I think you explain yourself very well, it's just that nihlism becomes uninteresting because the answer to everything is "It doesn't matter." That also doesn't make it not true either
Well, it's in a pretty bad way, no doubt about it. But there's a difference between a growl of protest and a shrug of despair. If "irredeemable" means anything, it means that there are no solutions to the world's major problems, a conclusion that would seem to call for detailed, extensive historical arguments, demonstrating that we have rarely or never solved humanity's major problems. Can Damir -- or anyone -- believe this?
Two hundred years ago 90 percent of the world's population lived in extreme poverty; today it's 10 percent. Three hundred years ago, average life expectancy was 35-40; today it has doubled. Three hundred years ago, democracy and representative government existed almost nowhere; now a majority of states are at least formally democratic. Three hundred years ago chattel slavery was commonplace; today it is extremely rare. Three hundred years ago, women everywhere had no economic or civil rights.
And so on and on, no doubt with equal statistics of failure and misery on the other side of the ledger. What that proves is not that the human condition is irredeemable, but that redeeming it is hard work, requiring courage, perseverance, and imagination. Compared with those virtues, sighing that "the world is fallen and irredeemable" seems like -- forgive me, Damir -- a pose.
Yes sorry about that. We pre-released by accident without a title so we had to repost it. Can you try to remember what you wrote and I’ll make sure to respond?
No problem, one of my comments was in response to Eva, who said what would you do , Hamas is a terror group who has vowed to kill all jews and I responded saying that while i agree with Eva's thoughts that Israel has to defend itself, maybe far less bombing should be part of the solution, on the ground operations will likely harm far less civilians and will likely facilitate more humanitarian aid. But I'm no military expert. My other comment was directly toward you Shadi, I said that I love how your but why questions tried to corner Damir into tacitly admitting he has virtues and purpose.
I found this discussion equally fascinating and frustrating. One thing I appreciate about Damir's...I don't think it's nihilism, as Paul below called it, but more of a disinterested amorality?...worldview is that it challenges me to think more deeply about my own beliefs and assumptions about "the good." I could have listened to another hour of Shadi's Socratic needling--we were getting to some interesting places.
I also appreciate Shadi's ongoing discourse about the Gaza war. Though we'd ultimately land on opposite sides of the ledger, I don't believe there is any denying the validity of some of his criticisms. I'm sure he will continue to write about this and I look forward to reading what he has to say.
I think the answer to “the Good” is that it’s beyond our ken to achieve it. And moral ruminating about the killing of “innocents” is intellectually flattening — and worse almost uniquely unlikely to achieve its own goal.
Damir's nihilism is getting pretty tiring
I'm doing a bad job explaining it, then.
I think you explain yourself very well, it's just that nihlism becomes uninteresting because the answer to everything is "It doesn't matter." That also doesn't make it not true either
"The world is fallen and irredeemable"
Well, it's in a pretty bad way, no doubt about it. But there's a difference between a growl of protest and a shrug of despair. If "irredeemable" means anything, it means that there are no solutions to the world's major problems, a conclusion that would seem to call for detailed, extensive historical arguments, demonstrating that we have rarely or never solved humanity's major problems. Can Damir -- or anyone -- believe this?
Two hundred years ago 90 percent of the world's population lived in extreme poverty; today it's 10 percent. Three hundred years ago, average life expectancy was 35-40; today it has doubled. Three hundred years ago, democracy and representative government existed almost nowhere; now a majority of states are at least formally democratic. Three hundred years ago chattel slavery was commonplace; today it is extremely rare. Three hundred years ago, women everywhere had no economic or civil rights.
And so on and on, no doubt with equal statistics of failure and misery on the other side of the ledger. What that proves is not that the human condition is irredeemable, but that redeeming it is hard work, requiring courage, perseverance, and imagination. Compared with those virtues, sighing that "the world is fallen and irredeemable" seems like -- forgive me, Damir -- a pose.
Did the comments from last night on this episode accidentally get deleted?
Yes sorry about that. We pre-released by accident without a title so we had to repost it. Can you try to remember what you wrote and I’ll make sure to respond?
No problem, one of my comments was in response to Eva, who said what would you do , Hamas is a terror group who has vowed to kill all jews and I responded saying that while i agree with Eva's thoughts that Israel has to defend itself, maybe far less bombing should be part of the solution, on the ground operations will likely harm far less civilians and will likely facilitate more humanitarian aid. But I'm no military expert. My other comment was directly toward you Shadi, I said that I love how your but why questions tried to corner Damir into tacitly admitting he has virtues and purpose.
I found this discussion equally fascinating and frustrating. One thing I appreciate about Damir's...I don't think it's nihilism, as Paul below called it, but more of a disinterested amorality?...worldview is that it challenges me to think more deeply about my own beliefs and assumptions about "the good." I could have listened to another hour of Shadi's Socratic needling--we were getting to some interesting places.
I also appreciate Shadi's ongoing discourse about the Gaza war. Though we'd ultimately land on opposite sides of the ledger, I don't believe there is any denying the validity of some of his criticisms. I'm sure he will continue to write about this and I look forward to reading what he has to say.
I think the answer to “the Good” is that it’s beyond our ken to achieve it. And moral ruminating about the killing of “innocents” is intellectually flattening — and worse almost uniquely unlikely to achieve its own goal.