Reply
Sun 9 Sep, 2007 04:11 am
Guilt is a bind of life.I am inclined to think that each human generation must consider itself as the steward of the earth and therefore must make available to the succeeding generations an inheritance undiminished to that received.
In this context what does "careful and responsible management" mean? I would say that there are two things that must be begun to make the whole process feasible. The first is that the public must be convinced that it is a responsible caretaker and not an owner and secondly the public must be provided with an acceptable standard whereby it can judge how each major issue affects the accomplishment of the overall task. This is an ongoing forever responsibility for every nation but for the purpose of discussion I am going to speak about it as localized to the US.
Selfishness and greed are fundamental components of human nature. How does a nation cause its people to temper this nature when the payoff goes not to the generation presently in charge but to generations yet to come in the very distant future? Generations too far removed to be encompassed by the evolved biological impulse to care for ones kin.
How is it possible to cause a man or woman to have the same concern for a generation five times removed as that man or woman has for their own progeny?
I suspect it is not possible, but it does seem to me to be necessary to accomplish the task of stewardship.
Guilt may be our only hope for human acceptance of the responsibility of stewardship.
coberst,
Can you give an illustrated example of how this applies to
you ?
fresco wrote:coberst,
Can you give an illustrated example of how this applies to
you ?
My very recent OP "Trivial pursuit..." is such an example.
I disagree. I don't believe in guilt, unless I've actually done something that I consider wrong. And even then, I deal with the issue and the guilt is gone... it's transitory. And actually, it's not guilt I feel, it's being responsible, so, responsibility I do agree with, to a degree. For example, just because we exist doesn't mean we're automatically responsible for others.
coberst,
I've read your "bricklayer's confession" but your (or Becker's) thesis in contrary to the view of some other philosophers who define "philosophical musings" as "trivia" and "honest" manual work as the key to contentment.
For example, I believe Zen philosophy holds that focus on the "energy flow at the point of application" (in caligraphy, flower arranging, archery etc) is a basic meditative technique towards "enlightenment".
Note also that Wittgenstein, a reknowned intellectual, felt the urge to engage in "worldly pursuits" such as architecture and war service. For him "philosophy" was "therapeutic" rather than epistemological.
fresco wrote:coberst,
I've read your "bricklayer's confession" but your (or Becker's) thesis in contrary to the view of some other philosophers who define "philosophical musings" as "trivia" and "honest" manual work as the key to contentment.
For example, I believe Zen philosophy holds that focus on the "energy flow at the point of application" (in caligraphy, flower arranging, archery etc) is a basic meditative technique towards "enlightenment".
Note also that Wittgenstein, a reknowned intellectual, felt the urge to engage in "worldly pursuits" such as architecture and war service. For him "philosophy" was "therapeutic" rather than epistemological.
Action is often very satisfying. The problem develops when knowledge comes into play. With knowledge we become more and more self-conscious and recognize responsibility. This knowledge detracts significantly from the satisfaction from naive action. As an example contrast the probable state of mind of Eisenhower before D Day and the probable state of mind of Bush before the Iraq invasion.
cicerone imposter wrote:Mame wrote:I disagree. I don't believe in guilt, unless I've actually done something that I consider wrong. And even then, I deal with the issue and the guilt is gone... it's transitory. And actually, it's not guilt I feel, it's being responsible, so, responsibility I do agree with, to a degree. For example, just because we exist doesn't mean we're automatically responsible for others.
I totally agree with Mame; guilt is transitory - and oftentimes non-existent. Take the situation in Iraq where our countrymen and women are killing thousands of innocent men, women and children. Many children are being left as orphans and starving, but we don't feel any guilt in our involvement in Iraq; we argue about the politics, but not the killings and chaos created by the US against another country and its people even though they never attacked us or was ever a threat to Americans.
The theories of psychology disagree with your common sense views. That is why it is important for us to place our common sense views on hold if we wish to comprehend a new domain of knowledge.
Then the "theories of psychology" must be wrong. Even Bush doesn't have any difficulty sleeping at night, and he's the major offender. Add to that list most of the neocons and general Petraeus. No observable guilt in their words or actions.
c.i. wrote
Quote:Then the "theories of psychology" must be wrong.
Correct (in general) !
Coberst has invested a lot of time (and maybe money) in his "September Scholarship" which for him seems to be synonymous with "intellectual stewardship". He doesn't seem to realize that most psychological theories are "pseudo-scientific". They have discursive as opposed to descriptive applicability. In psychoanalysis for example the joke is (or was) that Freudian patients dream Freudian dreams and Jungian patients dream Jungian dreams. What mattered seemed to be whether both parties had a common communication framework, allowing for empathic catharsis NOT the underlying "mechanisms" assumed by such catharsis. The same discursivity could probably be applied to many of Becker's generalizations. "Guilt" seems to be some blanket term which ignores its idiosyncratic nuances amongst individuals, and is of dubious applicability at the sociological level.
The questions I would like to ask everyone are:
1) Do you agree that the acceptance of stewardship responsibility for this planet is vitally important?
2) Do you think that this human characteristic of guilt can be important for stewardship to happen?
3) Do you have a different idea whereby this stewardship might develop?
4) Do you give a damn?
1) Do you agree that the acceptance of stewardship responsibility for this planet is vitally important?
Yes, it is vitally important to some, but not all. Stewardship comes from government first, followed by consumers second.
2) Do you think that this human characteristic of guilt can be important for stewardship to happen?
No. Many don't have guilt about driving in their SUVs, not recycling, or wasting of raw materials. It must come from government mandates and education.
3) Do you have a different idea whereby this stewardship might develop?
It will never happen based on individual guilt.
4) Do you give a damn?
Only to the extent that we try to recycle our newspaper, plastic, glass and cans. My wife and I both purchased cars that gets better than average miles per gallon.
1. We don't have "stewardship" and never had. The sociological forces involved in consumption are beyond the "ken" or control of individuals or societies. The "planet" is resiliant enough to "look after itself" even if it means eliminating some of its flaura and fauna. (see the "Gaia hypothesis")
2. "Guilt" is a luxury of the the western intellectual rich who have the leisure time and freedom of choice to examine their directions. Gestures such as recycling and driving a smaller car are ludicrous with respect to the 26 fold per capita consumption of the the West versus the poorest nations.
3. No comment unless you advocate "world government".
4. My "concern" is with the intellectual paucity of anthropocentric concepts like "stewardship".
fresco, I forgot to mention that I drive a car with a 250 horsepower engine; not really a "small" or economic car.
c.i.
I've traded down to a VW Golf Diesel (100 H.P) for the simple reason that it does 45 to 50 mpg (at 70+ mph) In the UK/Europe Diesel (or Gasoline) is appx $9.00 a gallon.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace