So bad?

[Steelhed]

Littleknife, I warned you. Proceed cautiously or look the fool. Razor, very good. I would only take it one step further and say, without intelligence (intelligent life?) existence is meaningless, i.e., intelligence and existence are inseparable (I marry the object and subject as did Pirsig). If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound? No, in fact it didn't even fall, there is no woods, until intelligence apprehends the scene and brings it into existence. We all participate in an intelligent universe. This is why I am so adamant that Chicachura make a choice. He must earn his intelligence through action or be relegated to thing status. By the way, you are right Razor, the correct term is supremacist, not supremist as I used earlier. Dang, where is spell check when you need it.

 

[Razoredj]

One can at last see where supremist would come from. That troubles me not at all. Where "suprematists" are concerned, however, I worry that unfairly linking Russian abstract geometric artists with me will give them a reputation for verbal viciousness.

 

[Safety Guy]

Marshall McCluhan? Locus of control?!
Supremitists I never ever heard of...?!!

Stop! STOOOOOOOOOPPP!!!!

Man, I'm having major flashbacks to my undergraduate days of HELL.

And the supremitists are driving me NUTS. Not one art class I took mentioned them at all.

But I remember Pia's BLUE HAIR! And she would say (while looking at my drawing):

"NO KARL, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT AT ALL! THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE."

And:

"I want more from you than to draw attractive women. We are not here to draw them, they are not interesting..."

Well, I WAS INTERESTED IN THEM! And it was my time to get over the hellish math class I had the quarter before! I'll draw what I want!

Uh, okay, sorry, continue...
My turkeyburger's ready.

KArL

 

[matthew rapaport]

Ah philosophy, and good distinctions being made as well all around. Perhaps Razor salting the other viewpoint with a "pick your battles" viewpoint. There is lots of opportunity for moral choice in life. Some choices are bigger than others. It pays to choose what in life will be the ultimate determiner of your moral stand.

As for the original question I think many of the suggestions have been very sound. Is there no traditional martial arts left in Japan on which to build? What about the professional life? It is my understanding that butchers in Japan have a very low social status if I remember (we're talking lower than migrant farm workers have it in the U.S.) correctly. What about chefs? Surely there is elegant cooking in Japan, and chefs are artists after all. This would afford opportunities to work with knives of many kinds would it not? Lastly Ishida could indeed come to the U.S. where he could do all of this and more.

 

[Razoredj]

Perhaps Razor salting the other viewpoint with a "pick your battles" viewpoint.

That's not like salting the fields after you raze the city, is it?

 

[littleknife]

Razoredj, sorry for my misspellings. I was thinking all during the time you might be Kasimir Malevich himself.
Also you are right, I meant : "oppressed" and not "depressed".
I also apologize for misquoting your object of evaluation when you used the term "hysterical".
Steelhed, sure I look fool. But are you sure I am the one who IS really fool?
Yes, rhetorics has its place and Plato indeed was a supremacist. Yes, there is a hierarchy of ideas as well as of hierarchy of acts.
But you make sure your hierarchy is the right one and try to explain this to others.
I could also quote endlessly famous authors, elegant slogains. You know I might have many skills and knowledge too which Razoredj is lacking but this is not a show off.
After all this is not an Art and Literature or Philosophy department in a college, this is a Bladeforum.
Neither is this a Spelling Bee.

And all during the time I was thinking about Chicahira. I still think Razoredj's advice is wrong, he still did not prove it is right.
What he did he gave long citations about what value means and assumed, but still did not prove that my advice is an example of "situational ethic".

Quote Razoredj:

Situational ethics is not attempting to apply one's moral code to a given situation; it is changing one's morals to suit the situation.
I will state again: one's moral and ethical principles are standards by which one must live one's life, consistently, or one has no moral
code. ...
If one's principles change with the tides, one has no principles at all. (quote ends)

Now that once again proves he missed everything I have said.
Quote again:
"one must live one's life". One's OWN life, right.
You must not (because you can not) live someone else's life. But when you give a honest advice you must consider yourself for a moment in someone else's position.
According to a frequently quoted anecdot Marie Antoinette, the French Queen was told that her subjects had no bread to eat, she asked: Then why don't they eat cakes?
The question originally was NOT what Razoredj should have done facing a similar situation here in the U.S but what Chicahiro can do in his own situation back in Japan.
So see, it's not Razoredj's life, it's Chicahiro's one.
Razoredj may be consistent or inconsistent with his own moral principles, the problem is it is still not Razoredj's life, nor HIS problem.
What I have said that you first TRY to imagine yourself being in the place of Chicahiro.

