In our fractious times, divided by tribalism and animosity, I find a model for a more pluralistic and decent society in the vision of Felix Adler, the founder of Ethical Culture.
I appreciated the juxtaposition of respect for the individual with the importance of the interconnected web of humanity. It was a good reminder that it is both.
Indeed. As noted, we are individuals and social beings. The latter, I believe, imposes a sense of obligation to others. I have become increasingly as communitarian and hardly a radical individualist.
Joe, What a remarkable explanation of the existetial need for decency... Though, I am enlightened by your compelling disposition on decency, I do question yours and Adlers position on "all there is, is natuure." (my words) If we believe in science how do we know that a universe or uncountable universes that approach infinity in complexity is only nature? Although, Adler has stated that we can never solve that mystery, how does he or anyone know that to be true? The human species needs a sense of oneness. As science comes closer and closer to a possible answer, Einstein's niht sky quest may become solvable and explicable to the average person and be as awestome to us as it is to the astrophysisicists,. We may realize that we all are bound up in a compelling true story. A true story that is so majestic that our countless ways we separate ourselves may seem irrelevant to the awesomeness that we share.
Your response, Abe, is as eloquent as ever. Just two points: Maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear, but Adler, the idealist, was not a naturalist, as compared, for example, to John Dewey, who assuredly was, Starting from different metaphysical positions, they held to similar political views. Adler, unlike Dewey, believed that there is a reality beyond this one, but for him, it was austerely impersonal. He denied the supernatural but affirmed what he called "the supersensible" i.e. a realm constructed from the foundational processes of mind. It was his version of the spiritual, which he asserted was an existent reality, and not merely an expression of heightened emotional experience.
Adler's notion that there is an unknown and unknowable reality, I conclude issues from Kant. Kant affirmed that all we can know is through the senses. But transcending what we know through sense experience can only be partial. Kant affirmed that there is a realiy of "the thing in itself." We can intuit this realm by asking the question "What does the thing look like when no one is looking at it?" This, he and Adler, would conclude is unknowable, since it lies beyond the experience that arrives through our senses.
You may be right. Perhaps one day we will solve the question Einstein devoted the latter part of his life to solving, i.e. a unified field theory; a theory of everything. Then we may conclude that your quest will be satisfied!
I appreciated the juxtaposition of respect for the individual with the importance of the interconnected web of humanity. It was a good reminder that it is both.
Indeed. As noted, we are individuals and social beings. The latter, I believe, imposes a sense of obligation to others. I have become increasingly as communitarian and hardly a radical individualist.
A thoughtful analysis of decency in our world today.
As always, my warm thanks for your continuing interest. My best wishes to you.
Joe, What a remarkable explanation of the existetial need for decency... Though, I am enlightened by your compelling disposition on decency, I do question yours and Adlers position on "all there is, is natuure." (my words) If we believe in science how do we know that a universe or uncountable universes that approach infinity in complexity is only nature? Although, Adler has stated that we can never solve that mystery, how does he or anyone know that to be true? The human species needs a sense of oneness. As science comes closer and closer to a possible answer, Einstein's niht sky quest may become solvable and explicable to the average person and be as awestome to us as it is to the astrophysisicists,. We may realize that we all are bound up in a compelling true story. A true story that is so majestic that our countless ways we separate ourselves may seem irrelevant to the awesomeness that we share.
Your response, Abe, is as eloquent as ever. Just two points: Maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear, but Adler, the idealist, was not a naturalist, as compared, for example, to John Dewey, who assuredly was, Starting from different metaphysical positions, they held to similar political views. Adler, unlike Dewey, believed that there is a reality beyond this one, but for him, it was austerely impersonal. He denied the supernatural but affirmed what he called "the supersensible" i.e. a realm constructed from the foundational processes of mind. It was his version of the spiritual, which he asserted was an existent reality, and not merely an expression of heightened emotional experience.
Adler's notion that there is an unknown and unknowable reality, I conclude issues from Kant. Kant affirmed that all we can know is through the senses. But transcending what we know through sense experience can only be partial. Kant affirmed that there is a realiy of "the thing in itself." We can intuit this realm by asking the question "What does the thing look like when no one is looking at it?" This, he and Adler, would conclude is unknowable, since it lies beyond the experience that arrives through our senses.
You may be right. Perhaps one day we will solve the question Einstein devoted the latter part of his life to solving, i.e. a unified field theory; a theory of everything. Then we may conclude that your quest will be satisfied!
Thaanks, Joe. I am informed, encouraged and honored by your response.