Our institutions and laws were initially developed to accommodate pluralism. Pluralism itself is but a boogeyman in today’s anarchic and fascist movements. Is it necessary to remind people that before race, national origin, gender and sexual orientation, for example, became apparent as subjects essential to address, difference in religious beliefs was very much on the agenda and accommodated in our founding laws?
The disappearance of a concrete notion of a God does not of necessity change the techniques we employ to peaceably co-exist. It is only self-serving actors who disclaim the existence of inherent rights and craft a legal framework excluding them who radically upset the foundational aspects of our society, including by violating and subsuming the fundamental laws recognized in our foundational documents. Acceptance and encouragement of manipulated notions of freedom is an usurpation of society’s fundamental normative processes and standards. What we are witnessing in terms of the radicalization and implosion of rationality and sense of civic virtue is not a necessary consequence of adjustments in favor of science-based rules versus ecclesiastical precepts.
The notion that conflict and degradation of civility is inevitably bound to oppositional moral thought is nonsense. Instead, I am interested in opportunities afforded by modern technology and grossly distorting accumulations of power to lie, mislead and distract from truth. Technological “progress” is harnessed generally to perpetuate entrenched modes of opportunism and control. My focus is not on intractable juxtaposition, a resignation to the inevitability of unethical conflict, or that ethical behavior must collapse under its own certitude and weight. I’m more interested, obviously, in how we interact peacefully within abundantly superior organizing principles, including self-governance, democratic institutions and foundational justice to promote a functioning pluralistic society that ethically accommodates fundamental differences in our experiences and being.
Thank you for comment, and funny enough these are exactly the concerns and topics which Belonging Again builds up to explore, mainly through an ontoepistemology which can be associated with the likes of Hegel and Hume. It is true that Pluralism has always been with us, but I would point to sociologists like Peter Berger and James Hunter on why Pluralism today is different in character, as Belonging Again has endeavored to explain and describe, which has brought us to a point where we will have to explore the works of Nietzsche and Deleuze. I like what you wrote here: 'What we are witnessing in terms of the radicalization and implosion of rationality and sense of civic virtue is not a necessary consequence of adjustments in favor of science-based rules versus ecclesiastical precepts.' - That is indeed absolutely right. Anyway, thanks very much for your time and thoughts!
Our institutions and laws were initially developed to accommodate pluralism. Pluralism itself is but a boogeyman in today’s anarchic and fascist movements. Is it necessary to remind people that before race, national origin, gender and sexual orientation, for example, became apparent as subjects essential to address, difference in religious beliefs was very much on the agenda and accommodated in our founding laws?
The disappearance of a concrete notion of a God does not of necessity change the techniques we employ to peaceably co-exist. It is only self-serving actors who disclaim the existence of inherent rights and craft a legal framework excluding them who radically upset the foundational aspects of our society, including by violating and subsuming the fundamental laws recognized in our foundational documents. Acceptance and encouragement of manipulated notions of freedom is an usurpation of society’s fundamental normative processes and standards. What we are witnessing in terms of the radicalization and implosion of rationality and sense of civic virtue is not a necessary consequence of adjustments in favor of science-based rules versus ecclesiastical precepts.
The notion that conflict and degradation of civility is inevitably bound to oppositional moral thought is nonsense. Instead, I am interested in opportunities afforded by modern technology and grossly distorting accumulations of power to lie, mislead and distract from truth. Technological “progress” is harnessed generally to perpetuate entrenched modes of opportunism and control. My focus is not on intractable juxtaposition, a resignation to the inevitability of unethical conflict, or that ethical behavior must collapse under its own certitude and weight. I’m more interested, obviously, in how we interact peacefully within abundantly superior organizing principles, including self-governance, democratic institutions and foundational justice to promote a functioning pluralistic society that ethically accommodates fundamental differences in our experiences and being.
Thank you for comment, and funny enough these are exactly the concerns and topics which Belonging Again builds up to explore, mainly through an ontoepistemology which can be associated with the likes of Hegel and Hume. It is true that Pluralism has always been with us, but I would point to sociologists like Peter Berger and James Hunter on why Pluralism today is different in character, as Belonging Again has endeavored to explain and describe, which has brought us to a point where we will have to explore the works of Nietzsche and Deleuze. I like what you wrote here: 'What we are witnessing in terms of the radicalization and implosion of rationality and sense of civic virtue is not a necessary consequence of adjustments in favor of science-based rules versus ecclesiastical precepts.' - That is indeed absolutely right. Anyway, thanks very much for your time and thoughts!