Every concept, theory or belief has its own area and limits of validity. Every one, without exception.
If you try to use them beyond these valid limits you end up with logical contradictions. Which may lead you to a lot of misbelieves, false believes etc.
My (and everyone's) moral values are valid under definite circumstances only. You change the circumstances and these values may still hold. But they may became obsolete or irrelevant or even absurd.
Your advice ("Be a man or live as a slave".) is based on YOUR concept of family, on YOUR experience of freedom, on YOUR cultural traditions and social interactions. The hidden proposal and source of your mistake is that these concepts, experiences, possibilities are the SAME in Japan as here.
You see, there ARE existing OTHER alternative ones too.
If you think these factors are equally valid right now in Japan too, please tell us so. What I have read and what Chicahiro tells as say just the opposite.
So indeed your own moral statement is based on proposals with limited validity.
You may live as Razoredj here in the U.S. according to these principles but you cannot LIVE by them in Japan as Chicahiro. I am not sure you could live by them in Japan even as Razoredj. I am talking not the case of visting scholar, celebrity, businessman or diplomat.

If you live by your own values WITHIN their limit of validity, you have your "ethical integrity". You pass them, and you create false connections and end up with contradictions.
You know, "intelligent life" and "moral integrity" are not things floating around waiting for you to choose them.
Moral values evolved/were created by groups of miserable living humans to enhance their survival.
Even in religions moral commandments are given by God or the gods for the sake of the humans (whoever was counted as human is a different question).
Jesus said something like: "Not the people are for the Sabbath buth the Sabbath is for the people". (Sorry, I don't have a copy of the Bible around.)
The moral code is a kind of tool for the sake of the people.
So you FIRST have the real people out there with their conflicting beliefs, desires, hopes, traditions etc. Their humanity is inseparable from their culture.
This is the REALITY.
You may call it "objective reality", or extraindividual subjective reality, right now it does not matter.

Quote Razoredj:

One's morals ought not be determined by culture, but by objective reality.

Everything and everybody you percieve, feel, interpret, act towards to, love, hate, fear, despise is seen through the "lense" of your own culture. You do not have the reality ITSELF, you have the reality AS IT APPEARS TO YOU THROUGH YOUR CULTURE. It does not mean that you have no real knowledge about other existing objects or persons. But your knowledge is limited, sometimes false. It may change.
So excuse me, when you claim your morals ought to be determined not by the culture but - say if I am "misinterpreting" you again - by the 'pure', 'culture-less' (sterile?) objective reality, you indeed insist your values should be determined by some idealized objects and humans lacking any cultural reference, quality, interpretation (meaning)?

You say you have "internal locus of control" and mine you define as "external". I don't know what exactly do you mean by your "locus of control" but it seems to me you use "internal" as the synonime of "right" or even "good".
The entities that determine my behaviour are BOTH internal AND external and sure my behaviour is controlled by BOTH internal and external factors. May I say my "loci of control are both internal AND external"? I am not talking about my neural circuits or psychical experiences only. Values I have learned and follow are internalized but there are still sources for additional values or reasons for these values ot there. I think this reflects a healthy psychical and metaphysical attitude.

In the "space" of morality my personal freedom and moral values have limited (however quite important) area of authorithy too. This authorithy ends where starts the authorithy of others.
You can not expect others to respect your area of authority if you do not grant others with the possibility for their area of authority. Now this is much more valid for the "kingdoms" of different cultural traditions with their own system of moral codes. Yes, Steelhed, I agree, you can compare and so rank these diffderent cultural traditions.
You end up with a hierarchy of these systems. But this is not necessarily the only and right hierarchy, it bears the creator's hidden and explicit implications about how the reality exists and how it is reflected in our mind.
You are not God Almighty, so you necesserily have your limits, your moral principles have them too. These limits are not eternal and frozen, but however they change always will be some limits.
Admitting someone's MORAL limits is present in every working moral system in the real life. You try to deny your limits, you end up with the aggressive attitude of the supremacist.
Razoredj, you did so. Sorry, you are supremacist.

BTW ethoncentrism. I didn't know your views are representative for any particular ethnic group.

Razoredj, don't worry, I have my moral code. It simply does not apply for Chicahiro's case. Neither applies yours for his case.
The difference is, I SEE it does not apply. For you it SEEMS I have no moral code. Will you SEE your's failing too would it mean you dont have one either? For that you first have to understand the situation.
But reasoning is not your strong side. You are a good quoter,a good speller but that's it. You are reasonably young, you might still learn something in life.
My moral integrity is approved by my friends and my family members and was disapproved by the powerful ones in my former community. Did not cost my life nor was I imprisoned. Just lost my job and could not get better one for a while. I am not a hero but neither a sycophant. You know, I came from a small country of the Old World. Wonder what kind of a moral integrity would have you exposed were you living out there. Because I wonder too, what a person might heve been myself were I born and raised in the Nazi Germany for example. I am not sure would have I the same moral principles what I have now. You may speak as long you wish about "internal locus of control" and "integrity", just pray historical circumstances will not try out this integrity of yours.

 

[littleknife]

Quote Razoredj:

The fact that choosing liberty may be difficult does not make it wrong. You seem to be arguing that things are only correct if they are easy to do, or if choosing them brings with that choice no negative consequences.

I had my choice. Got my "punishment" (the negative consequences). They still influence my life, they still reduce my freedom. But I am not sorry for my choice. Given the same choice I probably would do it again.
What I have suggested Chicahiro IS NOT EASY AND HAS NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES. BUT SURELY HAS POSITIVE ONES TOO. For him and his family.
What you have suggested MIGHT HAVE POSITIVE CONSEQUENCES. BUT SURELY A LOT OF NEGATIVE ONES TOO. For him and his family.

Pride is a good feeling but poor advisor. Hurt pride could be restored with love. Hurt love cannot be restored with pride.
Chicahiro's situation is difficult but not hopeless. May he choose the pure path of the reason and love over the muddy path of the feelings about someone's hurt ego, "moral integrity" and "internal locus of control".

You still lack to demonstrate that the advice derived from your "internal locus of control" is 1.)relevant and 2.) helpful in Chicahiro's case.

You still lack to provide logical support for your statement.
You still do rhetorics only.
You might be right. But you still have to prove it.

You like the fact the you "will not apologize for adherence to a moral code of conduct and a consistent philosophical system of belief". You like to quote and use the dictionary.

I simply like the fact that there are people around me who value my opinion and love me.
Or the fact that I am still able to support my opinion with logical arguments.
Dixi.

 

[matthew rapaport]

That's not like salting the fields after you raze the city, is it?

Very obtusely phrased on my part. I was thinking of something more along the lines of leavening. My basic point is that there are few moral choices that are absolute in life and at the same time, moral situations differ in significance. Where one draws the line for oneself, especially given the context of cultural imperatives, will naturally and rightly differ.

 

[Steve-O]

All for nothing...re-read and analyse. 14 year old troll.

 

[Razoredj]

Originally posted by littleknife
After all this is not an Art and Literature or Philosophy department in a college, this is a Bladeforum.
Neither is this a Spelling Bee.

A man's ability to support his ideas or persuade others regarding them is directly related to his ability to express himself.

And all during the time I was thinking about Chicahira. I still think Razoredj's advice is wrong, he still did not prove it is right.

Since this is a subjective matter, I don't think it's possible to "prove" that advice given -- and not taken -- could be wrong. I'm not sure how one goes about proving advice is correct, but then, you haven't proven anything either. This all started because I took exception to your characterization of my statements. I certainly don't fault you for doing that -- but neither can you demand proof when you cannot prove anything yourself. (The only proof of advice would be whether or not the results were positive after someone took that advice, after all.)

What he did he gave long citations about what value means and assumed, but still did not prove that my advice is an example of "situational ethic".

