Dear Dreamer,
              you have acknowledged the main point, as regards criticism of
discussion in this forum. Philosophy, as a discipline, is plagued with this
fundamental paralysis: We cannot act upon an imperative, because we cannot
concur upon an imperative, because we must accord egalitarian respect to all
opinions and recognise imperious truth nowhere.
                 The fundamental intellectual dilemma of modern man is his
patent inability to match the honesty and fertility of his science with any
commensurate honesty and fertility in his religion, and in his philosophy.
Honest and fertile science is founded in the true and meaningful apprehension of
how nature works. Modern science respects this definition.
                Honest and fertile religion should founded in the true and
meaningful apprehension of why nature works. Modern religion, in the guise of
our diverging theological and existentialist outlooks, does not, in any form,
respect this defintion. Modern religious outlook either acknowledges an utterly
synthetic and 'homocentric' conception of why nature works, or it denies any
reason as to why nature works at all.
                Honest and fertile Philosophy, in my assessment, should be
founded in a holistic reconciliation of understanding as to both how and why
nature works. Modern Philosophy in no way respects such a definition. And the
fundamental failure of modern Philosophy, as I see it, stems from the a priori
failure of modern man to develop honest and fertile religious apprehension. To
put it succinctly, we have recognised an imperious physical order in nature -
but we have not recognised any imperious moral order in nature. I believe that
we can, and that we must.
               If we do not recognise an imperious moral order in nature, one
that is truthful and meaningful to our own moral and physical condition, then we
persist with the great folly of 'liberal and egalitarian' thinking. We think
that, in matters of moral analysis and action, we are free to interpret and
conceive morality with individualistic liberty. The individualistic licence
symptomatic of modern moral thinking stems from the bottom line intellectual
failure to see an imperious moral order active in all nature. This was the
fundamental intellectual failure of the Enlightenment, the failure to find a
religion as credible as modern science.
              We will forever suffer from the predictable paralysis of academic
Philosophy, unless that we make the disciplines of religion and philosophy
fundamentally true to the imperious designs of nature, rather than true to our
own wishful moral and intellectual indulgences.
              If anyone is interested, in the work "Human Destiny, and Life on
Earth"  I elaborate upon the direct connection between the fundamental
intellectual failings of modern man, and our glaring moral failure in respect of
the modern ecological dilemma. In respect of this work I would appreciate
comments and assistance. I am still working upon the refinement of a moral
analysis and vision reconciling the imperatives of egocentric
self-determination, of humanitarianism, and of environmentalism, as a
representation of evolution in human moral genealogy, and as a representation of
organic and vital moral growth emanating from nature.


             Carl-Josef Nykiel           << [log in to unmask] <<




dreamer wrote:

> Bissell:>
> > I agree that philosophical discussion is *very* germane to the solution of
> > environmental problems, which is why I've been on this list so long. I
> > suspect Walter is one of those people who occasionally appear, makes a few
> > caustic remarks and disappears. If I was rude, I didn't really mean to be
> > so, it's just why post a message on a philosophical mailing list to the
> > effect that philosophical discussion is irrelevant?
>
> dreamer: why not?  doesn't hurt for us to be prodded once in a while to
> be a little more pragmatic.  might be worthwhile, for instance, to take
> some areas where we acheive something close to consensus once in a
> while, and try to reduce our abstract conclusions to some sort of
> program to be acted upon, by politicians, civil disobedients,
> revolutionaries, whoever.
> >





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%