Modern Moral Reality
In the last two thousand years since the early Roman Empire brought civil law and Hellenistic philosophy into world civilisation, there have been several "enlightenments". Before this era, we have some idea of the great impact Socrates, Plato and Aristotle had, and through Alexander the Great, how much of these ideas pervaded the ancient world.
With the Roman empire, we have some idea of the rule of law, and inspite of the deitification of the Roman emperors and the impact of this on developing thought, we have some reason to thank them for propagating fundamental beliefs in the rights of citizens, fidelity to the state, etc.
For a while in the fifth century when Latin began to replace Greek as the language of commerce and thought, we saw the first semblence of the growth of new ideas and philosophies. During the monastic period with Bernard of Clairvaux, Christian doctrines saw some development, which since the time of the first councils convoked by Constantine, we began to see how Orthodoxy was shaped and became the basis of further conflicts, political intrigues, schism and excommunication, of Decretals and the first encyclicals.
In the 12th Century, there were new schools, such as those in Paris with the likes of Peter Abelard (c1079-1142) where successions of new philosophers led to the medieval renaissance with Thomas Aquinas, whose feast day was just past, on 28 January.
The other "enlightments" followed with developments in science such as Newton, and the emergence of the rationalists such as Rene Descartes (1596-1650), Spinoza, and Leibniz. The next flowering was with the Great Empiricists - with tremendous impact on the English-speaking world, too. German philosophy was then to shape much of the political thought of the 20th Century: from Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) we have the roots of Marxism and Facsism.
Today, the spillover of all these philosophies have found expression in sweeping form through news, entertainment and the modern education system. The fundamental idea seems to revolve on basic freedoms. Yet this idea of freedom seems not to be always understood by the same persons who claim them, and use them.
For example, Muslims who speak of freedom but are outraged at the slightest commentary made about their approach towards "jihad" with the use of suicide bombers and terrorist acts, including taking of hostages.
At the local level, students of Anderson Junior College complained variously in their blogs, e-mails and through The Straits Times about a morality course conducted by third parties in their school because they objected to the ideas presented. In reporting their anger over some of these morals being presented to them which they found offensive, they say that they do not agree to the content of the moral points offered by the presenter.
Interesting, in their outrage, they are invoking the right to have their own beliefs and principles, even if these should run contrary to the civic beliefs of the community, but in expressing that they should have the freedom to espouse whatever values they feel befits them, they forget that the same freedoms also protect others who may present to them these diverse views.
The point of freedom not being fully and responsibly understood and practiced by such aside, this example of the AJC students also present another great concern.
It shows that with the proliferation of American entertainment and news globally, many ideas about personal moral freedom are espoused by people who act and express with full confidence that these are their inalienable rights, even if their own national constitution or laws, or official policy and community practices (at this time) do not agree or guarantee it. For one, even the concept of moral values seem to be difficult to define and most people have not sufficiently reflected, studied or thought about it to defend their own premise regarding what they profess as their beliefs.
There is a wider gulf and range in defining what are morally right and acceptable. And the same people accept that people's definition will vary from person to person.
The worry about this trend is not only the fallacy about the ideas espoused, for even erroneous ideas can forge beliefs despite the lack of philosophical consistency, but that there really seems to be no agreement on the common grounds of defining morals, ethics and principles for the community as a whole.
This same profile of people will also most likely say that this plurality is the new culture.
The sadest thing is that they are right; worse still is that the impact and consequence of this thinking will unleash a whole new set of problems.
Imagine speaking with someone whose subjective viewpoint that a legally defined wrong is perceived by him/her to be relatively right. It would be difficult to even approach concepts of governance with such persons.
Similarly, these persons want to claim the highest levels of personal freedom. It is noble, but the concept of responsibility is almost lost on them (it is a relative perspective it seems), and where they are concerned, the do not consider the consequences. I think it is about time that the people either really educate themselves about the basic civic concepts of rights, freedoms and ethics, before they adopt populist definitions offered by news and entertainment media.
Watching "Friends" for instance, their casual stance on sex between "friends" may be a joke because it parodies the "new thinking " that prevails in a liberal society. But to the impressionable audiences, many have taken these same satirical parodies as evangelism for a new gospel of promiscuity and permissiveness. In other words, like watching a Woody Allen film, what was the inspiration for the satire ironically becomes accepted as the new norm.
Worse, when you discuss this "viewpoint" with the same "liberal" persons, they usually vehemently reject any ideas contrary to theirs in defence, and the discussion ends heatedly. Liberals, they say, always crack under pressure, which in turn is the basis for the collapse of their own ideas, which cannot sufficiently find foothold and are in constant flux.
We will have to see what the new social ill of the 21st Century will be, having seen the destructive powers of Facism and Communism. Materialism, modernism and relativism will surely supersede existenialism and phenomenology (sorry Focault!) as the new Wisdom that is worshipped by the masses. We will have to accept that humanity will have to pay the price as civilisation always does, when the intellect gains power over the masses.
