Here's why I practice it;
Imagination is defined as the force in the human mind which pictures that which is not currently there and can be projected forward in the forms of hope and fear, but also backward in the form of memory, being the cause of imagined golden ages and hateful times. Imagination, according to this view of Johnson, springs from man’s temporality, and to follow the ‘choice of life’ is to follow imagination's hallucinatory, delusive and narrowing dance. Imagination causes the mind to latch on to earthly things, an ambition to be a successful author for example, and to picture that success until the mind narrows onto this hope for the future and it becomes a driving need, maybe even an obsession. However, when/if this fantasy is fulfilled, the fulfilment is in the temporal and imperfect world, and the mind will find something else to latch onto. The life of imagination can be in no way satisfying and it is this that Johnson meant when he described life as moving not from ‘pleasure to pleasure’ but from, ‘hope to hope’.Reason is defined as the logical and intellectual link to ‘the choice of eternity’, unlike imagination's way of narrowing the mind and pulling it right into the pain of human drama. Reason takes the mind aloft and looks at these obsessions dispassionately. Reason can curb the imagination and when exercised can change a person from being an obsessive butterfly collector, with no interest in anything outside of butterflies, to a true agent of science. Because imagination focuses the mind on the self and the ends of the self, it is reason that inspires compassion for others and truly humanitarian ends because it sees above the petty squabbles of people.
The problem is, that to to feel that a person can be a completely rational being, or to try and be a completely rational being ourselves is itself one of the delusions of imagination. As people we are inextricably temporal beings, constantly over the precipice of death and it is the hopes, delusions and obsession of imagination that keep us waking up in the morning and living life. So it is not the eradication of imagination that Johnson wants, but the use of the rational side to keep us connected to the larger, more general and universal concerns, to stop imagination leading us down an egocentric tunnel.
Originally posted by Oliver Norththis is accurate, of course, but culture largely modulates our perception of the world and the expressions of our pre-moral emotions and motivations too. it's not just superfluous judgements of value that reflect culture.
morality is almost certainly based on genetics. More superfluous things, like wardrobe laws or dietary concerns are probably a reflection of culture (and generally outside of what the OP is talking about anyways), but the more core "moral" issues (theft, rape, murder, etc) are nearly assuredly a product of natural selection.There is an arms race between social regulation of behaviour and an individual's ability to deceive the group, but studies tend to show people have an innate sense of fairness that transcends being observed by others. A "ring-of-gyges" scenario may produce a person somewhat more inclined to violate others for personal gain, it certainly wouldn't change their individual moral code.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How do you know this?
What I meant was that morality is mainly the result of conquering primitive responses and instinctual reactions and behaviors from day to day.
Humans are infinitely more patient and compromising than our chimp ancestors. We have incredible control over our emotions. It has become a eugenic quality...to an extent.
Originally posted by Dolos
What I meant was that morality is mainly the result of conquering primitive responses and instinctual reactions and behaviors from day to day.
That's a difficult claim to support.
Rhetorically, an opponent can always defend by saying "that moral response was evolutionary selected for." (Making a persuasive argument that morality is beneficial is extremely easy, I might add). Similarly they can always attack by pointing to similar behavior in animals. Discipline exists in many animal species, which can be interpreted as a sense of "that is bad".
Originally posted by Dolos
Humans are infinitely more patient and compromising than our chimp ancestors. We have incredible control over our emotions. It has become a eugenic quality...to an extent.
Right, I get what you're saying but why do you believe it? What is your evidence?
Again, I could point to experimental examples of people being influenced by their emotions but I think you'd have trouble finding a similarly rigorous example of people controlling their emotions.
Originally posted by Dolos
By comparison to a human, a chimp wouldn't tolerate being laughed at by a person under any circumstance, he'd attack with extremely brutal violence. Not many people are capable of such things, and certainly most of the human population can control that kind of savagery effortlessly.
Chimps can apply restraint and I think most people would deny feeling the need to kill a person who laughs at them.
Originally posted by DolosIs that practising morality, or practising restraint for the sake of not shaming yourself by breaking social taboos?
By comparison to a human, a chimp wouldn't tolerate being laughed at by a person under any circumstance, he'd attack with extremely brutal violence. Not many people are capable of such things, and certainly most of the human population can control that kind of savagery effortlessly.