decisions to consciously act in a loving or fair minded manner as a social construct. Yet another assumption is to say love is a kind of noble intuitive force which contributes to the greater good, but as we have so much evidence of countless crimes committed under the allure of love, this seems implausible.  

Biblically, authors distinguish passionate love as in intimacy to "unconditional love", but who’s rather grand application, given our limitations as human beings, also seems to me to be somewhat of a contentious issue. 

So, first of all we need to settle on a definition. I want to make a distinction between talking about how you might love something or to be in love with a cause as opposed to a loving union.

To invite discussion my thrust will be the loving union of partners and additionally (where deep relationships form) in united groups but not in relation to a love for objects of beauty.

That might assume of course varying degrees of autonomy.     

I will also attempt to appraise love's values.          

As a loving Union

Love here entails reciprocity tied to the idea of community to facilitate a merger of common interests in the merged entity. If the situation arose where one side becomes subservient to a lopsided emphasis on another’s interests, it is hard to imagine that represents a loving union. Even so, that doesn’t mean it can be ruled out, particularly in a caring arrangement.  

For instance one can refer to instances where there exists an agreed understanding in the relationship. The proviso then is dependent on a remaining genuine concern between the parties, to accommodate more support of one's interests over another’s. However, there is obviously a clear distinction between feeling autonomous in knowing your points of view will be respected in a loving bond as opposed to the excuse of an ego driven controlling notion that inhibits any respect or awareness. The feeling of autonomy is one of the values of love along with patience and awareness of the needs of the other party. 

A loving union of course does not necessarily have to involve any surrender of autonomy as in some instances the reverse may be true where one belongs to say a group where one finds such support as gives way to exchanges of concerns previously inhibited by controlling influences. 

But the question arises is that sense of concern (as to the welfare of one to another) sufficient? Is it fair? Such questions go to the heart of how parties see the expression of a loving union playing out and suggest a sustainable loving union must involve some form of sacrifice one way or another.

This then raises the question of independence and what sacrifice is willingly entered into and maintained as unforeseen events place existential pressure on the loving union.

 

We also run into questions of identity. Can one’s own identity change as a consequence of ongoing exchanges to become a part of a merged identity?

Is that a reality or do we have an independent streak that renders such thinking as a pipe dream?      

 

In any union there will be new networks that invariably involve different ideas that may render the parties having different perspectives. So, the question is how much autonomy does one have to give up to sustain a loving union?  If we regard autonomy as good and a loving union as compromising that autonomy, how then can a loving union be a healthy union in that context ?  

 

To reiterate, do we need to assume it is a necessary part of love to be willing to give up some of our autonomy but if so to what degree? One might conclude that almost all or at least a fair degree of our identity or autonomy can be maintained provided we embrace self-examination that allows one to adapt to life. That in turn relates to how firmly we hold our views and the preparedness or otherwise to see different perspectives whilst maintaining that mutual concern for one another. 

This then may entail a sharing of group vulnerabilities that strengthens the ties in keeping with the loving union thematic. 

What do the respective parties gain from the union? – Does the heightened sense of security (if applicable) feature in meeting one's respective needs in a loving union?     

Appraising loves values

Herein one attempts an elevation of the previous distinctions by indicating the values love has to offer.  

Dignity

So, earlier on I talked about love as showing concern as a necessary binding purpose, but there is also a presumed dignity we hold towards the other, reinforced in day to day interaction. Love might be seen as a way to disarm the emotive responses that might otherwise preclude many essential discussions that would not occur in the absence of a loving bond.   

That is the fear of ridicule to which love as a value assumes diminishes or is entirely absent.

Furthermore, love affords that dignity to allow for the love of an irrational relative who constantly meddles in affairs and so gets on one’s nerves.

The proviso is of course we don’t always respond in the same dignified way to everyone, who may for instance not be acting in an ethical manner or may communicate in an inconsiderate manner. In other words there is the matter of judgment which goes to the heart of selectivity. How do we choose to love someone and expose ourselves to vulnerability? Because of hastiness and lack of discernment in our decision-making this becomes a common thread leading to many emotionally scarred unions.    

In simple terms what makes (in our eyes) one who is considered lovable or not and might this be considered a matter of discernment?  

Finally, it is also the feeling of autonomy because one is free to express oneself within reason in the knowledge of patience and awareness practised by the respective parties bonded together by love.   