With the Roman empire, we have some idea of the rule of law, and inspite of the deitification of the Roman emperors and the impact of this on developing thought, we have some reason to thank them for propagating fundamental beliefs in the rights of citizens, fidelity to the state, etc.
For a while in the fifth century when Latin began to replace Greek as the language of commerce and thought, we saw the first semblence of the growth of new ideas and philosophies. During the monastic period with Bernard of Clairvaux, Christian doctrines saw some development, which since the time of the first councils convoked by Constantine, we began to see how Orthodoxy was shaped and became the basis of further conflicts, political intrigues, schism and excommunication, of Decretals and the first encyclicals.
In the 12th Century, there were new schools, such as those in Paris with the likes of Peter Abelard (c1079-1142) where successions of new philosophers led to the medieval renaissance with Thomas Aquinas, whose feast day was just past, on 28 January.
The other "enlightments" followed with developments in science such as Newton, and the emergence of the rationalists such as Rene Descartes (1596-1650), Spinoza, and Leibniz. The next flowering was with the Great Empiricists - with tremendous impact on the English-speaking world, too. German philosophy was then to shape much of the political thought of the 20th Century: from Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) we have the roots of Marxism and Facsism.
Today, the spillover of all these philosophies have found expression in sweeping form through news, entertainment and the modern education system. The fundamental idea seems to revolve on basic freedoms. Yet this idea of freedom seems not to be always understood by the same persons who claim them, and use them.
For example, Muslims who speak of freedom but are outraged at the slightest commentary made about their approach towards "jihad" with the use of suicide bombers and terrorist acts, including taking of hostages.At the local level, students of Anderson Junior College complained variously in their blogs, e-mails and through The Straits Times about a morality course conducted by third parties in their school because they objected to the ideas presented. In reporting their anger over some of these morals being presented to them which they found offensive, they say that they do not agree to the content of the moral points offered by the presenter.
Interesting, in their outrage, they are invoking the right to have their own beliefs and principles, even if these should run contrary to the civic beliefs of the community, but in expressing that they should have the freedom to espouse whatever values they feel befits them, they forget that the same freedoms also protect others who may present to them these diverse views.
The point of freedom not being fully and responsibly understood and practiced by such aside, this example of the AJC students also present another great concern.
It shows that with the proliferation of American entertainment and news globally, many ideas about personal moral freedom are espoused by people who act and express with full confidence that these are their inalienable rights, even if their own national constitution or laws, or official policy and community practices (at this time) do not agree or guarantee it. For one, even the concept of moral values seem to be difficult to define and most people have not sufficiently reflected, studied or thought about it to defend their own premise regarding what they profess as their beliefs.
There is a wider gulf and range in defining what are morally right and acceptable. And the same people accept that people's definition will vary from person to person.
The worry about this trend is not only the fallacy about the ideas espoused, for even erroneous ideas can forge beliefs despite the lack of philosophical consistency, but that there really seems to be no agreement on the common grounds of defining morals, ethics and principles for the community as a whole.
This same profile of people will also most likely say that this plurality is the new culture.
The sadest thing is that they are right; worse still is that the impact and consequence of this thinking will unleash a whole new set of problems.
Imagine speaking with someone whose subjective viewpoint that a legally defined wrong is perceived by him/her to be relatively right. It would be difficult to even approach concepts of governance with such persons.
Similarly, these persons want to claim the highest levels of personal freedom. It is noble, but the concept of responsibility is almost lost on them (it is a relative perspective it seems), and where they are concerned, the do not consider the consequences. I think it is about time that the people either really educate themselves about the basic civic concepts of rights, freedoms and ethics, before they adopt populist definitions offered by news and entertainment media.
Watching "Friends" for instance, their casual stance on sex between "friends" may be a joke because it parodies the "new thinking " that prevails in a liberal society. But to the impressionable audiences, many have taken these same satirical parodies as evangelism for a new gospel of promiscuity and permissiveness. In other words, like watching a Woody Allen film, what was the inspiration for the satire ironically becomes accepted as the new norm.
Worse, when you discuss this "viewpoint" with the same "liberal" persons, they usually vehemently reject any ideas contrary to theirs in defence, and the discussion ends heatedly. Liberals, they say, always crack under pressure, which in turn is the basis for the collapse of their own ideas, which cannot sufficiently find foothold and are in constant flux.
We will have to see what the new social ill of the 21st Century will be, having seen the destructive powers of Facism and Communism. Materialism, modernism and relativism will surely supersede existenialism and phenomenology (sorry Focault!) as the new Wisdom that is worshipped by the masses. We will have to accept that humanity will have to pay the price as civilisation always does, when the intellect gains power over the masses.
Comments
Post a Comment