Hello Jim,
A most interesting and stimulating post. It is good of you to bring the
issues into such starkly basic terms.
First:
Your post illiminates how of some of those with great intellectual and
physical energy have been unable to confront, to deal with, the
psychological - spiritual - barreness of the purely material goals that our
USian society has been imposing on ourselves and on the non-western world.
Vince Scott represents that value set, that world view that your posts from
Ayn Rand so clearly show. In my view a very shallow view, a
self-destructive view of the human potential.
I am surprised, particularly in light of Tom Frank's post of 6/09/00 re "Our
Fellow Animals", that you Jim have not presented material that proposes
alternatives ways of viewing the world, humans in it, and particularly
material that addresses the issue of just what being human means. Just how
does one address the question of how humans fit into the greater scheme of
the universe, of the relationship with our fellow travellers on this planet.
Again and again, imho, we are compelled to come back to the question of just
what are the characteristics of an ethical, a moral, person. What are the
different ways that intellectuals can frame that issue? What are the
factors that various schools take when they support/deride a particular
position?
In my view, Jim, until you address that question as an
"analytical/pragmatist" philosopher we, others, humans cannot get to the
fundamentals of being human - and not just from your own personal bias.
What kinds of general approaches can a philosopher take to address these
fundamentals? At least I think they represent fundamentals. Of course, I
probably don't know what an "analytical/pragmatist" philosopher is or does.
It should be clear, it seems to me, that your posts and approach evades
these fundamental questions that civil society should address. IMHO.
Second:
Your post points out this important issue: Why is it wrong for folks to
take destructive action against what they think of as private property
assaults on Mother Nature, yet it is OK for the "owners" of "private"
property to destroy, for example, the natural system (wetlands for example)
which belongs to all of us?
It seems to me that both are destructive assaults on "property". Why is one
Ok and the other not?
What are the ethical issues involved here? I hope that your investigations
will address these larger issues. In my view, of course.
I hope these comment have some relevance to the philosophical profession.
No doubt I am not competent to judge what should be relevant there.
But, I am convinced that those questions should be subject to basic study by
*any* academic community - in one form or another depending on the
particular discipline.
Respectfully,
Ray
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|