 

 Emotions – that certain feeling of love   

Our emotions lie in the older limbic area of the brain which sends signals to the frontal lobes (the executive manager of the mind) to give rise to our feelings and to disseminate information in order for us to make rational decisions where necessary.

Those feelings come from emotions and can provide the affirmation of a loving bond. Even so, our minds are capable of empathy to feel the pain of others whilst not directly experiencing it and so to act in a loving manner.  

Conclusion   

Sentiments usually represent emotions or feelings to ultimately become an expression of love, providing the discerned traits meet with our approval and the union continues to afford dignity expected in such a union.

But ultimately I do think we often come up against something I would describe as a glass ceiling where experience defies comprehension so that we can remain in wonderment as to the mystery of love and life.

As optimists can we still say (or sing along for those who know the tune from Aspects of Love) love changes everything? 

Or from Casablanca - It's still the same old story
A fight for love and glory
A case of do or die
The world will always welcome lovers
As time goes by!!    

Below are scenes very close to where we live – we love the scenery yet we are only 6km from the city, The picture is of the wetland and then me entering the gardens and park which are just a short stroll to the Yarra river. A  favorite seal is regularly been spotted just up the river.   

  

 

 

Randomness in existence or not

Fairness  

One can conclude life is not always fair. For instance if we were born elsewhere life could indeed be most likely dramatically different, with the much better chance that we may have to endure extreme sufferings simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Those same principles might apply here, to anyone growing up in a severely disadvantaged family or community. So, is life just a random series of events which we just have to cope one way or another in terms of existence?   Does that mean the myths, stories, metaphors and allegory are fanciful narrations that can only deceive us and give false hope?  

Existensionalism

Existentialism was a movement influencing both culture philosophy and psychology. There are inferences it can be linked to randomness and absurdity as a starting point to any debate on existence. The other aspect concerns whether or not randomness is deterministic. On the flip side most of what we do and analysis is based on random probabilities which one might argue follows a non- deterministic path. Then of course you have random acts of kindness.

That positive response paradoxically has nothing to do with a response to randomness and might even be traced back to ancestral evolution. The idea of sacrifice or altruism which enhanced the future generation’s chance of survival.

For absurdity and or randomness are not generally the basis of existentialism except for one notable exception. namely Albert Camus. Even so, Camus concluded the world absurdly (as in how he perceived it) necessitated one to create one’s own meaning, presupposing existence ( life to be lived) as if randomness does not apply.

The argument posited by some non – theists is that randomness negates us referencing or talking about any myths. Their position is they are all false because all there is, is randomness and you can’t posit any truth associated with them but instead risk being deceived.   

But in the same breath opponents suggest we can organise society to deal more compassionately with the selective results of randomness.

But isn’t that exactly what some of the myths aim at doing in every society in any event? The way it is and the complexity of a world which is mostly deterministic or only free to the extent we can proceed with random probabilities as if we have free will. Kierkegaard, regarded as the father of existentialism, found myths helpful whilst the others loosely defined as existential philosophers built on that same foundation to give different perspectives. Some were atheists, whilst others theists. They can both be seen as different perspectives but nothing directly related to the idea of randomness. Nietzsche used his mythical prophet Zarathustra to give impetus to existential meaning.    

Don’t Myths, stories and art define our culture, just as it does for those countries identified, to provide existential meaning? This changes over time to attempt to reveal the truth from different perspectives.  

In the western tradition Kierkegaard was regarded as the father of existentialism and talked about the leap of faith necessary by reference to a myth in the OT in his rejection of rationality. The myth in turn was most likely written as a story against human sacrifice. Hence we find meaning in the myths, allegories, metaphors and the stories we tell ourselves.

They form the background to a country’s culture, the law and societal values. In the west of course it is the Jewish Christian tradition that permeates existence but elsewhere there are other rich traditions. 

We don't believe in these myths but rather their perspectives attempt to reveal to us the truth from different perspectives. They invite introspection and possibly the future for religion as espoused by the late pragmatic philosopher Richard Rorty.      

Summing up a lot of this is a bit like the free will versus determinism perennial debate - regardless we live life as if we are free even although for the most part we aren't. So there is an element of randomness but that doesn’t mean we throw out the concepts and ideas dependent on the myths, metaphors and stories that underpin our existence and provide different perspectives.  

 

Free Will versus Determinism.

 Introduction

Although this theme is somewhat of an old chestnut and there is no real resolution, other than the rather obvious conclusion one needs to live one's life as if we are free, it nevertheless offers plenty of interesting group discussions. 

The problem is there is such a wealth of information it becomes difficult to decide just how much to include in this summary. For instance I haven’t examined how the grand universe of relativity does not gel with quantum theory as a mystery, to fuel the freewill camp. But this need not be cause for concern as I have provided references at the end of the paper.

Accordingly, I have attempted a succinct summary of those aspects that I think will invite discussion to illustrate differing philosopher’s conclusions from pre-christian times in ancient Greece to modernity.

But on the question of science a point to mention is that for most of the history of philosophy it was inextricably linked to science as it is only in recent times the two have become separated. But looking back at the ancient Greek world, as the home of western philosophy, one can reliably conclude most of existence was predicated on appeasements to the GOD(s) so that to be in sync meant prosperity to exist in a harmonious state of being. If not you are likely to feel miserable so you better sort that out with Zeus, the sky and thunder GOD,  who ruled as king of the gods.   

 

Hence, the idea of freedom was coupled with the idea to be in sync with the gods to exist in a harmonious state. One’s emotion informed the individual if that state of being was in harmony with the determined pathway or not.

Zeus, as the chief GOD maintained order, with lesser GODs believed to despise man’s greatness; so the idea took root of a sense of impiety, a false pride which consumed individuals in what we might think of today as hubris. The unjust were not always punished in their lifetime so that legacy became part of heredity, guilt and vengeance. There was a strong correlation to the idea of acting unethically brought with it retribution of one kind or another.  

But in the context of continued philosophical inquiry and scientific knowledge to ponder the big questions of life, it was realized some questions that lie outside of science led to the idea of meta- physics for such subjects.

The originator of the idea of meta- physics was Aristotle whose ideas still permeate modernity.

He was the first philosopher to attempt to resolve the quandary of determinism versus free will by introducing the idea you can have both incorporated in his idea of compatibilism.

 

Compatibilism holds the universal laws of nature are true but are not compromised by the idea of a personal freedom to make moral choices.  This is often referred to as a soft determinism. Those who oppose this view are referred to as incompatibilists. There are arguments for and against these views I will examine in detail later on which continue today.  

A tribute to Aristotle’s ideas is they remained virtually unchallenged for over a thousand years, remaining relevant in the Christian, Muslim and Jewish religions from a religious philosophical perspective. The idea of individual moral responsibility was a central theme. The point was made that if we are unable to alter the consequences of sickness or ill-advised actions, what is the point to life? 

Aristotle was a major influence on the Abrahamic Religions, particularly during the 12^th & 13^th century when they became available in Latin.  He was also a major Influence on Aquinas (1225-74) in respect to his idea that knowledge is gained from the reports of the senses.

In summary one needs to keep in mind in the western tradition the underlying influence of the Jewish Christian tradition.  The New Testament parables and stories don’t mention the idea of free will or determinism but instead mention matters of the heart. Early Christianity didn’t involve any notion of free will except for the disputed passages of St Paul.

But, later on Christianity was influenced by the Philosophy of the Stoics but in essence always sought to support the idea of freedom to make moral choices.

Saint Augustine (354–430)

His authority was far reaching and supplanted that of Aristotle’s, to be invoked on both sides of the Reformation. 

His ideas on the problem of evil and on free will remain a reference point today.

According to Augustine the existence of goodness must allow evil to exist, which is solely the fault of humans. 

But thereafter medieval philosophers continued to talk about moral principles as "eternal laws" which were classified as spirit-like objects.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) similarly argued for a form of freedom to underpin Christianity which still remains relevant in the official theology of modernity.

René Descartes (1596 -1650)

Descartes identified freedom with actions and rejected the idea they are predetermined.

He identified the mind –body proposition (rejected today) where the mind encompassed our thoughts whilst the body was a representation of the material world.

The physical world was deterministic whilst the mind was considered underdetermined.

His erroneous explanation for the freedom within the mind to change things in the material world was because he thought this was made possible by virtue of the pineal gland in the brain.

Descartes' proposition to attribute freedom to the mind and determinism within the body was also reflected in Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) philosophy.

 

His determinism for the material world was influenced by Newton's deterministic laws of nature.

Kant had recognized the problem of the human mind and provided a solution as to how we can escape from the confines of our mind to discern a reality of an outside world physically beyond it.
Kant’s solution posited that prior known truths are insufficient to describe metaphysics but from prior knowledge (which he called A priori) the mind is capable of joining up with analysis to understand how to proceed.
Kant argued the mind gives objects some of their characteristics in accord with its compliant nature to bring uniformity within its structured conceptual capability.

Frederick Nietzsche (1844 – 1900) on the other hand, regarded Kant’s ideas to be fatally flawed. He thought his views did not reflect our existential reality, since he (Kant) relied too heavily on his invented universal A priori laws. Nietzsche's central themes of eternal recurrence and will to power might be regarded in some respects as deterministic, particularly in his rallying call to develop a love of fate. Therein he would seem to adopt a casual deterministic perspective.

Hegel’s dialectic (1770-1831)

Hegel introduced the idea of the dialectic which presupposes a synthesis between two opposing views to lead ultimately to the truth in the form of the thinking spirit. Hegel introduced this idea which is referred to as his dialectic- as a reconciliation for opposing views into the spirit's age of determined outcomes. Like Nietzsche he was also critical of Kant’s philosophy.   

Soren Kierkegaard (1813.-1855) was initially influenced by the work of Augustine who talked about the problem of evil in the world. 

He regarded the idea of free will as a big nothing but was concerned as to how we come to grips with the reality of our tenuous existence. His synthesis was predicated on the idea of anchoring the self to an unconditional commitment to GOD or a cause to ensure one is able to live a spirituality uplifting balanced life. 

The synthesis talks about ensuring one maintains a balance between freedom and necessity, the finite and the infinite and the present versus eternal. He is regarded as the father of the existential movement that began in the 1930’s and peaked after World War 2. Both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche also contributed to Existential therapy, arising from existentialism. Concepts such as personal responsibility and the will to power realized psychological wellness and balance.

 

Existentialism embraced a number of influential philosophers. They included Albert Camus and Maurice Merleau-Ponty in France and Edmund Husserl in Germany.

Jean Paul Sartre enjoyed extraordinary success in the 40s, along with his life partner Simone de Bouvier, to create a cult like following from the youthful intelligence of that era.  

Types of Determinism

To reiterate in a general sense Determinism assumes everything that happens in the universe and in our existence is by virtue of various facts operating under universal laws. 

Casual determinism is the idea that every event is as a consequence and preceded by antecedent events and/or conditions, together with the laws of nature.
For instance we might have different tastes for things as a consequence of prior neural activity favouring one choice over another to give way to different structures. That idea envisages those antecedents would stretch back in time to creation.

Fatalistic Determinism suggests our existence and its outcomes are predetermined. 

In a general sense one might propose certain things are fated to happen given the way this has happened in the past, as in history repeats.
This does not in itself need to contradict deterministic natural laws, but rather is a matter of discerning the way that history tends to be repeated.

Logical determinism doesn’t pay any undue attention to the content of the universal laws of nature but rather rests on the assertion of the repetition of truth that emerges as facts, even though we may not know the true propositions that give rise to those outcomes at the time.  If one accepts this timeless proposition of truth then one's past present and future actions are governed deterministically in this way.

The argument then goes that one must by necessity make decisions as one does in the future in the absence of free will. The decisions might feel as if we are freely making those decisions but that freedom is illusory.   

Summing up the determinists view.

On the macro level the deterministic can rest with the certainty that indeed the laws of nature are unbreakable. It is a basic tenet of modern day physics that this is so and that they are universal. One could also argue the Christian tradition suggests those of devout intent, do so, to lead lives in whom they believe, even though actualities of their lives are other than that of their choosing. That implies a surrendering of free will. Furthermore the more appealing notion of a mixture of freedom and determinism (compatalism) to the hard determinist’s perspective is just a bodge. In modernity some neuroscientists contend the brain and all of its outputs, including one’s choices, are beyond one’s physical control. Hence they believe the idea of free will is illusory, just as a computer is always subject to its programing. That thinking applies equally to the future when we start to use quantum computers, predicated on quantum mechanics, since the output remains subject to programming or programmed machine learning.    

From a psychological viewpoint the argument is that abandoning the notion of freewill provides a release from the burden and agony of decision making. They claim, paradoxically, that it gives impetus to respond positively to their fate but still live a life to the fullest. People who believe in this way say they paradoxically feel free. But I think this is more of a matter of how one responds to outcomes, as in a way of coping. The way we respond also infers a degree of freedom, just as to decide not to make a decision, remains an alternative choice.

The middle ground – Compatibilism 

To reiterate, you will recall I talked about Aristotle who was the one to first introduce the idea of compatibilism to philosophy.  

