Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
An appreciation of beauty.
- Thread starter Snow4maen
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've always been interested in fungi, mushrooms, etc. There is something very strange and funky about them. There are many very cool looking mushrooms, but probably the most recognisable one is the Fly Agaric, or Amanita Muscaria. This fungi has a kinda folklore/witchcraft heritage. It is actually hallucinogenic, but you don't want to eat it. Sometimes used in rituals. Its a very striking and beautiful mushroom.
If I may ... I would argue that an issue in the proper understanding of ethics is the superposition of the Abrahamic static value of moral statements. Once you allow yourself to evaluate moral statements as objects localized in cultural and social constructs, you can allow yourself the flexibility to understand a broader range of ethical systems.
One question remains, how to reconcile the now fragmented ethical landscape ... to whit I present one of my favorite philosophical tools.
---
Rawls proposes the concept of the "Original Position." This thought experiment involves individuals who are rational, self-interested, and behind a "veil of ignorance," meaning they have no knowledge about their own personal characteristics, social status, or specific circumstances. In this hypothetical scenario:
- Each individual has an equal chance to occupy any position in society.
- Individuals make decisions based solely on the principles that would be most beneficial for all individuals, without knowing how those principles will affect them personally.
Rawls argues that these rational, self-interested individuals would choose two fundamental principles to guide their actions:
- The Principle of Equal Liberty: Each person has an equal right to the greatest basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.
- The Difference Principle : Social and economic inequalities are justified only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society, or "the worst off."
Rawls' theory offers a way to reconcile moral subjectivism (i.e., individual perspectives on morality) with some degree of universalism (As understood the shared understanding of value systems). By considering what principles would be chosen in the Original Position, we can identify certain values and norms that are universally beneficial or justifiable.
---
This would allow us to go further than the "Golden Rule", by allowing ouselves to eschew our localized biases. And avoids the pitfalls of positive utilitarianism (maximisation of well-being) by restricting judgement to the worst (minimisation of suffering). Which in itself is not incompatible with an Abrahamic moral value system.
Hi, so firstly I should say I’m flattered you think I can reason particularly competently in philosophy, that’s very generous of you. It’s important for me to point out that I’m a failed philosophy student, I was not gifted enough to take it seriously even though I value it very much.
There are a few points I might try, perhaps in error, to express. I’m not at all clear I fully appreciated the points you have made, my shortcomings not yours.
You mention Abrahamic ethics, I’m assuming that would include ethical thinking from both Judaism and Islam? I have no knowledge of how those ethical systems work, I only have some familiarity with Christian ethics. I’m not sure I understand your point about the values being static? I’m tempted to think any seriously valuable moral precept is likely to be prescriptive and generalised. Of course I’m aware that there is some variety in ethical thinking when looking at different cultures. But I would be wary of allowing too much relativism.
If we think about medical doctors, to try and illustrate my point, these people are very capable, very high functioning individuals who, and I may be being unfair, but perhaps they often struggle to realise the limitations of the average person they see at the surgery. That’s only natural, I’ve had doctors give me recommendations that I just don’t really have the capacity to handle and I’m not sure they understand how limited I am.
It’s similar with philosophers, by nature they are very high functioning, very rational and intelligent. And what I find is that this often results in a very demanding system of moral reasoning. If we think practically, the average person is trying with all their effort to earn money, to pay bills, to look after their family and to enjoy life. It’s not very realistic to expect them also to be moral computers. Most people don’t have the interest, the will, and sometimes the capacity, to think in any complicated way morally.
What I find useful in Christianity is it gives a set of basic guiding principles. And I would argue they are of value even if you don’t believe in Christianity. For example.
Always be humble, don’t esteem yourself any capacity that you can’t justify.
Never be judgemental, doesn’t matter who you are dealing with or what the situation, never think more highly of yourself than anyone else.
Always act out of love and compassion for the individual, see whoever it is as equally of value and worthy as anyone else.
If you start your moral reasoning with these guiding principles you can’t go too far wrong. But of course often ethical situations are quite complicated and varied. So sticking to concrete rules is not always helpful. For example the church in general is against abortion. This is not because they don’t respect the autonomy of the woman, or her rights, it’s simply because the church puts an extremely high value on human life.
