(Video) Bernard Williams - Unavoidable Human Prejudice

Guest

Number of posts: 281 Registration date: 2008-12-04

Very interesting.

I actually had a conversation with a friend recently that touched on some similar themes. I'd introduced him to Stirner (curious that Williams seems familiar with Stirner) and while he agreed with the basic premises, thought that Stirner is a bit too dismissive of the innate psychological and biological influences that make what Sankt Max would call "spooks" actually a quite natural and inescapable part of almost anyone's circumstances. This is kind of similar to what Williams says about his own sort of Nietzschean humanism, wherein one does not go beyond humanity toward the overman-- except it's a sort of Stirnerite humanism wherein one never becomes der einzige.

I suppose in the end my own view is not quite the same since one is einzige whether they know it or not, but on the other hand, full of all sorts of programming beyond their control. In a nutshell, Stirnerite philosophy is correct in it's rejection of all normative ethical commands on an individual-- yet must take into account that many of these commands are based on inescapable biological and psychological factors. Of course, one who knows this is left with the option of delving into psychology and crude forms of self experimentation to estimate what can and can't be overcome, and whether the opportunity costs are worth the effort.

Williams I think is something of a moral-subjectivist rather than a nihilist. For my own part I would prefer to eschew morality entirely-- yet I don't think there is really that much difference between the two. The difference seems to be largely semantic but as of yet I haven't really reached a conclusion on this.

Guest

T.E.M. wrote:

This is kind of similar to what Williams says about his own sort of Nietzschean humanism, wherein one does not go beyond humanity toward the overman-- except it's a sort of Stirnerite humanism wherein one never becomes der einzige.

Stirner explicitly denies the idea of 'becoming' something, of making oneself into 'something'. One is simply oneself. He sees the principle delusions of ideology as stemming from an idea of 'alieness' of self and 'true self', of the bodily, individual man and 'man'. For another point, he is explicitly writing about himself - though he might be trying to 'seduce' you to his way of thinking - Nietzsche and Stirner indeed saw a bit of 'seduction' in the art of 'convincing' people.

This reminds me - earlier today I read this,

Quote:

There is no doubt that in everyday speech this word is used with the intention of blaming; that is, when someone calls certain conduct egoistic he desires to call up an unpleasant idea of this conduct. Also there is no doubt that such condemnation is intended as moral condemnation: the word "egoistic" signifies a concept subsumed under the concept of the "immoral." Thus egoism is a subspecies of immorality. By learning what is meant by egoism we learn in part what is meant by "immorality," and this gives us a clue to the meaning of "morality," its opposite. If those philosophers were right who hope to derive all immorality from "egoism," and who see in it the source of all evil, then with the discovery of the meaning of the word the whole question of the nature of the moral would practically be answered; for it would only be necessary to separate what is indifferent (if anything of the sort exists) from what is not egoistic to find the moral in the remainder.

from Moritz Schlick, Problems of Ethics (1939)

Which immediately made me think of this,

Quote:

The moral man is necessarily narrow in that he knows no other enemy than the "immoral" man. "He who is not moral is immoral!" and accordingly reprobate, despicable, etc. Therefore the moral man can never comprehend the egoist.

Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own (1844, trans. 1907)

It's amusing to me how predictable moral arguments and attitudes are.

Quote:

(curious that Williams seems familiar with Stirner)

Almost anyone worth his salt in metaethics (which isn't to say many) has to be familiar with Stirner or at least his ideas. Stirner has non-cognitive, fictionalist, non-realist, existential and psychological criticism of morality; and makes the same sort of arguments for egoism. You can even see that he is thinking about doxastic consistency in many of his arguments, perhaps taking it for granted that his worthwhile readers will see this. Richard Joyce (The Myth of Morality, The Evolution of Morality) is has also obviously read Stirner.

People who interpret Stirner as an anarchist always annoy me.

Number of posts: 281 Registration date: 2008-12-04

[quote="vichy"]

T.E.M. wrote:

This is kind of similar to what Williams says about his own sort of Nietzschean humanism, wherein one does not go beyond humanity toward the overman-- except it's a sort of Stirnerite humanism wherein one never becomes der einzige.

Stirner explicitly denies the idea of 'becoming' something, of making oneself into 'something'. One is simply oneself. He sees the principle delusions of ideology as stemming from an idea of 'alieness' of self and 'true self', of the bodily, individual man and 'man'. For another point, he is explicitly writing about himself - though he might be trying to 'seduce' you to his way of thinking - Nietzsche and Stirner indeed saw a bit of 'seduction' in the art of 'convincing' people.

What I'm trying to say is that my friend thought the best way to proceed is to continue being captivated by "spooks," so called, even after he sees that they're objectively meaningless and usually justified by faulty reasoning. For example, he now says morality is an incoherent concept, but doesn't want to stop using moral language; he believes it makes no logical sense but prefers not only to talk to others using such nonsense, but to continue thinking and basing his worldview on (what now he has himself described as) nonsense.

Now I suppose that really doesn't conflict with Stirner since he isn't demanding anyone agree with him, but only with what Stirner deems best for himself (rejecting "spooks"). So I guess you could say, "is never seduced into Stirner's worldview," rather than "never becomes der einzige,"

[quote]Which immediately made me think of this,

Quote:

The moral man is necessarily narrow in that he knows no other enemy than the "immoral" man. "He who is not moral is immoral!" and accordingly reprobate, despicable, etc. Therefore the moral man can never comprehend the egoist.

Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own (1844, trans. 1907)[quote/]

Yeah, I had someone tell me something along the lines of "your sense of morality reminds me of de Sade's." Usually people tend to interpret saying there's nothing "wrong," about something people would call evil as implying there is something "right," about it, even when you explicitly state you think it's neither right nor wrong in the conventional usage of those words.

Guest

What I'm trying to say is that my friend thought the best way to proceed is to continue being captivated by "spooks,"...
I always feel kind of silly when I say something I know doesn't make sense...more, perhaps, that I rarely have an automatic response, so when people ask me questions, talking nonsense kind of requires a conscious effort to deceive them.

people tend to interpret saying there's nothing "wrong," about something people would call evil as implying there is something "right," about it,
What I get a lot is people who interpret me as saying might is right, in a normative sense. When, in fact, there is no 'normative' right - might is fact, it is 'right' in the positive or technical sense - that is, it is the right thing to have if you want to do something.

Number of posts: 281 Registration date: 2008-12-04

That's understandable from their part since "right" is most commonly used in a normative sense. It can sometimes be frustrating that our language seems built to accommodate certain incoherent concepts, like normative nonsense and free will nonsense, thus making it difficult to speak in conventional language about unconventional ideas.

» Amy Williams naked
» Emma's video
» Naat > Video MP3
» kumpulan video lagu warkop dki
» Really cool video i found on youtube that was just so peaceful.

(Video) Bernard Williams - Unavoidable Human Prejudice

(Video) Bernard Williams - Unavoidable Human Prejudice

Similar topics

Similar topics