The view is, notwithstanding the universal laws of nature inclusive of probabilities that give rise to the truth of a deterministic world, our minds aren’t subject to cause and effect and hence we have a facility for free will.  

The modern day thematic   

Generally speaking the thematic for modern western thinking is to embrace the idea of free will. The idea has become embedded in our culture. After all our society and its justice system has evolved under the Christian Jewish belief we have free will. In other words we are responsible morally for our actions unless rendered insane. If one was to accept the proposition this wasn’t the case wouldn’t that invite a chaotic outcome for society? 

But In most respects we accept one has varied choices and we routinely revert to post action analysis to learn the lessons from the past to help guide us in the future. In fact this might be viewed as the getting of wisdom?  

 

On the other hand determinism assumes those choices are illusory. On one’s first impression determinism might appear on the face to contradict common sense, but there is ample grounds to support this view or in the writer's opinion the idea of compatibilism.     

Summing up a few discussion points

The point I think worth debating is the question of how we determine moral behaviours. For the free will advocates the proposition is our world would collapse as no one technically could be held responsible for their actions. In fact some studies have been carried out where students were quizzed on behaviours assuming they believed in determinism when faced with the opportunity to cheat in exams. Indeed the social experiments did prove the group that identified as deterministic were more likely to cheat than those believing in free will. 

But I think we need to treat such social experiments with a grain of salt, as they are contrived and just because one determinist will cheat so too will the other who believes in free will.

Adherents to determinism such as psychologist Sam Harris point out society might become more compassionate and understand better how to protect itself from those who act immorally through pre-determined causes. Harris points out social experiments that posit out brain patterns predetermines decisions before we consciously think we are actually freely making such decisions. 

 

The fact is we live our lives as if we are free to choose but in many ways there is evidence of a high degree of determinism or fate if you will that determines outcome. Having an open mind on the question may well lead us to a more compassionate view of others actions and society in general. Kierkegaard viewed freewill as a big nothing.   

References

https://www.goodtherapy.org/learn-about-therapy/types/existential-psychotherapy

https://www.britannica.com/topic/problem-of-moral-responsibility

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/september/compatibilism-perry-philosophy-091511.html

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/basics/free-will

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-arguments/

 

 

 

Satori

 

Satori first arose as a quest to find GOD but later became synonymous with enlightenment. Wisdom in Zen Buddhism is facilitated by the use of Koans during meditation. Koans are paradoxical statements or parables or questions that need not have a logical answer. The idea is for the student to abandon any preconceived ideas and instead rely on intuitive responses from meditating about the question, paradox or parable to achieve an enlightened response. 

Although Buddhism is correctly regarded as non theistic nevertheless the quest for enlightenment might also be regarded as seeking to experience the unknowable as a quest to find GOD.    

In fact the conclusion that the absolute truth cannot be known remains true for the followers of all of the world’s great religions. The fact they are wrapped up in rational theology reveals a particular truth as seen from that perspective.

All religions express a particular truth, but from different perspectives to achieve a greater good in a universal collective consciousness. Understanding this perspective is essential for the future of religion.     

Hume and Moore

Dr Gary Cox opens up G.E. Moore’s ethics, and his open question argument invites plenty of discussion as contained in the latest issue of Philosophy Now.

He introduces the idea in philosophy there are those who believe exclusively in the principle of the underlying facts to determine what is right or wrong and those who don’t. One of the foremost of thinkers with strong views against a sole reliance on the facts is David Hume (1711-1776).   A brief introduction is as follows:  

Hume’s position in ethics, which is based on his empiricist theory of the mind, is best known for asserting four theses:  Reason alone cannot be a motive to the will, but rather is the “slave of the passions”.  Moral distinctions are not derived from reason.  Moral distinctions are derived from the moral sentiments: feelings of approval (esteem, praise) and disapproval (blame) felt by spectators who contemplate a character trait or action. While some virtues and vices are natural, others, including justice, are artificial.

Cohon, Rachel, "Hume's Moral Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (fall 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/hume-moral/>.

Hume introduces the idea of the naturalistic fallacy; based on a false assumption something that happens naturally must be ethical. An example is incest which occurs amongst animals but only brings feelings of repugnancy when observed amongst humans. In contrast acts of kindness and honesty stirs up our emotions that gain cognitive approval. Hence Hume argues morality is not simply a matter of reason but of approval communicated through the senses in accord with our desires and volition.  

