@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:
Ok you got me there but you do see knowledge in him and alot of it.
Ok we all get it wrong some times, I seen something else he wrote other than what you showed me that I questioned and did not bring up in a responce, but why the hate speach and not just point out where you disagree or just over look it.
Don't fight over the dog... Let the dog fight for you... I have read a lot of books, worked long enough at a trade to retire, have had some successful relationships, and have had a lot of life experiences... But as far as knowledge goes it is encyclopaedic, cursery in fact, a mile wide and an inch deep... I have some sense of all knowledge and am expert in no subject...
What I say in regard to moral forms, which are what we build our social forms like religion and government out of, is that they are meaning without being... This much is obvious, and I am not alone in recognizing that people are primarily irrational, for that was the advance of Nietzsche, and his age, including Freud, crowning the age of reason with a fools cap and bells...Reason does have an insistent voice in the affairs of human kind that demands a hearing....Yet, primarily, it is in the physical, material world were reason works to tell truth, and since moral forms are infinites, with not once ounce of any moral form anywhere in evidence, the effect of reason upon them is nil.. If you would reason upon justice, then first define justice... It cannot be done since every example of justice is different in its circumstances... We see the failure of government as a social form to realize justice in our lives, though it is one worthy goal for which the government was formed... Why is the preamble of the constitution the least mentioned part of it??? Are not those goals worthy of mention; and should the result not be measured against the aim??? In fact, no one wants to face the failure of their forms, and the failure of the form rests squarely on the inability of people to define their moral forms in rational terms...
And if you look at culture, as the Germans would use the word: Civilization, then you misunderstand the thing, because the great cultures of civilizations stand upon the honor of individuals and the cultures of small groups practicing a moral law based upon their understanding of moral forms as good, and good for a specific reason: That good came out of their practice as evil flowed out of their neglect... The universal law of mankind is the incest taboo, and the reason is simple, that the chances of an obvious anomoly with a close relationship is significant.... For primitives, sin and lawlessness had an effect on the whole community; but for us, crime has become a means of self expression... It is not morality that demans justification, rationalization... To do what is done because it is what good people do needs no rational... Reason enters morality as justification for injustice; and since justice as a moral form is an infinite withour definition, the advantage rests with the rational ones... Why should people be good??? Why should people be moral??? Why not feed ones self on the body politic like a louse feeds on the blood of babes???
With Heidegger, one can see the pendulum in peopls lives, where to know self and feel existence one must break away from culture, and yet to have survival people as soon return to culture so that the moments in any given life when a person lives by choice without culture, and moral forms are quite few... Whether reasonable or not, people need social forms, and whether they can be defined or not, people need moral forms...
The best relationships, in my opinion are informal, without form... To live in that fashion, without rules, on the strength of ones own moral sense is stressful...That is why lovers seek out the form of marriage even though its constraints often kill the relationship... If they are smart, people build their forms according to their needs and not on the needs of people's past. Then they would have to define all their moral forms for themselves instead of picking up the moral forms defined by and for others... But stressful or not, rational or not, that is the best way... If you or I have a dispute over justice, it is our definition that is the essential one... Upon what points can we agree???