I provided a reasonable definition of situational ethics and described how such an idea is applied. It is not "proof," but it is convincing support. I'm sorry you don't understand what I'm getting at there, but I don't think we're going to progress much farther with your current level of understanding on that score.

Now that once again proves he missed everything I have said.

Actually, no, but go ahead.

So see, it's not Razoredj's life, it's Chicahiro's one.
Razoredj may be consistent or inconsistent with his own moral principles, the problem is it is still not Razoredj's life, nor HIS problem.

This brings us back to this whole idea of soliciting input on the matter in a public forum, which is, explicitly or implicity, the solicitation of advice from others. It sure isn't my problem, but I could swear that when Chic posted it he was asking the rest of us to comment on it.

My (and everyone's) moral values are valid under definite circumstances only.

Morality is not circumstantial, nor are ethics situational. It is always wrong to murder a man because you want his shoes, for instance -- no matter how cracked and bloody your feet are, and regardless of why you lack Air Jordans of your own. When you state that moral values are valid at some times and not others, you are demonstrating, once again, situational ethics -- a concept I abhor.

You say you have "internal locus of control" and mine you define as "external". I don't know what exactly do you mean by your "locus of control" but it seems to me you use "internal" as the synonime of "right" or even "good".

Be careful in making assumptions about terms whose definitions are, by your own admission, unknown to you.

You can not expect others to respect your area of authority if you do not grant others with the possibility for their area of authority.

Your touching on the concepts of non-initiation of force and man as sovereign individual -- both tenets of Objectivist thought and philosophical principles I myself embrace.

Razoredj, you did so. Sorry, you are supremacist.

You'll have to forgive me if I place no value whatsoever on your assessment of me.

Razoredj, don't worry, I have my moral code.

I'm not at all worried about what your morals might be.

But reasoning is not your strong side.

Yes, ask anyone here. They'll tell you what a thick-headed moron I am. By golly, I wish you hadn't revealed that; I had everyone fooled until you started panning the 5-D-Cell MagLite of Truth on my double-digit IQ.

You are reasonably young, you might still learn something in life.

You have no idea how old I am, and no data on which to base your estimate. The youth of America are hardly known for their keen grasp of spelling, for example.

You may speak as long you wish about "internal locus of control" and "integrity", just pray historical circumstances will not try out this integrity of yours.

I'll do what I can to avoid time travel, to dodge these historical circumstances about which you've warned me.

"moral integrity" and "internal locus of control".

If you're going to get so bitter about terms you don't understand, why not just look them up? It's not like I'm trying to confuse you with arcane terminology and verbose composition.

You still lack to demonstrate that the advice derived from your "internal locus of control" is 1.)relevant and 2.) helpful in Chicahiro's case.You still lack to provide logical support for your statement. You still do rhetorics only.

Reckon I'll have to live with my "lacking to demonstrate," then. I'll have you know I have not done a rhetoric since college, and I was drunk at the time. (Nothing is as horrible as waking up next to a rhetoric and realizing you don't remember what happened, after all.

)

You like the fact the you "will not apologize for adherence to a moral code of conduct and a consistent philosophical system of belief".

Uhh... yes, I do like to say that. If you're arguing that strict adherence to a consistent philosophy and moral code is bad

, wer'e just going to have to part ways on that.

You like to quote and use the dictionary.

Yes, I find the dictionary a vital tool in such mundane tasks as actually understanding what words mean. This is pretty radical stuff, I realize.

I simply like the fact that there are people around me who value my opinion and love me.

Yes, I often ask my beautiful wife, "Why is it you don't value my opinion and love me?" And she tells me, "The rest of your family hates you too."

Or the fact that I am still able to support my opinion with logical arguments.

You've got me there. This has been one towering pile of irrefutable logic, all right. I applaud you.

 

[Razoredj]

Originally posted by Steve-O
All for nothing...re-read and analyse. 14 year old troll.

Which participant is the troll, Steve?

 

[Razoredj]

Originally posted by matthew rapaport
Very obtusely phrased on my part. I was thinking of something more along the lines of leavening. My basic point is that there are few moral choices that are absolute in life and at the same time, moral situations differ in significance. Where one draws the line for oneself, especially given the context of cultural imperatives, will naturally and rightly differ.

