Christopher Doss wrote of his skepticism of the possibility of a foundation
of ethics in Being.
Chris - I thought I'd refer you to the later part of the Letter on
Humanism, which is one of the few places in H's writing which i know of
where H makes reference to ethics. And he in fact does state that the
positing of values is ultimately impossible, and will always require their
being jettisoned because (if I understand the argument) the notion of the
'value' of a thing is inherently unrelated to the thing (itself).
Michael Harrawood followed up by making mention of Aristotle, one of few
philosophers to set forth a comprehensive system of ethics, politics,
metaphysics, logic, etcetera, and who was followed by e.g. Hegel.
Michael - I'd note however that in writing about ethical (and I think
ultimately political) conduct, Aristotle ultimately relies on two building
blocks: his function argument (man is rational. reason is the fulfilment
of man's nature. etc.) and tacitly accepted conventional norms, such as
e.g. 'generosity' being a virtue or it being wrong generally to kill
others. The point is that Aristotle doesn't actually construct specific
normative rules of conduct (e.g. do not kill, steal, usw.) from abstract
reasoning or a kind of metaphysical rock, but rather describes what he sees
as the most perfect (in the sense of 'complete') human life, which reminds
one (if I'm not radically off track in this comparison) of Heidegger's
ideals of authenticity and inauthenticity. This is not to say there is any
more common ground between these two philosophical opponents than that.
Obviously they represent opposite strains. The point is simply that
Aristotle does not attempt to write ethical rules out of the structure of
Being, but only 'natural guidelines' (if we might call them that) for the
fulfillment of specific natures, this project being quite grounded in his
logic and metaphysics.
It's interesting that we don't think of B&T as ethical, and that H is
generall thought to absolutely avoid ethics, as I mentioned above.
Classically, work such as Aristotle WAS ethical, and in this sense
Nietzsche's thoughts on German culture (as cultivation and growth of men
the best way possible (bluntly put)) is similarly ethical, as is
Heidegger's description of in/authentic Dasein.
Yes? No? Irrelevent?
Colin F. Wilder
niloc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
of ethics in Being.
Chris - I thought I'd refer you to the later part of the Letter on
Humanism, which is one of the few places in H's writing which i know of
where H makes reference to ethics. And he in fact does state that the
positing of values is ultimately impossible, and will always require their
being jettisoned because (if I understand the argument) the notion of the
'value' of a thing is inherently unrelated to the thing (itself).
Michael Harrawood followed up by making mention of Aristotle, one of few
philosophers to set forth a comprehensive system of ethics, politics,
metaphysics, logic, etcetera, and who was followed by e.g. Hegel.
Michael - I'd note however that in writing about ethical (and I think
ultimately political) conduct, Aristotle ultimately relies on two building
blocks: his function argument (man is rational. reason is the fulfilment
of man's nature. etc.) and tacitly accepted conventional norms, such as
e.g. 'generosity' being a virtue or it being wrong generally to kill
others. The point is that Aristotle doesn't actually construct specific
normative rules of conduct (e.g. do not kill, steal, usw.) from abstract
reasoning or a kind of metaphysical rock, but rather describes what he sees
as the most perfect (in the sense of 'complete') human life, which reminds
one (if I'm not radically off track in this comparison) of Heidegger's
ideals of authenticity and inauthenticity. This is not to say there is any
more common ground between these two philosophical opponents than that.
Obviously they represent opposite strains. The point is simply that
Aristotle does not attempt to write ethical rules out of the structure of
Being, but only 'natural guidelines' (if we might call them that) for the
fulfillment of specific natures, this project being quite grounded in his
logic and metaphysics.
It's interesting that we don't think of B&T as ethical, and that H is
generall thought to absolutely avoid ethics, as I mentioned above.
Classically, work such as Aristotle WAS ethical, and in this sense
Nietzsche's thoughts on German culture (as cultivation and growth of men
the best way possible (bluntly put)) is similarly ethical, as is
Heidegger's description of in/authentic Dasein.
Yes? No? Irrelevent?
Colin F. Wilder
niloc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------