Samantha:
I agree with you often. However, for a moment, please step away from
"THE greater good", which is a loaded phrase employed by tyrants and
those who would be such.
Consider that arguably, determining the good *is* philosophy's purpose,
or one. Ethics and aesthetics together constitute "what is good". The
pre-socratics and Socrates himself, if memory serves, were greatly
concerned with this, as am I. By the time of Aristotle, "what is true"
got elevated to the top of the heap.
It does get stickier when you try to run "good" through a utilitarian
filter--greatest good for the greatest number"--and I very much agree
that that's a perilous path occupied by many wolves in sheep's'
clothing. But "what ought I to be doing", nonetheless, is very much why
I personally care about developing my own philosophy and its application
in my everyday life.
Among other things, I find the metaphysics of quality (see www.moq.org)
of periodic interest. It has the advantage of being summarily dismissed
by many professional philosophologists as essential emotivism. :) That,
and Barkley's pancritical rationalism. I try to continue my engagement
with both.
Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> Technotranscendence wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, December 23, 2000 9:28 AM Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
> > > << http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/PCR.html >>
> > > Does philosophy owe anything, as a discipline, to promote the greater
> > good?
> > > Is philosophy about also about problem solving?
> >
> > I don't understand how my article inspired those questions, but...
> >
> > Does mechanical engineering "owe anything, as a discipline, to promote the
> > greater good?" I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but just to show that
> > philosophy can be considered just as mechanical engineering, as a discipline
> > or a body of knowledge. In either case, people use them for good or ill.
>
> Please tell me first who gets to determine what the "greater good" is
> and second who gets to enforce that determination on those who might
> well
> disagree with it. Then tell me if the "greater good" is actually a
> valid construct for evaluating any human activity.
>
> >
> > Philosophies vary a lot too. One shouldn't assume that all of them are
> > equal or as useful or as valid. In this vein, it's my belief that
> > philosophy's purpose, against which it can't be measured, is to help
> > individuals to live life. So in a sense, it should be for the good, though
> > there is a lot of difference between different people and different
> > philosophical systems over what is good.
> >
>
> That is not philosophy's purpose.
>
> - samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:39 MDT