Deus ex machina

In Response to Kyle (Q&A #7: Question 2)

“Is objectivity ever "internal" and human?

I did not think so. I do not think anyone can be objective with everything that has happened in their life shaping their every decision. However, Professor Johnson straightened out some of the confusion explaining that all ethical viewpoints are objective because they emanate from the person, not the world itself. Objectivity is what reason demands.”

            I agree with Kyle in that the idea that objectivity is “internal” and “human” is highly contentious. However, I think that I understand the central point that Nussbaum is making, and I would say that I agree.  Of course, DKJ’s suggestion that objectivity is demanded by reason clears up a lot of this confusion, but I still think there is something more to be said about this issue.

            In regards to ethical concerns of a certain sort, I think it is “internal” and “humans” to be drawn towards these issues; this is what I view as the other dimension of this discussion. When I read Nussbaum, I could not help but imagine that natural pull that humans have towards certain circumstances. Furthermore, I think that is this element of literature that makes it so effective conveying ethical truths. When a person read about the graphic injustices in Dostoyevsky, I do not think they can help but think deeply about the ethical concerns in those events; this process if “internal” and “human”. 

In Response to Kyle- “Q&A #6 Queston 1

                In Kyle’s post on the subject of critical monism-pluralism, he offered a new possibility in regards to the process of interpretation: critical nihilism. Of course, this would be the view that there is simply no correct interpretation of a work. In this case, it seems that a work would not really be completely for any specific purpose. Kyle gave the example of The Beatles, and how they would often produce songs with no inherent meeting, which were produced only to confuse those that would search endlessly for an underlying meaning.

                While I certainly think that critical nihilism should play a  role in the process of interpreting some works. I really do not think that this view would be correct for all works. I think that it can be illustrated with evidential support that most works of literature have some underlying meaning that can be deemed correct. I only think critical nihilism can be applied to a certain group of anomalous works. 

In Response to Brandon (Free Will and Stuffs)

Brandon responded to a post written by Kyle sometime back. I was debating whether I should respond to Brandon’s post because I had already responded to Kyle’s post previously. I decided to make this response because I was particularly intrigued by Brandon’s response to the topic that Kyle originally brought up.

In response to Kyle’s suggestion that we could experience a completely novel circumstance, Brandon responded by stating,

“I think that the answer would be the same as with non-new experiences. Your mindset at any given time, determines your actions in the immediate future.”

            Brandon’s response seemed to allude to the same conclusion that I originally arrived at: These sorts of “completely novel” experiences do not exist. No matter what the circumstance is, it can be somehow broken down into components that an individual has previously experienced. In addition, as Brandon states, the current mind state will still determine how the circumstances are experienced.

In Response to Avery (“Objective Emotion (or Lack Thereof)”)

               

                Overall, I would say that I agree with Avery’s critique of Martha Nussbaum’s supposed claim that ethics are objective, solely because of the fact that emotions themselves are objective. Avery maintains that emotions are in fact not objective.

“ Emotions, by their very nature, are subjective.  They may, in some situations, be objectively appropriate, or objectively understandable, or objectively justified, but they themselves are still subjective, because they differ from person to person. “

                Although, I do agree with Avery, I think it should be pointed out that, in numerous ways, emotions are universal. Accordingly, it could be said, that contrary to the above statement, emotions are not actually very different from person to person. According to Gerrig and Zimbardo (2007), there are seven emotions that are unlearned, innate emotional responses, that are found in all cultures. Furthermore, the majority of the emotional  responses are expressed in similar ways over all cultures.

                Of course, this does not mean that all people have the identical emotional responses to all situations. In fact, different cultures do express themselves very differently at times. However, I think that it is important to note that, in many ways, there is a lot of carry over in emotional responses from person to person.

Gerrig, R. J., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). Psychology & life (18th ed.). Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.