Quote:
|
But the laws of physics are surely knowable, even confirmable, and they exist outside of human invention (or are you a constructivist?).
|
I'm not sure what a constructivist is, but certainly laws of physics are knowable, I would say. But I would also say that these same laws are human constructs derived to explain a universe that always manages to stay several steps ahead of the theorists, just as the tiny bugs of the universe seem to stay several steps ahead of the latest antimicrobial drugs. Somehow, it seems, the more we push, the further the answers slip beyond our searching minds, but it does keep us reaching, doesn't it? This is neither here nor there, I suppose.
Lush, I don't know if you read the same pop physics books I do, but I know what you mean; the explanation of newer physics concepts to the layman is beginning to sound more and more like a spiritual exercise than a mathematical one.
Quote:
|
There are several troublesome problems in the foundations of rationality with the result (among others) that logic alone cannot tell us anything about the world. But we can be as strictly rational as possible in admitting further evidence. In other words, one cannot support an assumption simply by pointing out that logic is not sufficient to tell us about the world.
|
Perhaps,
Aiwendil, you have hit on one of the inevitable problems with defining what is, in effect a different question with different answers for those who consider it. It is impossible to reduce a concept to its basic motivations when the concept is not sufficiently defined in the first place.
When one equates happiness and adherence to a moral code, it is often in the context of what satisfies that person, and this is then equated to happiness. The moral life gives that person satisfaction. Most people believe they will be satisfied when a certain desire is met, which is a dangerous thing to assume, since desire appears addictive and ultimately never satisfiable. What most people do is adhere to a moral code, while maintaining what I referred to earlier as the "secret longing." I agree with
Lush that it is amusing to watch someone who is obviously desirous of something but who denies desiring it. Certainly one cannot live a moral life if one begins by lying to oneself, even before lying to the wife and kids. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
OK, where am I going with this? Well, I intend to take it back to Tolkien, specifically Frodo. I remember his vision on Amon Hen, when he wears the Ring, is where Frodo, I believe shows the fruit of his "moral lessons" from Gandalf. He is not simply taking Gandalf's exhortation to take off the Ring as a command, but he is
seeing the entire situation across Middle Earth, all the armies laid out before him. He is balanced between Gandalf and the Eye, and for an instant, he makes his own choice, completely independent of both influences. He has become a node in himself, capable of his own considered actions in a very weighty matter indeed.
When he finally takes off the Ring, he does so of his own free will, and his path is absolutely clear to him, and he makes the proper choice in the proper way. Perhaps this is the "moral" choice, perhaps it is the most rational. Whatever its character, it is clear that Frodo has put aside fear and self-consideration for the larger cause. One could say he acted rationally, or one could say he acted morally, intending to save the rest of the Fellowship from a harsh fate by isolating himself with the Ring and taking the choice away from his companions. He certainly does Aragorn a service here.
Another aspect of this "morality" question as applied to Frodo would be his final outcome. Tolkien has as much as said that, with the Ring destroyed, Frodo is left with an emptiness, an eternal longing, for the lost Ring. Thus, although his selfless actions in getting the Ring to Mt. Doom are "moral," i.e., without desire, his consideration of Smeagol being driven by pity, his existence ruled by the small decisions he makes to get one step closer to his goal
without sacrificing his "moral" code. In the end, he is broken down completely, reduced to the sum of his deeds, the moral and good deeds on one side, and his insatiable desire for the Ring, now unrecoverable, on the other. In the end, that desire and also the knowledge that he failed at the ultimate test eat away at him and somehow it seems he cannot live with the fact that he failed the unpassable test.
Perhaps this very outcome illustrates the ultimate limits of "morality," and shows that no one is perfectly moral, because everyone is flawed. In a way, it seems to point to the perfectly moral life as a goal that may never be reached, thus it is a path, a way of life, an act of Zen, etc., and thus it cannot be satisfactorily pinned down by rational or any other means.
Boy, I hope all that made sense, because it took forever to write, and its way too late to proofread...forgive me if there are muddy passages!
Cheers,
Lyta [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]