Hume further notes there is no legitimate way to move from a statement of observable facts to a statement of moral values: in short, that it is impossible to get an ought from an is. This idea has come to be known as Hume’s Law, the is-ought problem, or the is-ought gap. Page 25 April- May Philosophy Now 2021.

Interestingly enough Hume’s view on morality is similar to those of Frederick Nietzsche who considered it absurd to apply one moral code to everyone. In his essay entitled ‘Good and Evil’ Nietzsche talks about bad conscience where one is prone to inhibit instincts for aggression to turn them inward upon ourselves.

He wanted to return to antiquity and the free spirits of the Homeric Greeks. This is the old world of appeal because it relies on instinctiveness and an inherent freedom, of inner lights and life affirmation to exemplify the joyful here and now. It encompasses aristocratic ideals that are not subject to the mediocrity of democratic governance, nor the whims of others or societal pressure.        

However the question arises as to how practical is it to rely on this noble spirit and instinctiveness?

By instinctiveness Nietzsche doesn’t use the word as in nature. Rather, that which makes us human and allows us to intuitively avoid becoming slaves within one ideology. For Nietzsche personally there was also a crisis in his faith as he believed all religions were unable to provide the truth. That truth he believed was that it is the responsibility of humanity who must discern for themselves what is true and good. The point is of course such terms and his values are never clearly defined nor does he ever pinpoint any system of governance he envisages. Rather all we have is his vision of the overman and his accompanying works. 

 

But Cox introduces to a more practical application concerning the work of GE Moore (1873- 1958) who championed the work of Hume and aimed his criticism against moral system based on Hume’s naturalistic fallacy to argue against utilitarism.  The error Moore saw in the work of Utilitarian Philosophers such as Bentham and Mills was to equate pleasure with good.  Moore saw through such statements as open ended so that the answer always remains open to debate and can never be closed.    

 

Moore suggested an intuitive intellect or moral faculty that relate to human beings that inform us in relation to matters of ethics.

His views have held up over time and provides a valuable contributor to lively ongoing debates. I think they provide plenty of food for thought and discussion, He was to modify his views in later life that are summed up by Cox.

The beauty of a beautiful statue, painting, woman, man, house, bridge or mountain, requires a combination of natural properties, because without its natural properties the beautiful thing would not exist. However, the beauty of a thing is not one of its natural properties, but is instead a non-natural property that transcends the natural properties. In the same way, according to Moore, the non-natural property of goodness transcends the natural objects, emotions, actions, attitudes, and habits that we hold to be most valuable and broadly describe as ‘good’.

It is perhaps ironic that after developing to the full Hume’s insight vis-à-vis the naturalistic fallacy, Moore ends up endorsing a rather exotic metaphysics of non-natural properties existing in a supersensible dimension intuited by some higher intellectual faculty. Hume, who in his An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748) condemns all metaphysical writings as

containing ‘nothing but sophistry and illusion’ which ought to be ‘consigned to the flames’, would not approve at all!

Towards the end of Principia Ethica, Moore advocates a variant of utilitarianism called ideal utilitarianism. Intrinsic value, he says, does not belong to pleasure or even to happiness, as classical utilitarians maintain, but to the consciousness of beauty and friendship. He argues that of all things in life, consciousness of beauty and consciousness of friendship are the most valuable, worth having purely for their own sakes and not merely for the sake of something else. These things are not synonymous with goodness, but they are the highest goods, in the sense of being the most valuable things in life and, therefore, the things that should be pursued and promoted above all else. Consciousness of beauty and consciousness of friendship are the ends to which all else should be a means.

Conclusion Page 26 Philosophy Now April / May 2021.

Conclusion

Mostly we don’t need a judge or the law to distinguish what is right or wrong accept that our views are also shaped by our culture and environment. I am not sure about a greater good but I do think his idea of the importance of consciousness of beauty and friendship rates highly (if not the top of the tree) in our existence. Even in the judicial world where hard evidence is cited as the persuader those facts are in turn swayed by our intuitive feelings at the time. Imagine trying someone for a very serious offence based purely on the facts so that one is left with no involvement with anyone other than to read the respective narratives and rebuttals.

Free will and determinism

The perennial debate over free will and determinism of recent times has reignited interest as studies on the brain have suggested prior ideas of freedom of choices may be illusory. Rather than being truly responsible for your actions or choices it is suggested they are subject to waves of biological or metaphysical  determinism. I watched with interest the debate between Jordan Peterson, in favor of freewill and Sam Harris who entertains the possibility of unconscious brain activity predetermining those actions or choices. Both provided credible alternatives which suggested to me maybe they were both correct except in fact they were arguing from different perspectives. 