Well said, Matthew. (I don't think your original phrasing was obtuse, though; I was just trying to inject a note of humor in all this. It's becoming slightly depressing.)

 

[littleknife]

Quote Razoredj:

Since this is a subjective matter, I don't think it's possible to "prove" that advice given -- and not taken -- could be wrong. I'm not sure how one goes about proving advice is correct, but then, you haven't proven anything either. ...(The only proof of advice would be whether or not the results were positive after someone took that
advice, after all.)

Well, your personal opinion quoted above would not work out as a defence before a jury for example, if it would be a defence of a medical doctor giving his patient advice to take 5 g of cyanide internally as a cure against common cold.
Is this a wrong advice even the patient did not took it?

Quote Razoredj:

Morality is not circumstantial, nor are ethics situational. It is always wrong to murder a man because you want his shoes, for instance -- no matter how cracked and bloody your feet are, and regardless of why you lack Air Jordans of your own. When you state that moral values are valid at some times and not others, you are demonstrating, once again, situational ethics -- a concept I abhor.

Once again you fell victim of the words you so like. See behind the words, grasp the concepts! If you can, of course.
To say circumstances influence moral and particular moral concepts have their limits given by particular circumstances is not equal to hail the behavior which always adjusts the values to the circumstances.
I did not state that any other factors being the same moral values are valid at one times and not others. Please show me where wrote I this. This is your interpretation only. I agree about your statement that you should not kill a man because you want his shoes. This is indeed a general crosscultural imperative - in our historic times. But try to explain this to an aborigin in the Amazonas who truely and honestly believes that only HIS people are REALLY humans, all others are sopmething less. I do not subscribo to his views just point out the sad fact that history indeed proves your values are not platonic objects.

The rest in your post is still rhetorics and you still did not prove what you should prove.

 

[Razoredj]

Originally posted by littleknife
Well, your personal opinion quoted above would not work out as a defence before a jury for example, if it would be a defence of a medical doctor giving his patient advice to take 5 g of cyanide internally as a cure against common cold.

Please, let's steer clear of the melodrama. We're not talking about medical, components of which are determined by medical science. We're talking about interpersonal advice, which is subjective. There is nothing subjective about the lethal effects of cyanide, silly.

Once again you fell victim of the words you so like. See behind the words, grasp the concepts! If you can, of course.

Those back-stabbing bastards.

Since you've proven yourself so adept at grasping concepts, and have proven me to be a drooling inbred red-headed stepchild, I fail to see how I could be expected to understand.

To say circumstances influence moral and particular moral concepts have their limits given by particular circumstances is not equal to hail the behavior which always adjusts the values to the circumstances.

This must be that grasping of concepts business. Fascinating.

This is your interpretation only.

Hey, now, I speak for all the members of my doomsday cult. They let me sleep on the top bunk, too.

...only HIS people are REALLY humans, all others are sopmething less.

That attitude is universally morally wrong, even if prevailing culture says otherwise. This is support for my point, not yours.

The rest in your post is still rhetorics and you still did not prove what you should prove.

In the humble opinion of this abstract geometric artist from the steppes of Russia, I fail to see anything but "rhetoric" and the bald pretense of logic in your posts.

 

[Steve-O]

I rarely get involved in this type of discussion (because I always get my butt more than kicked! ), but this is just pain wrong...

That attitude is universally morally wrong, even if prevailing culture says otherwise.

Culture dictates morals, there are no universal morals. Using Razors own example (possibly misquoted) "If I kill you because I want your boots..."

If I were a warrior in 1800 New Zealand, it would be morally and ethically right to kill a Englishman for his boots, just because I wanted them.

Morals, and thereby ethics are created and held by the surrounding culture...period.

Have a nice day.


Steve-O

 

[C4]

Some of you guys have A LOT of time to post about how someone else should live his life. The guy is something like 26 years old. If he hasn't figured out how to make his move by now, God bless him. Let's stop beating a dead horse to death in the name of philosophy.


