Glens Falls (NY) Online Book Discussion Group discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
ABOUT BOOKS AND READING
>
What are U reading these days? (PART SEVEN) (2011) (ONGOING THREAD for 2011)
To some degree, we also get our morals from our parents, and from our religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are a good example of subjectivity in morality, as Jim demonstrated above.
Yes, but people can be moral without religious beliefs. Where does their morality come from?
I have no religious beliefs; I got my morality from my parents originally, then my own sense of right and wrong.
This is one of those vast subjects where different people are apt to have fundamentally different philosophical rachets because they start from fundamentally different premises. Interestingly, though, regardless of how we explain it or justify it to ourselves, most of us in practice come down to a very similar ethic in the basic way that we treat (or at least try to treat, or think we should treat) other people --what C. S. Lewis famously called "the Tao." That isn't to say that humans don't have specific moral arguments with each other, or that we all don't fall short of our own view of moral perfection; but it is to say that there's probably more commonality in our species' moral judgments than some pundits give us credit for.Interestingly, the whole absolute vs. relative dichotomy may not be as iron-clad and polarized as it's often presented, either. It's quite possible to argue (I'd argue it, for instance! :-) ) that basic moral principles are in themselves absolute and universally valid, but that their specific application in any actual case always has to be conditioned by the specific circumstances, and so is relative in a sense.
Jim, we all know that human language doesn't infallibly communicate in such a way that misunderstanding is impossible. But I would also deny that's it's SO inherently solipsistic and unique to the person using it that any two-way understanding at all is impossible (and I suspect you'd agree). If that were the case, we might as well not read books, because the language couldn't tell the author's story or thoughts; and you'd have wasted your time in writing your post in human language. In reality, though, we could all basically understand and be benefitted or challenged by what you wrote --maybe not perfectly on this or that point, because of the limitations of the language or our own misperception, but certainly well enough to get the gist of it. (But I do agree that rationality and sensory evidence don't deserve to be posited as the absolute authorities on reality that some people make them out to be. Especially where morals are concerned, I would claim an important role for intuition as well.)
Hmmm! We started this discussion in the context of the ethics of changing somebody else's writings for aesthetic reasons vs. censorious reasons. Then we touched on the role of subjectivity in law (written law, historically, wasn't supposed to be subjective --that's why people wanted it written, as opposed to made up as the rulers went along-- but as Jackie indicated, that's not where we are today). And now we're discussing subjectivity in terms of ethics. All of these are really deep, important subjects (and get progressively more so), but one could argue that all three are logically distinct, different subjects. (Or not --as Jim points out, my logic might not be the same as someone else's!) Anyway, it's a fun discussion to read and take part in; I've contributed my share, so I'll shut up and let the rest of you all have at it. :-)
I don't think I'd go so far as to say all morality is simply an opinion. It often has a track record to support it. There is a commonality of morals because they start as laws of survival. "Do unto others..." is a common place to start. But people & societies often put a different emphasis on different things depending on their needs. A big one is who or what is to survive; species, culture, or individual. Censorship is about preserving a moment in time in a culture, a very short-sighted POV. One of the things I find interesting about SF & fantasy is exploration of larger moral issues. They often take historical examples & add a few twists.
I often have a problem with philosophies & religions because they are fairly static ideologies. While they're often good at preserving cultures in chaotic times, they also encourage tunnel vision in times when restrictions need to be loosened. "My way or the highway." Their constituents often forget about context & spend too much energy fighting to prove themselves.
A good example would be Ayn Rand. She was a very smart woman & she makes some wonderful philosophical points, but Objectivism seems to be full of very vocal, fanatical idiots who have no common sense. Their narrow vision alienates far more than it converts. Rand was pretty rough at times, but at least she'd given her philosophy some thought, unlike her converts.
Werner, when it comes to arguing philosophy, I've found that a complete understanding is paramount to my comfort level primarily because of the various interpretations of the Christian Bible.
One of the things I've always admired about Rand was her ability to find just the right word (usually a $5 one) to convey her meaning. Since English wasn't her native language & she makes me resort to a dictionary more often than I'd like to admit, that raises my respect another notch or two. I find her philosophy too monochromatic for my tastes, but many of her criticisms of liberalism have or are coming true.