But consider this, a woman gets raped, she becomes pregnant, she is told to take it full term but later finds out there are complications and she is likely to die in childbirth. What takes priority here? The actual real and current value of the mothers life, or the life of the child with all its potential? I do not have an answer. There needs to be flexibility as things can get quite complicated so to do your best morally it’s best to not be dogmatic.
Of course I’m biased, I’m a Christian, and my faith is much more to me than a moral system. If I were to find a superior system that is not Christian I’d have to leave all the other value behind.
I think ethics is so often so complicated that no matter what system you choose there may not be clear solutions. I’m not keen on being dictatorial or bigoted, so I would say so long as an individual takes making moral decisions with integrity and seriously, we can’t go far wrong regardless of what system you subscribe to. The problem is when people don’t care anymore and don’t want to be moral people. They sink into hopelessness and nihilism.
I find the general guiding principles in my faith valuable and worthwhile. I don’t have the capacity to act as a moral computer either, so I think it’s best to not be too complicated in what we stipulate as our moral system.
Thank you for the thoughtful and complete answer.
On the subject of my description of "Abrahamic static value of moral statements", I'm in no way a theologian so my commentary will limit itself to the bounds of a structural analysis of the source of moral behaviour.
I had bundled the three "Abrahamic" religions together for their emphasis on the revelation of moral principles, morality being seen as an obedience to divine will.
Describing them as "Static" for their reliance on Sacred texts as the primary source for moral guidance and the understanding that Morality is seen as a matter of following G*d's commands, considered absolute and unchanging.
Those two points, namely the orthodoxy in the interpretation of the primary source are main drivers between some intra/inter-faith strife and abundance of commentary exists, none of which I am qualified to comment. My point here was purely academic, side stepping theological discussion to reduce it to it's main philosophical components.
You put emphasis on a certain need for flexibility in the treatment of what are "Universal" moral statements. And I will recognize that the ability to function within bounds of "Computed" morality is untenable in real world scenarios.
It is my understanding that we all function using heuristics, lower level reasoning that allows us to spare some cognitive load. And to me, the emanation of easily understood shared and applied moral systems filled this niche, at the very least when it comes to the codifications of certain complex social behaviors. This reduces moral behaviour to its neuro-psychological grounding. But also reduces advanced philosophical inquiry on the subject to nothing more than costly signalling.
There are multiple drivers behind acceptable behaviour, and we are magically brought back to the need to ascribe common acceptable behaviour.
In hoping that I did not in any way disparage you or your faith by writing this up,
PS: To loop it back into the subject, there is beauty in the ability to communicate around the globe and have respectful conversations.
On the subject of my description of "Abrahamic static value of moral statements", I'm in no way a theologian so my commentary will limit itself to the bounds of a structural analysis of the source of moral behaviour.
I had bundled the three "Abrahamic" religions together for their emphasis on the revelation of moral principles, morality being seen as an obedience to divine will.
Describing them as "Static" for their reliance on Sacred texts as the primary source for moral guidance and the understanding that Morality is seen as a matter of following G*d's commands, considered absolute and unchanging.
Those two points, namely the orthodoxy in the interpretation of the primary source are main drivers between some intra/inter-faith strife and abundance of commentary exists, none of which I am qualified to comment. My point here was purely academic, side stepping theological discussion to reduce it to it's main philosophical components.
You put emphasis on a certain need for flexibility in the treatment of what are "Universal" moral statements. And I will recognize that the ability to function within bounds of "Computed" morality is untenable in real world scenarios.
It is my understanding that we all function using heuristics, lower level reasoning that allows us to spare some cognitive load. And to me, the emanation of easily understood shared and applied moral systems filled this niche, at the very least when it comes to the codifications of certain complex social behaviors. This reduces moral behaviour to its neuro-psychological grounding. But also reduces advanced philosophical inquiry on the subject to nothing more than costly signalling.
There are multiple drivers behind acceptable behaviour, and we are magically brought back to the need to ascribe common acceptable behaviour.
In hoping that I did not in any way disparage you or your faith by writing this up,
PS: To loop it back into the subject, there is beauty in the ability to communicate around the globe and have respectful conversations.
Last edited:
U.S. version available with what looks like a heat resistant handle. $2900 - $16000.
Duparquet copper cookware — Duparquet Copper Cookware
Purchase American-made copper cookware online. Handmade, heirloom-quality copper cookware for sale from Duparquet Copper Cookware. Copper Artisan, Jim Hamann, Rhode Island
duparquet.com
Absolutely. Sometimes even better than a DSLR.
