tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post6802457005243743884..comments2024-03-28T21:32:26.550+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: Double-negative morality - the triumph of secularismBruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-8054034300251456202013-06-18T21:16:49.291+01:002013-06-18T21:16:49.291+01:00@A - That sounds about right. @A - That sounds about right. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-43923861563734677322013-06-18T20:49:14.315+01:002013-06-18T20:49:14.315+01:00I understood the Diogenes post as describing the c...I understood the Diogenes post as describing the case of someone who was contending for power while (somehow) remaining sufficiently holy to be impassible to the vast majority of threats that would ordinarily be brought out to neutralize / co-opt him. Such a Diogenes would indeed be flagrantly unreasonable -- having no need to justify the principles and goals he was pursuing, since those with equivalent goals and motivation would cooperate, those with contrary motivation to his own would not listen, while a substantial portion of the people who think like this:<br /><br />"I feel there is no compelling reason why I should not go-along-with current practices and prevailing trends."<br /><br />May very well be dragged along (having no inclination to resist) in the Diogenes' wake, without ever needing to be reasoned into the shift in opinion.<br /><br />Of course, it's the (somehow remaining holy) part that's the whole problem with that picture....<br /><br />Generally people interested in power emulate the 'flagrantly unreasonable' portion. Which, lacking an actual compelling <i>reason</i> to be flagrantly unreasonable (such as the urgent assertion of actually correct principles that are too basic to explain), is necessarily accomplished by fairly artificial blustering. I guess swearing and using sexually explicit language without any real reason to do so falls into that category....Arakawahttp://arakawa.github.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-60978983975837764792013-06-18T19:58:19.585+01:002013-06-18T19:58:19.585+01:00@Arakawa - I had forgotten that posting
http://ch...@Arakawa - I had forgotten that posting<br /><br />http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/modern-diogenes.html<br /><br />But I don't think I meant somebody swearing and using sexually explicit language. Actually, I'm not sure what I did mean!Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-12630374661251636092013-06-18T19:16:07.485+01:002013-06-18T19:16:07.485+01:00And thus it's all too common for people seekin...And thus it's all too common for people seeking to alter the status quo to be flagrantly and deliberately shocking and unreasonable. Whether you're to the Right or to the Left of the current consensus, it's a cheap and easy way to paralyze the vast majority of people into acquiescence, leaving only your actual committed enemies to deal with.<br /><br />Whether such a game can actually be played for Good in this day and age is a question I'm undecided on. I guess that's the implicit hope behind your 'Modern Diogenes' notion from a loong while back... this strikes me as sort of the flip side of that idea.Arakawahttp://arakawa.github.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-57592777481463308672013-06-18T14:57:23.348+01:002013-06-18T14:57:23.348+01:00One of you best insights. Men are social animals....One of you best insights. Men are social animals.Adam G.http://www.jrganymede.comnoreply@blogger.com