enobosarm

Philosophy Shot itself in the Foot that was in its Mouth

The real trick in the understanding of philosophy and balancing it within a thought frame is in acknowledge that most if not all philosophers start from a position.

In starting from a position it is understood that certain moral, societal and religious principles are taken as granted.

Unfortunately for philosophers and philosophy within the bounds of the natural universe moral, societal and religious principles hold no sway.

For philosophy to be worth its salt it must start without position.

Take Immanuel Kant’s concept of Categorical Imperative which basically states that a moral judgment/law can be arrived at on any action by asking would it be good if every individual acted so.

The problem with morality is that it is conditioned and conditional on environment. It is presumed that it is morally wrong to kill yet it is human nature to kill, we are after all the alpha predator on the planet. This process if continued to an ultimatum brings about a situation where humans by nature are morally corrupt which is tantamount to evil.

Viewed from a fabricated socioreligious viewpoint it is easy to perceive certain human characteristics and actions as evil but it should be remembered that we do not inhabit a socioreligious universe. The ideals/constraints of religious and societal morals are abnormal traits forced on us by the requirements of capital. The average human being is nothing more than a resource to the needs of the masters of capital.

However the ever present reality that the average human being is the most lethal killing machine in the history of the known universe necessitates a mental neutering to ensure their useful adaptation to the requirements of capital. This is achieved by the processes of socioreligious conditioning.

Morality and religious belief is the conditioning of choice to tame the masses.

Within the realm of property rights one could ask if it is a good thing that the rights of property owners be upheld. For instance should your neighbor have the right to drive you from your home and land which you own free and clear merely because he/she has decided that the legislation that cedes you your property rights do not apply to him/her and because they possess the might to take and hold your property.

Now examining the morality of property rights using Categorical Imperative would lead one to believe that it is morally unjust to take ownership of another’s property without consent and payment in kind.

However in the case of America property rights are less than 300 years old and any moral argument must conveniently forget that the original possessors of the lands where dispossessed by means of violence without consent and without payment in kind.

In the case of Israel moral property rights are a mere 60 years old and once again all philosophical discussion using Categorical Imperative on the morality of property rights must disassociate itself from the rights of property ownership by the previous owner.

Philosophy when discussed from an assumed position is as relevant as a drunken bar room argument. It is useless claptrap circulating around opinion and belief which in the end like all myth always turn out to be false, which is a nice way of saying it is a lie.

Be Sociable, Share!
This entry was posted on Monday, October 19th, 2009 at 3:23 pm and is filed under Fish Talk. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment