Intelligence !! That, is the question.
I am not that dense to believe that any piece of news is Above pure propaganda. This link to article is by the guardian, and I do like to think this news source, though leftist, has its neutral facts in order and is reporting neutrally, with a liberal bent. ￼
That’s what I like to believe. But I know it’s false.
However, I do think they’re reporting on some thing that’s actually occurring, somewhere, and somehow similar to what they are reporting on.
And yes my opinions are biased also. But I think this goes to my point I’m going to make here about intelligence.
The Notion of Intelligence Has No Substantial Basis for Legitimacy
The notion of intelligence itself must be an inaccurate way to identify a human being.
I say this because my first reaction to this article is that human beings are not intelligent. Lol
What I mean by this is, their opinion makes no sense￼.lol
And what I mean by this is that they are stupid. lol
I could go on, but those last three sentences don’t really say anything at all except that I feel that I myself I am intelligent, my opinions make sense, and that I’m not stupid. Any definition that I would want to bring up around those terms are necessarily biased in my favor.
Notice that my post one or two ago ask the question: where does legitimacy reside?
It largely comes out of “intellectual/ethical” divides such as the arguments around birth control.
I have to admit that whatever these people are, that they are so adamant about not getting abortions antiabortion and such, must not be the same type of human that I am. I mean this in the sense that regardless of what seems intellectually sound to me, that is, that everyone should have the right to their own opinions and be able to voice them,￼￼￼￼ Obviously the people who are “pro life”, as if strangely enough, I am not for living and for allowing people to live how they want to live, Do not hold this opinion that I have that everyone should be allowed to uphold their own ideals ethically about life and how to live it. Obviously that maxim only goes so far for them. Ultimately, and I would say due to what this ethical maxim means to me, again, namely, that everyone should be able to uphold their own ideals and live life as they see fit, The people who are prolife do not agree with me about what this simple statement says. And this is to say that they agree with it so long as you agree with them about this one particular issue; it doesn’t really matter what it is.
It’s like the “great divide” of ideology. There is no source of legitimacy from which we could find an intellectual or ethical common ground. Even if we believe in the United States system of government, ultimately we have to admit that the charge on the White House and the Trump in whatever they might be called, again only believe in the common humanity so far as everyone has to believe in the basic ideals they believe.
I don’t think I need to run this in the ground. I think you get my point.
The Theory of the Logistical Basis for Ethics and the Two Routes
This is why I say that ethics is not something that￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼ Arises innately within us. Because of the great divide, it appears more true to say that ethics are trained into us. Surprise!
Really the great divide must be how we are oriented upon how ethics arises within oneself. ￼￼
￼￼￼If I feel that I am instilled with the ethics that extends over the human creature as a global manifestation￼, by, for any other term, God or deity or “natural morality”, then what we have in these kinds of debates is really a battle between religious zealots. For, even if I am the most liberal minded atheist, if I am also pro life then I am believing in some transcendent yet substantial and foundational “should” that encompasses the human being as a species.
￼￼￼￼ For example, there are plenty of people that believe that we should try to help every human being no matter what due to the fact that they are human. I’m not sure how that kind of morality is not based in a religious type of formulation. I’m not sure how that relies on something that is not transcendentally encompassing to the category. ￼￼
Ethics that’s always argues, in the end, for a logistical basis of its epistemological foundation Rather than a transcendental one￼.
We Have Never Been Modern
We get to this point and ultimately we have to begin to notice the sociologists discussion Bruno Latour we have never been modern. ￼￼ specifically, he points to inherent contradictions in the modern way of conceptualizing things, but also the contradictory motion that must be in play to uphold any one of the positions.
For example, we can argue that no God exists, and yet as I have shown above, at the same time that I am making the argument that there is no God, I am nevertheless relying upon a transcendence that is forming my ability to have such knowledge. If I move then to define what transcendence is, proposing to rebut your argument that I am relying upon some sort of God for my proposal, then I have entered into the contradiction that I propose to be solving. It is these types of contradictory positions/motions that the author draws upon to make the suggestion that this is what modernity is, but in order to come to such a critique we must never have been modern. ￼
The Two Routes, again
So, I come back to the problem inherent to the issue of abortion in America. There is a reason why our form of government must pose “one nation under God”. Presently, in order to govern modern minded people, a governing body must reside in that space of irony. This is what our legal system is based on, standing on the fulcrum of modern contradiction.
However, the most pertinent to our case here and what this article represents. If indeed ethics is only a logistical solution and not an ideal solution, not a solution which arises inherent to the universe and or inherent to the human being itself, then we have a huge dilemma.
The logistical rationale for ethics thus argues that there is no human being that has inherent worth. That a human being’s worth is ultimately in relation to The prevailing ideology.
Hence, The basis of the logistical approach to ethics. The problem of ethics has Little to do with whether someone has inherent worth; it has to do with the fact that I can never totally eliminate my opponents or ethical enemies. As I posted elsewhere, because I can never get rid of people who, by my estimation￼,￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼ Are not intelligent, nonsensical, stupid, I thereby have to reflect back upon myself how I am going to live comfortably and happily with them.
￼ Disgusting, right￼?
What Does This Have to do with Mental Health?
Mental health either is the effort to bring the individual back into the ideological fold, whatever that is.
Mental health is the effort to help the individual find themselves despite ideological maxims.x