Ken Wilber provides an interesting solution under his integral style philosophy as per below.             

Do we really desire Freedom?

The perennial philosophical debate between Determinism and freewill has never been satisfactorily resolved but Siobhan Lyons (January Edition of Philosophy Now) asks the question do we really desire freedom. 

The question concerning free will and liberty is mostly answered in the affirmative but I recall watching a program on incarceration where inmates didn’t want to face life outside. One confirmed he had deliberately staged an armed robbery in order to return to prison life. He waited around for the police to arrive to ensure arrest, subsequent conviction and a return to prison life. The dread of liberty curtailed when imprisoned doesn’t apply to everyone. For that particular individual the certainty of daily meals, a roof over your head and an ordered existence was vastly superior to the responsibility of existence outside. Similarly a poll at Berlin University found a majority preferred the prior communist rule in East Germany. We may like the idea of freedom but it carries with a responsibility that many don’t find appealing. Jean Paul Sartre, who believed in free will though it meant we undergo this dizzy realisation of a radical freedom. He expressed the idea of the self, before itself, was a nullity. What this means in his existential philosophy is he proposes an inner freedom of the self (our consciousness) which is free to decide what to think as we come into this world and to be free to pursue such subsequent actions as we encounter.         

Lyons similarly references the BBC America series Killing Eve, where Russian assassin Villanelle breaks out of jail with another inmate. Upon exiting the escape vehicle, the inmate appears anxious, and asks: “What should I do?” Villanelle replies: “I don’t know. Run. You’re free.” But the inmate simply replies: “I don’t want to be free.” Villanelle looks understandably perplexed. She has, after all, been struggling for freedom – from police, from employers, from obligations and from circumstances – all of her life. But her inmate’s response is not all that strange. Morgan Freeman’s character Red, in The Shawshank Redemption, gives us some insight into the experience of being institutionalised: “These walls are kind of funny. First you hate ‘em, then you get used to ‘em. Enough time passes, gets so you depend on them. That’s institutionalized.”

The important point to make is one lives a life as if we are free as otherwise one risks any motivation to make moral decisions. The law and our personal choices is also predicated on the basis we are free to choose.  Indeed on an even more basic perspective it can be perceived that the very act of believing in free will is to exercise your free will.     

The western Jewish Christian tradition was based on this premise and has its roots in St Paul. Freedom generally and more specifically from the Law was central to his philosophy that remains to this day.       

He is of significant interest to secular philosophers because his ideas carry with them the idea of a universal unencumbered system of unity which presupposes through grace existential philosophical aspects to life; to hold our life existence as sacred, to ascertain and acknowledge ones gifts for the benefit of the whole community, to joyfully exist in a state of grace without fear of death, to be free and remain free from guilt, to share in all this and to place love and affection ahead of all other known things.

But in life it seems (according to Jean Paul Sartre) there is always a real risk of continually reverting to bad faith as we are covering up this frightening reality of a freedom to make choices. He suggests this bad faith arises every time we place reliance on some other convention or form of authority. In other words to allow others to make choices for us based on how you ought to live. He doesn’t accept there is a narrative to our life or that to find meaning to our life we need to go back to our roots. All of that kind of thinking for Sartre is in effect bad faith.

This is a somewhat bleak assessment in keeping with his atheistic perspective. However, I don’t think it is a very good argument for atheism. One can adopt a theistic or agnostic perspective so long as you accept that a cause did not interfere or influence our freedom or to make decisions embodied in the concept of free will. Bearing that in mind his philosophy might be described as the secularized version of Soren Kierkegaard.

In fact Lyons quotes Søren Kierkegaard who analysed the particular feelings associated with an awareness of freedom, arguing that “Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom” (p.75). For Kierkegaard, freedom signifies a specific kind of anxiety, or dread, relating to the infinite number of possibilities presented to us by freedom. It compels dizziness. When we’re choosing what sort of milk to buy, what sort of career we might want, and to which destination we should travel, we are plagued by the burden of freedom. He wrote that “freedom now looks down into its own possibility and grabs hold of finiteness to support itself.” By this he means that we look for some way of mentally reducing the infinity of possibilities that present themselves to our choices.

Our anxiety also stems from the realisation that we have the capacity to ruin our lives by our decisions. Kierkegaard uses the Fall of Man as an example of this particular anxiety: knowing full well that he is forbidden to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam does so anyway, provoking his own downfall.

