Humans have basic needs, which cannot be prioritized universally, but must remain the realm of the personal, as we are individuals that "make our way" within our various contexts.
The liberal wants to universalize what has to remain personal (a choice of value in the political world). And the conservative wants to universalize meaning, which has to also remain personal. Both the political life of a person and the "meaning" of life for the person must be made within a liberal form of government that does not oversee or overintend "the personal"!!! That is if the person of to remain "free" not just in a "Transcendent" sense, but a real and political sense!!!!!
Showing posts with label Universalization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Universalization. Show all posts
Monday, December 26, 2011
Friday, April 1, 2011
Moral Realism and Language Games
Moral realism is grounded in the real world of "the political". What is claimed to be "moral" cannot be grasped without language. And language becomes the problem of diversity. Diversity of interests make for our public climate of "debate" about what "should" claim universal right to make the "goals" for societal benefit. So, what can be "the moral", if there are diverse ways of expressing the "moral"? The academic disciplines seek to claim the "moral" for their own purposes. But, all of these claims should be limited by our Constitutional government! We cannot allow the "universal" to undermine the personal, nor our nation-state.
Moral realism is based on Constitutional government in the poltical realm, where "the rule of law is King", not Dictators, Monarchs, Chiefs, Leaders, or Presidents! The rule of law makes definitions about nations and their values. Without such a government, the individual serves some other ends, than being an "end in himself"! This is the "rub" for us in the West, today. The liberal want to liberalize what cannot be liberalized without undermining the very basis of our protections, the rule of law!
Academic freedom is one of our highest values because we do not believe that any form of knowledge has a right to primacy over others. In other words, the political claim to knowledge should not have more power over other areas of knowledge in the Academy. Otherwise, we limit other perspectives, and make unwise or ungrounded decisions based on values that might limit the wider range of knowledge. I think such has happened with the natural sciences and economics. These have become politicized. And the religious claims to knowlege have underwritten these claims as absolute! Therefore, the environment, and the poor are the driving force behind political power. Political power that is driven for speicific goals, undermines the very basis of our Constitutional government. Politics then, become a war to maintain the power to control "language" or the attempt to defeat such "language" and expand the information base, so the "common" will beocme empowered. The Tea Party movement seeks to bring accountability to government in such a way.
Our country values liberty, as justice, because we believe that individuals must have the right to their life and property. These are negative rights, as government does not seek to impose these rights, but does defend them if they are undermined. We do not value those that make "special claims" about political power. Power is about personal ownership of one's life, Government must be limited, not expanded. Otherwise, we limit the personal to the "common" and it undermines liberty as a value for a "universal value" of some other definition, i.e. the definition of the "empowered class".. Personal choice is based on personal values, not universal ones. Universal values, might limit personal ones, which undermine our understanding of the "moral" of a Constitutional government.
Today, we are challenged as to our diversity and the laws that protect diversity. Shairia law claims a "right" to religious tolerance in our society, that undermines our cultural values of equality and liberty of conscience. And the illegal immigrant claims "universal right" under the "Declaration of Human Rights". Is the "universal" to undermine the law of the nation state? Are we to tolerate what undermines our very survival? Our laws protect our survival, because they set limitations, while protecting liberty. We cannot undermine our Constitutional government and our citizens right to protection under those laws.
Shairia cannot be allowed unless we fail to make laws that protect from the abuses that we deem inhumane treatment to the child, or the unequal treatment of women. That would limit radical Muslims from infilterating our country.
As to the illegal immigrant that fails to meet our immigration policies. We need to enforce the law, and we need to think through what to do about the drug trafficking that undermines our society, while appealing to those crossing our borders. Those immigrants that come to our country to find economic liberty must be taught how to make thier own life in their own country. Those that are here legally should be part of the solution in encouraging change in their home society. This way, our country, and theirs benefit. But, we cannot afford to promote nation-building, when other countries do not do their part.
Humane behavior needn't undermine our national interests. But, it should limit the resources we give to others. We cannot do something we cannot afford. We must be committed to viability at home, otherwise, we defeat ouselves in the proces of our "moral concern" for others. Such stipulations about our "investments" abroad must be studied. We can't have our country limited by environmental concerns, that undermine our own economic viability, while other countries are allowed that liberty.
