Search This Blog

Friday, January 20, 2017

Three philosopher kings give a bum a buck.

Hey, when did I become Ken and not Uncle Ken?  Beagles and Old Dog have their secret identities so that the reader won't realize that they are esteemed professors of philosophy, and maybe feel unworthy to read their writings.  People may have wondered who are Beagles, and Old Dog, and Uncle Ken, but now that I have been identified as Ken everybody knows who I am.  I suppose there is a rare chance that nobody read the last couple posts so nobody knows who I am, so in the future it is Uncle Ken to you dawgs.

My main thing about the bible is that it doesn't matter,  It is all very well and good and entertaining, and esteemed philosophers such as Beagles, Old Dog, and Uncle Ken, may like to flap their gums about it, but to the guy who attends Al's Church around the corner, he knows what the preacher says, and he has worked things out around that, and why should he care what the bible actually says about the details of  resurrection?  Point out to him that this interpretation of the bible means this he can reply that this other interpretation means that, and who cares.  He knows what he believes and he is happy with that.  It seems to me that Beagles thinks that there is something wrong with the guy believing something that is not in the bible, but I don't see where that's any problem at all.


The King James has a pleasing cadence, but as far as books having sex, violence, monsters etc, so do many books of our days, and that doesn't make any of them good books.

Outside of in a simple logical sense, I am not concerned with the morality of Christians.  I am concerned with morality in general.  Maybe morality is not the right  word with its lurid, almost sexual, overtones.  Maybe ethics would be a better word.  It is slightly pompous, stuffy, but I like that, when discussing it our blood runs less hot, there is less chance that the subject of whether or not  Nicki Minaj is being moral in wearing that fake butt (Ethically I think she is doing fine, but let's let that thread drop).

I think there is a widespread belief that morality, I mean ethics, comes out of religion, but actually ethics precedes religion, and it is easy to discuss it without ever mentioning religion and certainly not the good book.  There is a certain logical structure you can build out of the golden rule, whereas if your ethics consist solely of pleasing the Christian god then your ethics consist of just figuring out what you think He wants, and not giving that a whole lot of thought.  Is it possible to disobey God and still be a good person?  I think so.  Wouldn't we all judge Jacob a better man if he had released his son and said, "This shit shall not stand."?  I think so.

Maybe it's the heels of this election, but i am kind of looking for an argument, not really an argument but more of a discussion, rather than exposition.


And nobody has bitten on which of the two who gave the bum a buck is a better man.  There is this thing which I think we have all gone through in the bull sessions of our youth, where, if it makes you feel good to give a bum a buck, are you doing something good, or are you just making yourself feel good?

You don't want to spare the rod when raising a child.  Well actually you do nowadays, but you find something gentler but just as unpleasant (who wouldn't rather have a slap across the butt than having to stand in a corner for a half hour or so?).  You have to do that to emphasize what is bad behavior so that your child will be good.  But you want your child do to more than be good because they fear punishment, but to be good in the heart, to be good because they think it is right to be good, to leave that cookie sitting on the shelf even if there is no way nobody could ever know that they took it.

A beggar is sitting on the corner.  Old Dog, Beagles, and Uncle Ken walk by. Old Dog gives him a buck because he is an amiable chap,  Beagles gives him a buck because he thinks it would please his deist god, and Uncle Ken gives him a buck because he has made some calculations and came to the conclusion that the world will be a better place for everybody by .0000000001 percent if he does so.  Can the three be rated on their comparative goodness?  Are either of you even going to try?

No comments:

Post a Comment