This anxiety relates to what the French call ‘ appel du vide’ – the ‘call of the void’ (nothing to do with apples). When looking down from a great height, or sitting in an exit row beside the door on a plane, some people feel the compulsion to jump or to pull the door open mid-flight, not because they are suicidal or eager to kill people, but just because they are curious about whether or not they are even capable of bringing about such an action – whether they are capable of disobeying their most primitive instincts of self-preservation and survival. This demonstrates the dizziness of freedom. They understand exactly what would happen, but they’re unsure of whether they could bring themselves to actually do it, to test the extent to which they are free. In other words, for Kierkegaard, our existential feeling of dread or anxiety is spurred by the knowledge of what we need to do to prove that we are free.

This thinking however seems at odds with Frederick Nietzsche who proposed the idea of a love a fate, presupposing determinism. The freedom he implies is how we live and react to our fate. Conclusion

The important point to make is one lives a life as if there is free will as otherwise one risks any motivation to make moral decisions.  

But for many the idea of freedom and having a dizzying number of choices is not desired.  A tonic of inevitability or to accept ones fate may be what some people end up adopting. After all do we really desire total freedom?      

Persisting NOW

To persist is simply to exist… in the now.

Introduction

In the January 2020 edition of Philosophy Now an interesting article by Dustin Gray concludes that continuing to exist isn’t as simple as one might think. 

He asks the question as to what it means to say that we and other things persist through time.

Note he is talking about objects and living things, including human beings and not abstractions such as formulations in mathematics.    

A simple example he talks about is that of a filthy car whose dirt, grime and prolonged wear and tear renders it a far cry from its original sparkling new state. The question is as to what extent does the car (or anything for that matter) persist despite becoming barely recognizable? The argument goes as it maintains a degree of sameness, described as a concrete particular and mostly this proposition, is considered a matter of common sense.

Endurance & Perdurance

He discusses these two different ways of thinking about persisting through time.  

Endurantists maintain a sameness, claiming that at any one time an object or person remains a certain identity at any other time it exists. Hence the rusty old car always remains a car until it becomes scrap metal.   

Similarly ‘the John of today’ and ‘the John of yesterday’ are referring to one concrete particular whose spatial parts are wholly present at any given time throughout Jack’s existence. The endurantist claims an object’s spatial parts are the only genuine parts of it.

Perdurantism

In contrast, perdurantism claims that along with a thing’s spatial parts, it also has temporal parts. Perdurantists argue in addition of the 3 dimensions of space,  a 4^th dimension of temporal parts exist; so that John yesterday, John today, and John tomorrow, are different parts of John.  

Its persistence through time consists of an aggregate of different temporal parts present at different times. The temporal parts are real as spatial parts: since temporal parts have properties – the property of ‘being John last week’. So, along with having spatial extension – the perdurantist will claim additional to the concrete particular is the temporal extension. By way of for example, John yesterday, John today and John tomorrow. There are also temporal parts of temporal parts- John this morning is a temporal part of John today.

He cites the example of the bearded John is an additional temporal parts of John, just as is John with a clean shave.

But all of this boils down to a rather elaborate explanation that doesn’t sound very convincing.

Another Possible Answer

Rather, Gray advocates the idea of presentism, which tells us that what is real is only what exists now. To the presentist the past and future simply don’t exist. Reality is not temporally extended. The present is the only real time. “To be real and to be present, the presentist wants to say, are one and the same thing”

In summary he finds no objections in giving a clear account of events that have transpired – with the fundamental qualification that those events no longer exist. At the same that applies to events that might take place in the future. Those events may be predicted, but they are not real, yet. Until an event is happening in the present moment, no degree of reality is ascribed to it by the presentist.

He gives an example of - ‘George Washington had false teeth’- whereas that expression could be verified as a true proposition. The presentist responds by saying that it’s a true proposition about conditions that used to exist but no longer do.

Conclusion

To describe events accurately, he asserts we must use accurate tenses, saying that events in the past existed and events in the future will exist. When we do so, his claim is that the only real time is now holds water, and he maintains it  miantains e other problems  nor abtract also effectively describe past and future events.

In that strictest sense, he points out we do not persist through time. The only real time is now, so I can do nothing but persist. Therefore, all that is necessary for me and other things to persist through time, is to be. To persist is simply to exist… in the now.

In fact I believe living in the Now’s, without past regrets is the key to living a good life. But what do you think?