Interesting and thought-provoking post, Jim.You're right about finding the right word. I too admire people who can do that. There are so many nuances to words that finding the right one can make all the difference in the world. I'm sure you've heard the following Mark Twain quote before, but it bears repeating:
"The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter—it’s the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning."
Jim wrote: There is a commonality of morals because they start as laws of survival. "Do unto others..." is a common place to start. I have to disagree. Do unto others is a Western commonality, a Christian philosophy. Hinduism has 'karma' which is similar enough for the sake of this discussion. But the rest of the world does not practice Do unto others. If all practiced such a thing, we'd have a war-free greed-free happy little world. One glance will prove the opposite is true.
In an often brutal world such as ours, Do unto others is a weakness; a Survival of the fittest, Take what you want mentality thrives. These people obviously think differently than we do. Because we don't live like that, we have a hard time conceiving that's how others live, think and act, but they do.
Joy wrote: I'm sure you've heard the following Mark Twain quote before, but it bears repeating:"The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter—it’s the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning."I never heard that one, Joy, but I like it.
I'm glad I posted it then, Jackie!
Me too. I like quotes, they're always so insightful. Keep posting them, Joy.
Jackie, 'common' just means a lot of people start there, not everyone. It doesn't even mean 'most' & most people seem to add 'but do it first.' to the end of that rule, anyway. That changes the meaning by quite a bit.;-)
Unfortunately, you're right about the brutality of the world. That encourages individual or smaller group survival. Currently, in the US, we're at the point where we have so much that we can think outside our group, but we're certainly not in the majority.
Joy, that is an excellent quote from Twain. Thanks.
Thanks for the clarification, Jim, now I undertand what you meant. :)
I know, I said I'd shut up (but I didn't say it positively :-) ). Jim, I agree that in moral and philosophical discussion, complete understanding of what's communicated should always be the goal. And disagreements about Biblical interpretation do provide good examples, a case in point being the King James Version's translation of one of the Ten Commandments as "Thou shalt not kill." All modern scholars would agree that "murder" is a more accurate rendering of the Hebrew there, which makes the command more nuanced than the 17th-century translation makes it appear. The good news is that the philological and grammatical knowledge base for understanding even ancient and dead languages improves over time. (The bad news is that complete understanding of other people's communication will probably always elude us as fallible humans, so we just have to learn to live with a degree of uncertainty. But we all manage to do that everyday. :-) )Jackie, the basic idea of the Golden Rule was also taught by Confucius, though he phrased it negatively, "Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you," rather than positively; and I understand that Zoroaster taught something similar --though, since he was Iranian, you could argue that he was part of the Western cultural heritage you referred to (historically speaking, we have to consider the Middle East part of the "West"). And cultural anthropologists have adduced numerous examples of "primitive" or tribal cultures that do evince a high degree of Golden-Rule type or sharing, altruistic behavior (at least toward their own group), and that have moral codes encouraging it. Of course, there are also groups that consistently seem to demonstrate the reverse. But I don't think the weight of evidence would conclusively demonstrate this type of morality to be exclusively Middle Eastern/European in origin, or even exclusively Christian.
You're right that nobody can doubt the brutality and moral depravity of our world. From a Christian viewpoint, of course, that reflects the balancing of the universality of conscience by the equal universality of selfishness and fallenness. It also indicates the fact that as a species, we're good at confining the scope of our moral instincts to our own group --people who look, speak and think like us, or share common blood and traditions with us, or in some cases just our own little group of family and friends. (The Tao is there, so to speak --it's just very stunted in its scope.) But the moral atrocities of our world aren't always a result of lousy non-Western cultural attitudes prevailing --sometimes they actually result from the influence of Western nihilistic rationalism and materialism, breaking down the restraints of traditional tribal moral and social codes. (And not all modern moral atrocities have happened in the Third World, either.)