Michael

 

[allenC]

Steve-O is right. Morals are determined by the society one lives in to a very great extent. There were (are?) cultures where cannabalism was the norm.
I also think "situational ethics" is practiced by all people. It is very very rare to find anything that is simply "right or wrong", the world is not black and white but just many shades of grey. Is it wrong to kill someone? Is it wrong to break an oath? Is it wrong to lie, cheat, and steal?
The answer: it all depends on the situation.

I have a code of honor (you may call it morals or ethics, whatever), but it is not so unflexable that I will adhere to it even when it is clearly the wrong answer for the situation.
This might sound a little odd to some folks, but humans are complex creatures.

 

[Razoredj]

I'm sorry Steve, but I don't agree.

 

[littleknife]

Originally posted by Razoredj:

Please, let's steer clear of the melodrama. We're not talking about medical, components of which are determined by medical science.
We're talking about interpersonal advice, which is subjective. There is nothing subjective about the lethal effects of cyanide, silly.

Well, advices in real life imply intentions of the giving persons and consequences for both the giving and receiving persons.
You may analyse advices taken as, by themselves (for linguistic purposes foe example) but they just do not exist that way. Advices are not ideal Platonic entities. They have the mentioned from you giver-receiver intersubjective component, but also they have objective or other than the above mentioned intersubjective directions too.
Advices are intented be perceived and received as behavioural algorythms. They always have their consequences EVEN IF NOT TAKEN.
Or as in the case of your advice: even IF COULD NOT BE TAKEN DUE TO ITS IRRELEVANCE TO THE CASE OF THE RECEIVER. In other words even if it is intented to be, but fails to really be an advice.
Your advice is bad because it lacks the important quality of a good advice: to be relevant to the case of the person given to.
It still serves some purpose though, may reveal your intentions. Also may reveal a great deal about your world view, personal philosophy etc. when becames a topic of lengthy debates.
Real life rarely follows the will or directions of Razoredj what should be perceived as melodrama and why the lethal effects of cyanide could not be included in arguments concerning the moral aspects of advice giving.

Steve-O, your statement is correct and as elegant as laconic. Sorrily I myself always lacked the elegant and laconic style. Steve-O, you are great, man (and great man)!
Yes, TERE ARE GENERAL CROSS-CULTURAL MORAL VALUES existing in particular historical periods, BUT THERE ARE NOT UNIVERSAL AND TIMELESS MORAL VALUES.
Which does not mean that humans could exist without morals, just states the historical and cultural determination of these morals.
If universal moral values indeed exist, please point me them out Razoredj. Will be really fascinating to discover the real world existence of Platonic entities themselves.

BTW I see you like not only spelling and to use dictionary but also to name and classify things. Good job, Razoredj, keep on, man! Just do not stop here, please. And be careful, how do you classify. Just to hang a latin or greek or hebrew terminus technicus on an entity does not mean you have grasped the concepts and understand whats going on. Reality is more than writing a novel, Razor.
You may be a good English teacher but a bad thinker and psychologist.

Now let's hope
1.) Chicahiro finds a solution for his problem.
2.) Razoredj can take some Philosophy 101 AND discuss it with some smart people. There are plenty of them in New York.
3.) we can talk knives here at last.

Sorry for this folks, I could not resist the temptation. Have to admit, I am not sure was it worth or not. Will not reply in this thread anymore.

littleknife

 

[Safety Guy]

Whew!

Hey Chicahiro, were you taking notes?

Seriously, Littleknife and Razor each had compelling, though opposing, advice. Stay with your family and try to keep their respect until such day as they might slowly change? Or flee from the nest, as all young folks will eventually have to do, only in this case with serious consequences which many people can only TRY to imagine?

Chicahiro has some extremely important and upsetting decisions to make. The chances things will work out for everyone like in a Brady Bunch TV show are very low.

To live in a knife hating (or fearing) family, where one's individuality is slowly being poisoned, or to break from that family, in a culture which will provide no support for doing so.

Good luck, Chicahiro! While you do not have to make a decision any time soon, you may find you absolutely need to do something someday which will not please your family, and will cause you (and them) pain.

But to live in your present condition forever may not be tolerable.

Seek answers not only here, but from other elders and friends in your country. Take your time. Choose wisely.

Keep us informed.

Karl