morality within evolution

[lunamoth]

Hi Alexa, hope all is well in your neck of the woods.

Originally Posted by alexa

Bergson considers love as a second force, what he calls “the impetus of love”

So, this finally solves the mystery of the lyrics of that 70's song by Steve Miller: "Some call me the space cowboy, some call me the gangster of love, some people call me Maurice, cause I speak of the (incomprehensible words that sound like the pompetus of love)". I now conclude that he speaks of the impetus of love.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_065.html

....The emotion must be explicated into actions and representations. But, this process of explication can be extended. The representations that the mystic explicates can be further explicated into formulas, for example, the formula of each person being deserving of respect and dignity. These formulas, which are the expression of creation and love, are now able to be mixed with the formulas that aim solely to insure the stability of any given society. Since we are now speaking only of formulas, creation and cohesion, the two forces, are mixed together in reason. As before, whereas the rational method used in the experience of resistance to the resistances comes to explain the force of obedience, here in the mystical experience of the impetus of love the formulas come to explain the force of creation. A reversal has taken place. The very forces that have generated the formulas are instead now being explained by those very formulas. Indeed, this is the problem. How could some representation of intelligence have the power to train the will? How could an idea categorically demand its own realization? As Bergson says, “Re-establish the duality [of forces], the difficulties vanish” (The Two Sources, p. 96). The two forces are, however, but two complementary manifestations of life.

Dear Alexa, if you read an entire text in this vein I have to give you a lot of credit! After studying just these excerpts my head is spinning. Guess that's why I always ultimately give up on reading deeply in philosophy.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Lunamoth!

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Dear Alexa, if you read an entire text in this vein I have to give you a lot of credit! After studying just these excerpts my head is spinning. Guess that's why I always ultimately give up on reading deeply in philosophy.

I am beginning to very much agree with you on this! (and I'm the one who started this mess...)

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

Wow, what a post, where do I begin?

Originally Posted by alexa

Bergson considers love as a second force, what he calls “the impetus of love”

Not being familiar with Bergson's work, is all of this in line with what we have come up with? Here, is "the impetus of love" being what we have called "love as a driver?"

It attempts to show that there are two sources from which two kinds of morality and religion evolve. As always with Bergson, Kant is at issue, in this case his moral philosophy. And as usual, Bergson starts by differentiating within a mixture. Under the word “morality” or under the phrase “moral obligation,” there is a mixture of two kinds of morality.

Is this what we have been calling "conscience" and "law?"

There is the closed morality, whose religion is static, and there is the open morality, whose religion is dynamic.

Closed morality seems to me "law," and static religion seems "formal religion." Open morality seems to me "conscience" and dynamic religion seems "genuine religion," or perhaps spirituality.

But, there is another force. The second force is what Bergson calls “the impetus of love”.

This seems to me what Luna brought forward about morality being the tension between our animal nature and our spiritual nature.

The very forces that have generated the formulas are instead now being explained by those very formulas. Indeed, this is the problem. How could some representation of intelligence have the power to train the will? How could an idea categorically demand its own realization? As Bergson says, “Re-establish the duality [of forces], the difficulties vanish” (The Two Sources, p. 96). The two forces are, however, but two complementary manifestations of life.

If I understand this correctly, then we are in agreement with Bergson, if using different terms to describe the matter. I question whether or not "the difficulties vanish," as this thread demonstrates. If my personal experiences are a valid example, then it would seem to me that personal morality is often in flux (dynamic). I want to believe I know what right and wrong are, but I often choose to do wrong anyway. And there are also times when right and wrong are not so clearly defined, I don't know which until after I have made my choice.

And then there are the times when doing what seems wrong now, prevents a greater wrong later. In that case, can wrong sometimes seem to be right?

Thank you for the great post! At least this guy seems a bit easier to understand than Teilhard.

[alexa]

Hi lunamoth and Juan,



I realize it's difficult to understand Bergson only from one critic of his last book. I found him logical in his inquires and you really cannot take one fragment out without missing the point of his meaning. I couldn’t find any way to do a copy and paste from the book and the translation from French will take me too much time to do it, as I’m not a professional translator.



Even we are only budding philosophers, we have approached in a different manner to the same conclusions as Bergson did almost one hundred years ago!



Here you have an excerpt from the first chapter, Moral obligation, for a better understanding of this philosopher. This is the only fragment I could find in English. I apology for any possible typing error. You do not need to read all the text, but you may pay attention for what is underlined in blue and red.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

Thank you for the awesome post!

