"REASON AND EMOTION IN THE TEMPLE OF MORALITY"

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

artisticsolution
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am

Re: "REASON AND EMOTION IN THE TEMPLE OF MORALITY"

Post by artisticsolution »

realunoriginal wrote: Apparently, ASS believes it is acceptable for men to cheat on their wives if they are never caught...
I am contemplating fucking dozens of men when I get married someday and not telling my wife, just for you.
After all, what she does not know, will not hurt her, because I am a stupid bitch, and I'm a very dumb ****.
Shhhhhhhh, don't tell her I said that, I could get in trouble... :shock:
And just how do you proposed she stop you? Force? Control?

I know...maybe she could tattoo the words "Exit Only" above your asshole... :roll:
realunoriginal
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:14 pm

Re: "REASON AND EMOTION IN THE TEMPLE OF MORALITY"

Post by realunoriginal »

Be careful when you misquote me, ASS, though I do know how difficult it is for you to click a button...

artisticsolution wrote:I know...maybe she could tattoo the words "Exit Only" above your asshole... :roll:
Well, you and I both know your ASS does not have instructions to it...

I guess that is why so many dicks get lost and "accidentally" sodomize you.
tbieter
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Re: "REASON AND EMOTION IN THE TEMPLE OF MORALITY"

Post by tbieter »

tbieter wrote:Here is David Brooks' essay published today.

It prompts me to wonder about those cases where a brilliant intellectual and skilled reasoner in ethics (such as a professional philosopher) intentionally engages in an extended adulterous affair.

http://www.twincities.com/ci_12100824?I ... cities.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One would think that Professor Haldane, upon concluding his reasonings, would conclude that adultery is morally wrong and that he should not engage in it:

"Richard Baron Post subject: Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:06 am
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:55 am
Posts: 488
Location: London Yes, Haldane was a truly wonderful man, right up to the end:

http://nsm.uh.edu/~dgraur/Texts/Cancerhaldane.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He lost his Cambridge job for adultery (planned in order to get his lover a divorce). He appealed successfully against Cambridge's charge of gross moral turpitude, I think on the basis that while it was moral turpitude, it was not gross. But it was decided that the University could still dismiss for adultery.

I encourage all Americans visiting Britain to head for the shop where A_Uk bought the book, and change their money there at the very favourable rate of 50 pence = 25 cents.

_________________
Richard"

A Second Case: A professor of philosophy (married with four kids), from whom I took four or five courses, got a temporary one semester appointment to teach in Australia. There he met a woman. He then received another one year appointment at the same university. He moved there without his wife and kids. HE MOVED IN WITH THE WOMAN! His wife learned of the affaire when she called one evening, the woman answered, and the wife was told to call back the following day - "we are giving a dinner party now". Of course, they gotr divorced.

My Question: What explains the commission of such an act by Haldane, or any other professional philosopher? And what, if anything, can justify such an act?
Reading today about my favorite philosopher, I'm in shock:

After reading Robert Grant’s essay on O’s “love life,” “The Pursuit of Intimacy, or Rationalism in Love,” I have sadly concluded that O was more than just an unfaithful married womanizer; he was a sexual predator and a dissembler. Predators in society cause great harm. They cause those concerned few who know to warn any possible prey. That a philosopher was a predator should shock the conscience. Absurd is the Grant’s explanation about O’s philosophy and love life: “he sees a more complicated dynamic at work: Oakeshott’s anti-utopian politics serve as both a counterweight and a Hobbsian foundation for his erotic utopia.” “I hope that Grant will discuss my accusation in his forthcoming biography of O. (p. 6) http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/97 ... 407-0.html
http://www.facebook.com/groups/2205005777/?fref=ts
reasonvemotion
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: "REASON AND EMOTION IN THE TEMPLE OF MORALITY"

Post by reasonvemotion »

I am rather at odds at your shock and disbelief.

Your favorite philosopher is a man first and an academic second.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have been led to believe man's sexual impulses are almost ever present and when in rage motion will look for any orifice to spill his seed.

So why should a "philosopher" be any different. Are you expecting "reason" to prevail over THE PENIS.