As to whether or not a dog-eat-dog, every individual for himself/herself philosophy would encourage individual or smaller group survival in a situation of material scarcity (as conventional "wisdom" insists that it would), I think the jury is still out. A case can be made that even --and maybe especially-- in a situation of material scarcity and privation, a high degree of social cooperation and sharing is exactly what most of us need to pull through. It's worked well for the Bushmen in one of the harshest and most unforgiving material environments on earth, for example.
i always liked that quote. Thanks for posting it. There was an article in our paper this morning about surveying baby boomers on their idea of morality. The consenus of opinion was that unlike their parents who possibly got their sense of morality from their parents and society; this group agreed that murder and rape was totally wrong but beyond that morality was up to the individual as to what was right or wrong; not what someone else thought about it.
That does not bode well for future generations, does it, Nina? Werner, one thing about humans is that for every general rule, there are plenty of exceptions. Some pretty weird systems have worked for various lengths of time depending.
I don't know anything about Bushmen, but they're nomadic tribes, similar in many ways to the Plains Indian & Mongols, right? The last two spent a lot of their time fighting each other, with some notable exceptions. Still, I don't see any of the 3 as major players in international politics today, so I'd say that they've spent most of their time concentrating on smaller group survival.
Werner wrote: "I know, I said I'd shut up (but I didn't say it positively :-) ). ..."Werner, you never have to "shut up" here. Your posts are always welcome. You sure are a thinker!
I think that one of the best ways to pass on ethical standards is to set an example. Values are caught, not taught.
Thanks, Joy; I always feel very welcome to share here! (My reference to shutting up was tongue in cheek. :-) ) Nina, that news about the Baby Boomers (which is my generation) doesn't surprise me. But it would be interesting to know whether or not the following generations, Generation X and the Millenials, feel the same way, or if the pendulum is starting to swing again.Jim, good question about the Bushmen! They're nomadic hunter-gatherers, but traditional Bushmen culture is pre-tribal; they have no social unit other than the band. So, yes, you could say that they do concentrate on smaller group survival, but not at the expense of the larger group --they simply don't have any "larger group" in their social world. But what they noticeably lack is any concept of inter-personal or inter-group violence and aggression, so their approach to social relations tends to be generous and mutualistic, making them good examples for the universal applicability of that kind of ethic. The Plains Indians and the Mongols, on the other hand, are not so exemplary along that line. All three groups, though, are very different from the others in many respects, a number of them significant ones for this discussion (and the Plains Indians were, at the time of first contact, much more diverse culturally than the various Mongol tribes). The Tree of Culture by Ralph Linton gives a good basic introduction to all three groups. Patterns of Culture by Ruth Benedict (a contemporary of Linton) identifies a number of diverse cultures that she saw as high in "synergy," that is, a social ethos and system of social relations based on cooperation, sharing and good-will, rather than on the opposites.
Werner, thanks for the interesting info about those tribal groups.Gee, I still remember the title, _Patterns of Culture_, from my sociology course as a freshman in college many years ago. It has stayed with me all these years, as did the face of the instructor. I also remember that he had a very pronounced post-nasal drip. That's probably why I remember him! LOL
What sounds he made!
Today I caught up on my writing of two GR reviews of books which I read recently. Both books are by Sue Miller. Below is some of what I wrote in my reviews:The Good Mother:
As I got into the plot, I found parts of this story very compelling. I never thought I'd enjoy reading a book about a child-custody battle between a husband and wife, but Sue Miller has presented the story in such a way that you gradually get drawn in. That seems to be the nature of all of her books that I've read so far. She slowly draws you in. The ending is very sobering.
My review is at: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
While I Was Gone:
This book isn't a mystery book but there's a bit of mystery in it which keeps you reading. The main character in the book, told in the first-person, does a lot of reflecting about herself and others... about their personalities, their temperaments and other aspects of their natures. It's this psychological aspect of the author's books which I enjoy.
At my review I quoted a short passage (from the book) which gave me food for thought.
My review is at: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
I've started reading The Sister by Poppy Adams. The author likes to describe things and loses my attention. So I'm having trouble getting into it. I like a plot to move along. I'm on Chapter 3, p. 32, right now.More at my review: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
I'm also reading Twins: And What They Tell Us About Who We Are by Lawrence Wright. I find that, by reading about how twins have inherited their traits, I can gain some insight about my own traits and where they came from.
I'm also listening to the audio version of American Prince: A Memoir by Tony Curtis. It's a tell-all book and I'm really enjoying it. There was something very charming about Tony Curtis.