Such issues as our natural environment, and "the poor" have been useful and used by the political class to further goals that subvert our national interests.
While scientists like to define the 'moral" on the principle of the natural, the political scientists like to view "the moral" on our constitutional government. So what is "moral"? That depends on one's interests and values. The liberal would uphold "natural selection", while the conservative believes in an equalization of power where all are created equal.
I read once where America is a country that was founded on pragmatism, and moral idealism! Our ideals allow liberty under law. Ordered liberty. And our pragmatic values should not be politicized to the extent that moral realism undermines another's right to describe things in another "language". Americans haven't valued "propaganda"!
Moral realism is based on Constitutional government in the poltical realm, where "the rule of law is King", not Dictators, Monarchs, Chiefs, Leaders, or Presidents! The rule of law makes definitions about nations and their values. Without such a government, the individual serves some other ends, than being an "end in himself"! This is the "rub" for us in the West, today. The liberal want to liberalize what cannot be liberalized without undermining the very basis of our protections, the rule of law!
Academic freedom is one of our highest values because we do not believe that any form of knowledge has a right to primacy over others. In other words, the political claim to knowledge should not have more power over other areas of knowledge in the Academy. Otherwise, we limit other perspectives, and make unwise or ungrounded decisions based on values that might limit the wider range of knowledge. I think such has happened with the natural sciences and economics. These have become politicized. And the religious claims to knowlege have underwritten these claims as absolute! Therefore, the environment, and the poor are the driving force behind political power. Political power that is driven for speicific goals, undermines the very basis of our Constitutional government. Politics then, become a war to maintain the power to control "language" or the attempt to defeat such "language" and expand the information base, so the "common" will beocme empowered. The Tea Party movement seeks to bring accountability to government in such a way.
Our country values liberty, as justice, because we believe that individuals must have the right to their life and property. These are negative rights, as government does not seek to impose these rights, but does defend them if they are undermined. We do not value those that make "special claims" about political power. Power is about personal ownership of one's life, Government must be limited, not expanded. Otherwise, we limit the personal to the "common" and it undermines liberty as a value for a "universal value" of some other definition, i.e. the definition of the "empowered class".. Personal choice is based on personal values, not universal ones. Universal values, might limit personal ones, which undermine our understanding of the "moral" of a Constitutional government.
Today, we are challenged as to our diversity and the laws that protect diversity. Shairia law claims a "right" to religious tolerance in our society, that undermines our cultural values of equality and liberty of conscience. And the illegal immigrant claims "universal right" under the "Declaration of Human Rights". Is the "universal" to undermine the law of the nation state? Are we to tolerate what undermines our very survival? Our laws protect our survival, because they set limitations, while protecting liberty. We cannot undermine our Constitutional government and our citizens right to protection under those laws.
Shairia cannot be allowed unless we fail to make laws that protect from the abuses that we deem inhumane treatment to the child, or the unequal treatment of women. That would limit radical Muslims from infilterating our country.
As to the illegal immigrant that fails to meet our immigration policies. We need to enforce the law, and we need to think through what to do about the drug trafficking that undermines our society, while appealing to those crossing our borders. Those immigrants that come to our country to find economic liberty must be taught how to make thier own life in their own country. Those that are here legally should be part of the solution in encouraging change in their home society. This way, our country, and theirs benefit. But, we cannot afford to promote nation-building, when other countries do not do their part.
Humane behavior needn't undermine our national interests. But, it should limit the resources we give to others. We cannot do something we cannot afford. We must be committed to viability at home, otherwise, we defeat ouselves in the proces of our "moral concern" for others. Such stipulations about our "investments" abroad must be studied. We can't have our country limited by environmental concerns, that undermine our own economic viability, while other countries are allowed that liberty.
Such issues as our natural environment, and "the poor" have been useful and used by the political class to further goals that subvert our national interests.
While scientists like to define the 'moral" on the principle of the natural, the political scientists like to view "the moral" on our constitutional government. So what is "moral"? That depends on one's interests and values. The liberal would uphold "natural selection", while the conservative believes in an equalization of power where all are created equal.
I read once where America is a country that was founded on pragmatism, and moral idealism! Our ideals allow liberty under law. Ordered liberty. And our pragmatic values should not be politicized to the extent that moral realism undermines another's right to describe things in another "language". Americans haven't valued "propaganda"!