Adultery can encompass many scenarios. Do you consider a five minute rendezvous with a hooker adulterous?
As a woman I do. As a man?....... I wonder. Another scenario maybe this philosopher's wife was frigid. What then? Masturbation only, won't keep THE PENIS happy and contented forever.
Absurd is the Grant’s explanation about O’s philosophy and love life: “he sees a more complicated dynamic at work:
I tend to agree, it is more complicated.
tbieter
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Re: "REASON AND EMOTION IN THE TEMPLE OF MORALITY"

Post by tbieter »

reasonvemotion wrote:I am rather at odds at your shock and disbelief.

Your favorite philosopher is a man first and an academic second.
Oakeshott rejected Cartesian dualism in human cognition and behavior.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have been led to believe man's sexual impulses are almost ever present and when in rage motion will look for any orifice to spill his seed.
I would suggest that the ordinary man has control, more or less, over his sexual appetite. You describe a non-human animal.

So why should a "philosopher" be any different. Are you expecting "reason" to prevail over THE PENIS. Yes, ideally, in the philosopher.

Adultry can encompass many scenarios. Do you consider a five minute rendezvous with a hooker adulterous?
As a woman I do. As a man?....... I wonder. Another scenario maybe this philosopher's wife was a frigid sex hating woman. What then? Masturbation only, won't keep THE PENIS happy and contented forever.
You and I disagree in our assessments of the evidence presented in Grant's essay.
I implicitly and explicitly distinguish the (a) one night stand, (b) the affair, and (c) womanizing, from (d) the sexual predator.
Before reading this essay, I was aware that O had been married three times and that he had had affairs. When I read that he seduced other professor's wives and that he was usually bedding three women at a time, I began to be shocked. And I reached my conclusion that his misconduct was extreme.

During my career, I had experience with predators, sexual and otherwise. They constitute a general danger to society. I wonder if any work has been done on the psychology or on the philosophy of the predator?

Regarding Grant's essay, where and in what respect does your assessment of the evidence differ from mine?

Absurd is the Grant’s explanation about O’s philosophy and love life: “he sees a more complicated dynamic at work:
I tend to agree, it is more complicated.
tbieter
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Re: "REASON AND EMOTION IN THE TEMPLE OF MORALITY"

Post by tbieter »

Oakeshott's predation, or unjust conduct toward women, could be placed in a broader context. Perhaps he belongs, as another case study, among the modern secular intellectuals described in the historian Paul Johnson's book, Intellectuals. Johnson begins his study with these remarks:

"OVER the past two hundred years the influence of intellectuals has grown steadily. Indeed, the rise of the secular intellectual has been a key factor in shaping the modern world. Seen against the long perspective of history it is in many ways a new phenomenon. It is true that in their earlier incarnations as priests, scribes and soothsayers, intellectuals have laid claim to guide society from the very beginning. But as guardians of hieratic cultures, whether primitive or sophisticated, their moral and ideological innovations were limited by the canons of external authority and by the inheritance of tradition. They were not, and could not be, free spirits, adventurers of the mind.

With the decline of clerical power in the eighteenth century, a new kind of mentor emerged to fill the vacuum and capture the ear of society. The secular intellectual might be deist, sceptic or atheist. But he was just as ready as any pontiff or presbyter to tell mankind how to conduct its affairs. He proclaimed, from the start, a special devotion to the interests of humanity and an evangelical duty to advance them by his teaching. He brought to this self-appointed task a far more radical approach than his clerical predecessors. He felt himself bound by no corpus of revealed religion. The collective wisdom of the past, the legacy of tradition, the prescriptive codes of ancestral experience existed to be selectively followed or wholly rejected entirely as his own good sense might decide. For the first time in human history, and with growing confidence and audacity, men arose to assert that they could diagnose the ills of society and cure them with their own unaided intellects: more, that they could devise formulae whereby not merely the structure of society but the fundamental habits of human beings could be transformed for the better. Unlike their sacerdotal predecessors, they were not servants and interpreters of the gods but substitutes. Their hero was Prometheus, who stole the celestial fire and brought it to earth.