Originally Posted by alexa

Even we are only budding philosophers, we have approached in a different manner to the same conclusions as Bergson did almost one hundred years ago!

This is comforting, that we are on the right track, at least in the view of one notable scholar!

In looking at this piece, I am left believing Bergson implies morality is a learned trait, not innate (or universal) as we have been seeking to discover. Is this correct?

[alexa]

Hi Juan,

Glad to hear I didn't read and write for nothing !

Originally Posted by juantoo3

In looking at this piece, I am left believing Bergson implies morality is a learned trait, not innate (or universal) as we have been seeking to discover. Is this correct?

Bergson believed the morale has a biological essence. Human or animal, the society is an organization which implies coordination and a subordination of the elements to each others. An animal society (he gave the example of ants’ nest) the organization is relatively invariable. In a human society, the organization varies and it’s open to the progress. The rules in nature are imposed by necessity, while in a human society, the only natural thing is the necessity of a rule.

So the answer to your question is : yes, the morality is a learned trait.

I guess our inquires are close to the end now. But, this is up to you.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

Thank you for your post!

Originally Posted by alexa

Glad to hear I didn't read and write for nothing !

Oh no, your contributions have been quite valuable and appreciated!

So the answer to your question is : yes, the morality is a learned trait.

This, while still retaining elements of nature and nurture, animal and spirit?

I guess our inquires are close to the end now. But, this is up to you.

The only question raised and not being sufficiently addressed to this point, is where did we (collectively) first learn morality? Where did our parents' parents' parents first learn? Bergson's static morality could be shown well enough to have its source in social interactions among animals, but his dynamic morality (conscience) would of necessity require rational thought (which was pointed out by others elsewhere in this discussion).

Rational thought then, is a very important threshhold across which humans have stepped. That ability allows us to reflect and consider, even predict. And it allows us to weigh the options of "good and evil." I don't think I will find a scholar to support it, but I believe the dawn of rational thought is the "eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil," that the first "humans" to think were Adam and Eve. Granted, this is likely more allegorical than absolute fact, but the concept remains. In all of our pursuit here, I have seen nothing to dispute, or even discuss, this.

So yes, I suppose the conversation is drawing to a close, unless we could find information dealing with the dawn of rational thought in humans, and how it connects directly with conscience.

My sincerest thanks to everyone who contributed!

[alexa]

Dear Juan,

Originally Posted by juantoo3

This, while still retaining elements of nature and nurture, animal and spirit?

No. Bergson convinced me on the contrary !

I believe we have explored a lot about the morality. I enjoyed every bit of this challenge ! Thank you very much. I learned a lot of things and if I have to go back, I'll do it again !

I'm ready for the next challenge. What do you propose ?

Regards,

Alexa

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

Thank you!

Originally Posted by alexa

I believe we have explored a lot about the morality. I enjoyed every bit of this challenge ! Thank you very much. I learned a lot of things and if I have to go back, I'll do it again !

Oh, absolutely! I have learned a great deal myself, and I expect over time to keep looking. The difference is that here I have learned more in a short space of time, in great company, than I ever could on my own.

I'm ready for the next challenge. What do you propose ?

Well, I haven't given up on your question about the multiplicity of languages and religions. Is that closely related enough to this thread, or should we begin anew? Personally, I think the subject is worthy of a fresh beginning.

If that is acceptable, and provided I have time, I might suggest starting with the beginning of written language. If I recall, that would be cuneiform in Mesopotamian Sumeria (coincidentally in the region of the Tower of Babel).

OH! Before I go, great news! Just last night I learned that I was accepted for a full time position at the hospital, I begin Sunday. I also have my final quarter to complete at school, to finish my Bachelor's in Business Management, I should be finished just before Christmas. But between now and then it will be very busy around here.

I was also offered an opportunity to visit China this January, and I am thinking it would make a wonderful visit, and how I could get my "ducks in a row" so I could go. So things will be very busy around here for awhile.

But I would love to discuss your question. It is something I skimmed over when writing a paper some time back, and I thought it would make an interesting study at some time. Now is as good of a time as any!

[alexa]

Hi Juan,

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Well, I haven't given up on your question about the multiplicity of languages and religions. Is that closely related enough to this thread, or should we begin anew? Personally, I think the subject is worthy of a fresh beginning.

I my God ! I forgot about that one ! It definitely needs a new start, especially if you want to begin with the cuneiform language !

