Now it's probably fair to say that Jean-Paul (Sartre) and Albert (Camus) only crop up in these ramblings because they provide useful ammunition against any kind of deist interpretation of the problem of human or penguin existence. They also expressed their philosophies in what is really rather good literature (big bonus as far as I am concerned), albeit in French.
(Although they were not averse to boring, long winded, mind numbingly confusing 'essays' either.)
They were both also essentially :) existentialists, at least in so far as propounding the ideas around existence being before essence, ie you are what you have become not what you were made to be.
For me, essentially :), Sartre provides a way of generating a moral code of behaviour which is 'good' and 'just' without the necessity of going to "God's" supermarket and picking one off the shelf. The key factors here are choice and responsibility.
At every turn, we are faced with making choices about how we behave both in relation to ourselves and in relation to the world out there. If we are to avoid an 'imposed' moral code, eg "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife" (but I do, I do!) then one must find the same solution in another way. It is here that responsibility steps in. With each choice comes, free of charge, the responsibility that in choosing you are giving your choice validity for everyone else. There can be no "this is just for me, no-one else can choose this way" solutions. If once you choose to act in a certain way, then you have given everyone/thing 'carte blanche' to make exactly the same choice.
When it comes to generating a moral code, this is a powerful tool. It will, all by itself, generate most of the ten commandments for example. I covet my neighbour's wife? I go get her and lo and behold what happens? Someone can now covet what I have. And if she's willing to run off with me, I bet she'll be willing to run off with him! More money and a bigger willy, so rumour has it. Seems a bit senseless doesn't it? I don't like you, so I beat you up. Oh dear, someone doesn't like me so they beat ME up. You can see how this kind of thinking is actually BETTER than an imposed code. YOU get to make the decisions, but you are restrained from making immoral ones by the very nature of the decision you make. You might think you're free to do as you please but in truth you are not. Your freedom is constrained by the very freedom you have. It's self policing!
One doesn't even need to be rational about it. It can be an intuitive or an emotional decision but having made it, it's now ok for the entire planet to do likewise! Wouldn't that make you consider the repercussions of your actions, your decisions?
Oh, if only we could have a world like this, wouldn't it be better? Wouldn't it make you think twice about some of the awful things you do (mostly to beings like me) in the name of avarice, of religion, of sovereignty, of power?
Would your leaders be so willing to gamble with YOUR lives if everyone thought the way Jean-Paul said we should think. I think they would find revolution under every door mat!
I guess this means 'The boy in the striped pyjamas' has been relegated to tomorrow. I wish Havelock would hurry up with the fish. I'm starting to get VERY hungry!
Re: Paragraph 5.
ReplyDeleteSee, I've been trying to express those same ideas, but had no "valid point of reference" to give to people.
I'll tell you what. I'm confessing to God being a crutch for me. And I think that this form of atheism is a crutch for you. But what is the difference?
If I use God as a reason not to do what I already know will have consequences (because we both know they are there) is that a bad thing?
And if you use your moral code for the same reason, we've reached the same destination, albeit using different roads.
So here's my theory: if God exists, he/she/it exists above and beyond the imagination of atheist/agnostics. And if he doesn't exist, we can use the term "god" to replace the ideas of "love" "good-will" "goodness" "kindness" and "truth."
Either we are the figment of his imagination or he is of ours. I don't see how it matters which way we go, as long as good (good-will toward the universe) is the end result.
By the way, I know atheists who live by your maxims, with the twist that they "might not" reap the results of their actions. These are risk-takers. A few of my children are this way. And the reaility is, it's true. You might not have consequences for your actions. And this is what people use to say that there is no God and other people use this as evidence that there is a merciful God.
I prefer to think of it as a merciful universe, in which, statistically speaking, it all evens out. I make a mistake (hopefully not out of spite) and another time I go above and beyond and in the end, it all balances out. Sort of like this article on
3Quarks daily:
http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/2008/09/useless-calcula.html
Of course, I've been in trouble before for using faulty logic, so go ahead and rip my theory to shreds.
I mean that.
I've got a tough skin as long as I'm not face to face. The internet is conveniently enabling when it comes to dodging actual relationships. You might want to consider, after you've recovered, meeting somone new, face to face. It's not good to pretend to have relationships with people you don't actually know anything about.
(okay, I'm prophesying an apology in the near future)
I thought of one more thing.
ReplyDeleteI've had quite a bit of rejection in my life, much of it tied to religion. No matter where it came from, however, it has been an experience I know we must all deal with, but one which I don't wish for anyone to have to repeat endlessly.
In other words, I feel empathy. So whenever I feel like doing something, I try my motivations. Do I really want this? What will be the outcome? Will it hurt me? More importantly, will it hurt anyone else?
I don't revel in causing others pain. I would rather suffer myself than cause another pain. I think the willingness of our species to absorb suffering is one of the reasons we have survived so long and developed so highly. That's not a perfect argument, but it's the direction in which I am headed.
Hmm.
ReplyDeleteGlad to have helped with point of reference.
There is no harm in a crutch, we all need them, and as you say if we all end up at the same result, why worry how we got there?
Those who do not reap merely don't because the world doesn't like self generated moral codes and most people live in the main with imposed ones, secular and religious. Therefore there will seldom be consequences to every action as outlined above.
I may have unwittingly 'set up' a misapprehension. The choice? 30 years ago. The "someone you love, and they you", his late father, dead, nigh on 10 years.
I doubt he will require an apology, he's a forgiving soul.
Penguin, what or whoever, the cause, my reasoning remains.
ReplyDeleteThere is no point in beating one's self over a wrong choice. One must decide to not repeat the mistake-- though, with some candor, I'll confess I've repeated my mistakes endlessly. I'm sorry you are grieving, or never grieved or whatever the case may be.
I'm glad you are writing down your thoughts. I hope it is not raining.
So, how does the scoring work?
ReplyDeleteOne does not grieve, except at first, when the neighbours call the Police because they think a cat is being slowly murdered next door. Afterwards, where's the sense? They're in your head, dispensing advice on the suitability of your current partner, telling you what an ass you are, so.....they're not dead, are they?
ReplyDeleteAs for cricket scores. Well there are two 'wickets' three bits of wood stuck in the ground, 22 yards apart. There is a batsman at each end. A bowler (pitcher) bowls to the 'receiving' batsman. If he hits the ball and thinks they can BOTH make it between the wickets before the ball is returned to either wicket by a 'fielder', the two batmaen run between the wickets. If they both make it to the 'crease', a point just forward of the wicket, a run is scored. If the ball is hit far enough, they may make two or three, by running back the way they came.
If you hit the ball along the ground to the boundary the fence(?)' in baseball, without it being stopped, you get four 'runs' without needing to run. If you hit the ball past the boundary without it touching the ground (a home run), you get six 'runs'
There are 11 men in a team and there are numerous ways to get 'out' ie not be able to bat anymore. Cricket scores tell you how many runs you have and how many of your your batsmen are 'out'.
Cricket is like the genetic code. Knowledge is handed down. You can never really know what is going on unless you watch it with someone who does. The rules are just not enough!
Well, I suppose the best I can do on that subject is to be confused on a higher level?
ReplyDeleteThere must be some clandestine reason Lewis mentioned it...I always suspected there was some form of humor at play that was above me.
Lewis? C S? Wolpert? Carrol? Sinclair? Lennox?
ReplyDelete