One of the most marked characteristics of the new secular intellectuals was the relish with which they subjected religion and its protagonists to critical scrutiny. How far had they benefited or harmed humanity, these great systems of faith? To what extent had these popes and pastors lived up to their precepts, of purity and truthfulness, of charity and benevolence? The verdicts pronounced on both churches and clergy were harsh. Now, after two centuries during which the influence of religion has continued to decline, and But he was just as ready as any pontiff or presbyter to tell mankind how to conduct its affairs. He proclaimed, from the start, a special devotion to the interests of humanity and an evangelical duty to advance them by his teaching. He brought to this self-appointed task a far more radical approach than his clerical predecessors. He felt himself bound by no corpus of revealed religion. The collective wisdom of the past, the legacy of tradition, the prescriptive codes of ancestral experience existed to be selectively followed or wholly rejected entirely as his own good sense might decide. For the first time in human history, and with growing confidence and audacity, men arose to assert that they could diagnose the ills of society and cure them with their own unaided intellects: more, that they could devise formulae whereby not merely the structure of society but the fundamental habits of human beings could be transformed for the better. Unlike their sacerdotal predecessors, they were not servants and interpreters of the gods but substitutes. Their hero was Prometheus, who stole the celestial fire and brought it to earth."

Johnson, Paul (2009-10-13). Intellectuals (P.S.) (Kindle Locations 56-67). Harper Perennial. Kindle Edition.
http://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-P-S ... ellectuals
chaz wyman
Posts: 5304
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: "REASON AND EMOTION IN THE TEMPLE OF MORALITY"

Post by chaz wyman »

tbieter wrote:Here is David Brooks' essay published today.

It prompts me to wonder about those cases where a brilliant intellectual and skilled reasoner in ethics (such as a professional philosopher) intentionally engages in an extended adulterous affair.

http://www.twincities.com/ci_12100824?I ... cities.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One would think that Professor Haldane, upon concluding his reasonings, would conclude that adultery is morally wrong and that he should not engage in it:

"Richard Baron Post subject: Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:06 am
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:55 am
Posts: 488
Location: London Yes, Haldane was a truly wonderful man, right up to the end:

http://nsm.uh.edu/~dgraur/Texts/Cancerhaldane.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He lost his Cambridge job for adultery (planned in order to get his lover a divorce). He appealed successfully against Cambridge's charge of gross moral turpitude, I think on the basis that while it was moral turpitude, it was not gross. But it was decided that the University could still dismiss for adultery.

I encourage all Americans visiting Britain to head for the shop where A_Uk bought the book, and change their money there at the very favourable rate of 50 pence = 25 cents.

_________________
Richard"

A Second Case: A professor of philosophy (married with four kids), from whom I took four or five courses, got a temporary one semester appointment to teach in Australia. There he met a woman. He then received another one year appointment at the same university. He moved there without his wife and kids. HE MOVED IN WITH THE WOMAN! His wife learned of the affaire when she called one evening, the woman answered, and the wife was told to call back the following day - "we are giving a dinner party now". Of course, they gotr divorced.

My Question: What explains the commission of such an act by Haldane, or any other professional philosopher? And what, if anything, can justify such an act?
Love can triumph over morality.
chaz wyman
Posts: 5304
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: "REASON AND EMOTION IN THE TEMPLE OF MORALITY"

Post by chaz wyman »

Richard Baron wrote:Some philosophers will reason their way out of moral realism and into, for example, emotivism, and perhaps that enables them to square their affairs with their intellects. Perhaps there is room for empirical evidence here. Can we find a correlation between distance from moral realism and/or from deontology and propensity to have affairs? Russell and Ayer both had active social lives.
There is no moral realism!! What a strange idea!
Divorce is legal as separation an intra-marrital unhappiness if rife. Why would you not think it immoral to stay in an unhappy marriage?
chaz wyman
Posts: 5304
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: "REASON AND EMOTION IN THE TEMPLE OF MORALITY"

Post by chaz wyman »

tbieter wrote:Richard,

Regarding empirical evidence, I enjoyed reading Paul Johnson's (British historian) book Intellectuals

http://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Pau ... 429&sr=1-2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As I recall, Johnson preasents case histories of intellectuals who are immoral and hypocrits. Marx, Rousseau, Russell are there. Its a really interesting study.

Tom
Richard Baron wrote:Some philosophers will reason their way out of moral realism and into, for example, emotivism, and perhaps that enables them to square their affairs with their intellects. Perhaps there is room for empirical evidence here. Can we find a correlation between distance from moral realism and/or from deontology and propensity to have affairs? Russell and Ayer both had active social lives.
Morality is for the hard of thinking.
reasonvemotion
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: "REASON AND EMOTION IN THE TEMPLE OF MORALITY"

Post by reasonvemotion »

But it was decided that the University could still dismiss for adultery.

How odd!

Is it a law unto itself?
Post Reply