The popular anti-scientific use of the unfortunate term adopted by modern physics, "relativity," to relavitize an attitude toward the truth and, so, morality may have seemed useful at times but there was no further assertion of morality, even the most vital of morality on behalf of individuals, entire racial, national, class groups, etc. which could not be summarily rejected or ignored or brushed aside by it.
I absolutely stand by the truth of that statement, now that I've corrected the error auto-spell-check inserted in it. I wish spell-check would be given a bigger vocabulary, if it was a silly Fred Newman-William Saphire legacy of phony language scrupulosity. Here's a hint for people influenced by phony language cops, they generally don't know what they're claiming. They just get bigger idiots than they are who edit the NYT or other publishing ventures to believe them without the more important function of FACT checking. The ones I looked at never seem to fact check themselves, some of them don't even know how to identify what they condemn.
It might have seemed useful to deny that there are clear and absolute holdings of morality in order to get rid of some of the unclear and at times harmful ill considered legalisms that people mistake for them but falling for crap 20th century psychological and other mis-applications of scientific and mathematical methods in order to claim that anything that couldn't be proven with those methods is what is false so you can do what you want in every case has proven to be dangerous.
The abandonment of the moral absolute that you shall not bear false witness, that you won't spread lies is what got us Trump. The permission given by the idiotic mid-20th century Supreme Court, no doubt following the clearly stupid idea that American democracy was strong enough to allow the New York Times to carry lies with complete safety and, by the way, who is to say that pornography leads to the degredation of human beings into objects, etc. was stupid to start with. The great liberal Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm knew back into the last century that had been a mistake, comparing the tiny little good of being able to publish Ulysses with the tidalwave of porn and other associated evils that came from that "civil liberties" campaign. I could make a long list of the prostitutes who appeared in porn during the time period she said that in who have since died of their use in porn, not to mention others who copied the practices they were encouraged to find arousing by porn.
I strongly suspect dozens of men I knew who died of AIDS in their late youth and early middle ages would have lived to old age if gay porn hadn't popularized promiscuous anal sex. That as much as gay sex being illegal and, so, the law prevented and discouraged faithful monogamous marriages was responsible for that decades long nightmare which, unfortunately, has been pretty much forgotten. Well, such as I am, the experience of witnessing that kind of thing sticks with me. Perhaps its a habit I got from my upbringing, what you might mock as a "guilt ridden" Irish Catholic. But I'd call it having a sense of moral responsibility, maybe feeling that you should learn from experience can be mixed up with being "guilt ridden". I lack the modern Freudian superstition, the neurotic fear of guilt. I think there's a huge amount of stuff that people should feel guilty about. If we don't learn from experience at first, guilt might at least make us act as if we have.
Do you think Trump, his family, his cronies, his supporters are suffering from too much of a feeling of guilt? How stupid can you get to put down that most vitally needed of human emotions? How stupid can you be to take a stand for what's wrong with Trump.
No comments:
Post a Comment