Thank you for sharing your reasoning.
A couple of points. I've been wisely warned not to get into political, philosophical or religious debate on a forum as it usually just ends up causing trouble. There is nothing special about my opinion, it's not educated or academic. BUT. In my experience, it's always futile to try and tell other people how to think, everyone I've ever met thinks they know best, including me, and I'm happy to admit I'm kinda dumb, and half crazy! I think there is some virtue in us all reaching our own conclusions anyway, everyone has a right to their opinion. I'm not going to dictate.
I'm afraid I would be unwise to get into any technical analysis as I just don't have the ability. For me my faith is a profoundly meaningful understanding of my existence that gives me hope. I just try to do my best morally. No Christian is good enough to be a Christian, we ALL fall very short of the mark, everyday. But the value in it is that you don't give up, you get up tomorrow and try to do better. In this there is contrition and aspiration, which I think are both valuable qualities.
Probably the most important point here is that however we want to consider the situation we are going to be fundamentally at odds as I believe in God and most philosophers don't. Without accepting God we put ourselves in the driving seat of our own morality. I have, I believe, very good and personally meaningful reasons to believe in God. But, as I said, I'm not going to tell others what to think. I think we all owe it to ourselves to make our own minds up.
You are much better at philosophy than I am! I just want to live in a more loving world.
On a lighter note: Swatches.
I grew up with a flik-flak and my father's (arguably utterly tacky) collection of swatches in the background. In my eyes, they reduced the watch to a formula in some of the same ways Apple did with personnal computing.
Last edited:
Most Apple products, with the possible exception of a couple, have been beautifully designed. Some things seemed like a good idea at the time but had problems, like my old Core 2 Duo iMac with the clear plastic keyboard case that showed all the muck inside it!
From the iconic original design of the first iMac, that was so successful. Up until now with the unbelievably slim Apple silicon iMacs. Even though it has its limitations, for example, if you wanted a bigger screen, how would the design accommodate this practically? This is the design of the iMac I find most appealing. I never used one, nor owned one. But I always thought it was lovely.....
From the iconic original design of the first iMac, that was so successful. Up until now with the unbelievably slim Apple silicon iMacs. Even though it has its limitations, for example, if you wanted a bigger screen, how would the design accommodate this practically? This is the design of the iMac I find most appealing. I never used one, nor owned one. But I always thought it was lovely.....
Ah, for the love of white cats... my white cat, which was pretty, but prettier in personality, passed away a few years ago. I still miss her.
Attachments
Probably the best photograph I have ever taken.
Taken during sunset on the beach in Hawai'i during my family dinner.
"The Arrival of Night"
Taken during sunset on the beach in Hawai'i during my family dinner.
"The Arrival of Night"
The futuristic world created by Ridley Scott in the original Blade Runner film. I've always been impressed by it. I saw the film before I read Phillip K. Dicks book, and maybe that has influenced my opinion, but I prefer the film to the book.
The workmanship, and architecture of ancient Cathedrals..Never ceases to amaze me how all that time ago creating things this complex and beautiful was actually possible. Not sure which Cathedral this is but I believe it's a Gothic example.
This is a personal preference. But I love the highly original writing of Hunter S. Thompson, it's fun, entertaining, and unique.
“There was madness in any direction, at any hour. You could strike sparks anywhere. There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning.”
― Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
“There was madness in any direction, at any hour. You could strike sparks anywhere. There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning.”
― Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
@Snow4maen That's the Duomo in Milan. I lived there for 11 years. The level of detail is staggering, even up close.
I found the Wikipedia entry for you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piazza_del_Duomo,_Milan
Can I include single malt Scotch whisky? I've never had a single malt I don't like. I've tried the more expensive Macallan but I'm not all that bothered with it to be honest. My personal favourite is the Talisker Skye.
The sword of the Samurai, the Japanese Katana.
https://www.historyskills.com/classroom/year-8/katana/#
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katana
https://www.historyskills.com/classroom/year-8/katana/#
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katana
I was with a special girl once, she introduced me to the photography of Henri Cartier-Bresson. I've since come to be very fond of street photography in general. Here is one of Henri Cartier-Bresson's photos....
All of these photos I took in Nicaragua back in 2021 on my last trip to see my mom before she passed away a couple months later.
I’m no photography expert, but your framing and choice of shot are great. Love these photos. Sorry to hear about your mum.