This one will be harder to deel with, but the challenge should be very interesting.

Just tell me what do you have in mind for it and it doesn't matter if you do not have the time right now. We do not need to fix a limit time. If we want some results, a good research is absolutely necessary.

My sincerest congratulations for you new job ! A China vacation should be interesting, so I wish you to enjoy it plently.

Regards,

Alexa




But I would love to discuss your question. It is something I skimmed over when writing a paper some time back, and I thought it would make an interesting study at some time. Now is as good of a time as any![/quote]

[juantoo3]

Bump for exposure.

[Abogado del Diablo]

I came across a quote today that better expresses an idea I was driving at on page 13 of this thread:


"Men of pure will operate beyond the realm of judgment. They are like forces of nature...feral and oblivious. They have the morality of an avalanche."

The idea being: Many of the driving forces behind the big events of human history have been persons who acted out the power of will unchecked by the things we've discussed as part of a "universal morality."

As bloggers often say, "it's not how many read your blog, but who reads that matters." The same is true of morality. It's not how many people ascribe to a universal morality. It's who that matters.

The other thing about men and women of of pure will . . . they usually have little difficulty convincing the majority of the rest of us (those who act on pure will) to change our perceptions of what constitutes "morality." For example, can we overlook that a particular politician protects offshore sweatshop operators who force teenaged girls into indentured servitude, prostitution and mandatory abortion provided our politician takes a stand against gay marriage and abortion clinics on shore and talks a lot about the virtues of "free enterprise"?

Is "morality" just a matter of controlling information? When it plays the game of reason, is it just a matter of aligning perceptions by manipulating people's self-interest?

A person of pure will with control of information gets to act beyond what any of us would knowingly accept as "moral." And such people often do precisely that, while a large band of followers cheer them on. History is full of examples.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Abogado! Good to see you back!

I would have to return to page 13 to find out what you are referring to, but I am still trying to account for Doestoyevski (sp?).

People of pure will?...hmmm, do you mean like Jesus, Mohammed or Gandhi? Or like Napolean, George Washington, Robert E. Lee, or Adolph Hitler? Or both groups alike?

I think we can see morality is relative (or subjective, as contrasted with objective) across cultures. And with time, and what I call "fashion," the morality of a culture can shift somewhat. And I agree, cultural icons tend to instigate and promulgate those shifts.

Even so, I still think there is an underlying tendency among the far greater part of all of us, to do "right" by each other. Sometimes we disagree on what exactly constitutes "right," but we still have that tendency. And there are some components of morality that never seem to go out of style. So morality isn't exactly like superstition. There really seems to be something there, even if we aren't exactly sure quite how to express it.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I would have to return to page 13 to find out what you are referring to, but I am still trying to account for Doestoyevski (sp?).

People of pure will?...hmmm, do you mean like Jesus, Mohammed or Gandhi? Or like Napolean, George Washington, Robert E. Lee, or Adolph Hitler? Or both groups alike?

The point relates back to the earlier discussion. Specifically, that what we regard as "universal morality" is not, in fact, universally held. You suggested that there were few exceptions to this and therefore people still seemed to have a "universal morality." However, there are many exceptions to it, and those exceptions commonly occur in those of great will and power (and, like you said, so does a dedication to sacrifice and service occassionally). Moreover, those exceptional exceptions rarely have much difficulty in redefining "morality" for the masses who follow them. And for those that buy into whatever vision of "morality" is being endorsed, there is no argument that their decisions are immoral so long as they jibe with their own new perceptions.

Morality as a motivating force for human behavior pales in comparison to emotion and self-interest. Indeed, for some (our exceptional exceptions), it is just another symbol that can be used to manipulate people.

In short, is "morality" simply another of the many clever diguises for cognitive dissonance?

[lunamoth]

Wow, an oldie but a goodie revived here.

I understand what you are saying, AdD, or at least mostly. No denying that it has been sheer force of will by powerful individuals, regardless of their ethics, that have shaped history.

I have been thinking about this whole control of morality thing with respect to religion a lot lately. I wonder why religions so much want to control the morality, especially the sexual mores, of their adherants. I can certainly see the social and healthwise fall-out of things like having children out of wedlock, adultery, and promsicuity. But, when it gets to things like homosexuality (where it makes no sense) and denouncing birth control, even vasectemies and barrier method types, that prevent any conception from occurring (where it seems downright problematic in an overpopulated world), I really wonder what is going on. Making morality the focus of a religion seems to be putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.