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Why Longings of the Heart Reasonates With Me
The "Longings of the Heart" was the title of the last post. Why did I choose such a title? The subject was about a eulogy of a Jewish scholar who'd impacted his students and their eulogies were memorials to his life. He lives on in their lives.
Humans all resonate with beauty, justice, and love. These are universal categories that are made vivid in a particular human frame. The longing of my heart was about the care these students had under thier mentor's tutlelege. Of course, their choice to pursue their speicified interests was what put them in contact with him in the first place. He had represented all of these attributes to them personally in their pursuit of a degree. Such stories resonate within the human heart.
Today, I had an exchange with an Eastern Christian, who said he identified in his particularity to Christ. His identity is defined by Jesus and his life. But, I had understood Paul's message about Jesus' life and Jesus life itself as a universalization (liberalization) of religion itself. Religion defines itself by doctrine/behavior that defines people "outside" or "inside" (us/them). All groups define themselves in this way; families, community groups, ethnic identities, social clubs, professional clubs/guilds and national identifications.
The geopolitical realm is not going to reflect such universalism, because we do define ourselves within our contexts of value. Individuals must discriminate to define themselves. And free societies allow individual to identify in many ways. In psychological terms, it is called individuation.
So, even though I did not know Alan Segal, nor did I read his works in depth, I found myself moved by his life, through those he had touched, he will live "eternally" through his efforts here on earth!
Humans all resonate with beauty, justice, and love. These are universal categories that are made vivid in a particular human frame. The longing of my heart was about the care these students had under thier mentor's tutlelege. Of course, their choice to pursue their speicified interests was what put them in contact with him in the first place. He had represented all of these attributes to them personally in their pursuit of a degree. Such stories resonate within the human heart.
Today, I had an exchange with an Eastern Christian, who said he identified in his particularity to Christ. His identity is defined by Jesus and his life. But, I had understood Paul's message about Jesus' life and Jesus life itself as a universalization (liberalization) of religion itself. Religion defines itself by doctrine/behavior that defines people "outside" or "inside" (us/them). All groups define themselves in this way; families, community groups, ethnic identities, social clubs, professional clubs/guilds and national identifications.
The geopolitical realm is not going to reflect such universalism, because we do define ourselves within our contexts of value. Individuals must discriminate to define themselves. And free societies allow individual to identify in many ways. In psychological terms, it is called individuation.
So, even though I did not know Alan Segal, nor did I read his works in depth, I found myself moved by his life, through those he had touched, he will live "eternally" through his efforts here on earth!
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Universalization and Cultural Misconceptions
Tonight we had a college student over for dinner. In talking to them about thier "intercultural requirement", she said that she would like to go to Africa. But, she was hesitant about staying in "nice" dorms as she felt it would be "wrong" to live differently than the native. As these live in abject poverty, she felt she needed to experience the same living conditions.
She went on to say that the way of the African was hospitality shown in meal sharing and that their culture is very generous in it. She said she thought that this was so admirable as it was so sacrificial. I asked her if she thought that these people would really identify their sacrifice, as a sacrifice, since this was a cultural "norm". She didn't seem to understand at first that her judgment was based on her own standard of living (the Africans would understand sacrifice as not being allowed to share their meal). After she saw my point, she acknowledged that what is deemed sacrifice is relative and sacrifice is not necessarily 'moral" or "spiritually more mature". What we value is part of our cultural heritage. She was assessing the spirituality of sacrifice with Scriptures, which are Middle Eastern "norms" of hospitality.
She went on to say that the way of the African was hospitality shown in meal sharing and that their culture is very generous in it. She said she thought that this was so admirable as it was so sacrificial. I asked her if she thought that these people would really identify their sacrifice, as a sacrifice, since this was a cultural "norm". She didn't seem to understand at first that her judgment was based on her own standard of living (the Africans would understand sacrifice as not being allowed to share their meal). After she saw my point, she acknowledged that what is deemed sacrifice is relative and sacrifice is not necessarily 'moral" or "spiritually more mature". What we value is part of our cultural heritage. She was assessing the spirituality of sacrifice with Scriptures, which are Middle Eastern "norms" of hospitality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