I have twin grandsons; before either could talk one was crying so hard the mother picked him up; then sat him down and he continued to cry. The other twin pulled on his own ear lobe several times. Their mother not knowing how to stop the crying took him to the dr. He had an ear infection which is why he was crying. His brother knew his ear was hurting. Weird.
Nina, yes, the stories about the relationships between twins are fascinating. Twins separated from birth were found to have the same body language and speech patterns, and even the same phobias.
Jackie, I see that the GR description says "Rama is no natural object. It is, incredibly, an interstellar spacecraft. Space explorers and planet-bound scientists alike prepare for mankind's first encounter with alien intelligence.". Hmmm, sounds like an SF book even I might enjoy. What do you think?I read _The Joy Luck Club_ a while ago. Can't remember much about it but I remember it had some sad parts.
I'm enjoying Rama. But I'm a scifi person so I would. I cannot say if you would like it but I think you could give a try and see. I wanted to see the movie The Joy Luck Club but somehow never got around to it. A neighbor just gave me the book and I figured the book would be better than the movie anyway. And I need something other than scifi or fantasy to read.
Jackie, I put Rama on my "keep-in-mind" shelf. I also added the Joy Luck movie to my Netflix queue. I remember that the preview pics showed women talking around a table. That didn't look interesting to me, but I suppose there's more to the movie than that.
I thought the movie and the book, "The Joy Luck Club," were quite interesting.
I have never played it but my mother had a wooden set. I wish I still had it. Do any of you know how to play it?
It's pretty simple & there are a lot of games for the computer that will teach you. I usually play the solitaire version, which is you just have to pick off pairs until you can't go any further or get them all.
Jim, I play those too, but it's not real mah jong. The real mah jong is a bit more complicated. I have a copy of the rules for it, if I ever get a set of tiles.From wikipedia: Mahjong, sometimes spelled Mah Jongg, is a game that originated in China, commonly played by four players (with some three-player variations found in Korea and Japan). The four player table version should not be confused with the popular Western single player (tile matching) computer game (Mahjong solitaire), which is a recent invention and completely different from the table game. Similar to the Western card game rummy, mahjong is a game of skill, strategy and calculation and involves a certain degree of chance.
Read more here on how to play, the rules, etc.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahjong
I've always wondered about the game of Mah Jong.Now's my chance to see what it's all about.
I found the following online:
=================================================
"The aim is to collect sets of tiles according to the number and type shown on the face of each tile. A player takes and discards a tile each turn and the first player whose hand consists entirely of a legal set or sets goes out or goes "Mah Jong". The game is effectively the same as the card game Rummy, in fact. For what always appears initially to be a very complicated game, Mah Jong is really remarkably simple when reduced to its basics and it is only the accompanying rituals and complex scoring that change this."
SEE MORE AT: http://www.tradgames.org.uk/games/Mah...
Wiki says:
====================================================
"Mahjong, sometimes spelled Mah Jongg, is a game that originated in China, commonly played by four players (with some three-player variations found in Korea and Japan). The four player table version should not be confused with the popular Western single player (tile matching) computer game (Mahjong solitaire), which is a recent invention and completely different from the table game."
FROM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahjong
====================================================
Ooops, Jackie, you were posting while I was composing. Now I see your post (and Jim's) about Mah Jong. I guess we were on the same track.
About a week ago, I finished listening to the audio version of the book, Things I Overheard While Talking to Myself by Alan Alda. Alda covers a number of subjects and, at the same time, gives us some advice on how to live a good life. I read somewhere that the book includes parts of graduation speeches Alda has given over the years. The book is interesting but has a rambling quality.The product description at Amazon, says that Alda discusses:
======================================
"...things he’s heard himself saying in private and in public at critical points in his life -– from the turbulence of the sixties, to his first Broadway show, to the birth of his children, to the ache of September 11, and beyond. Reflecting on the transitions in his life and in all our lives, he ... wonders if there’s one thing -- art, activism, family, money, fame -- that could lead to a 'life of meaning.' ... Alda amuses and moves us with his unique and hilarious meditations on questions great and small."
======================================
Jackie wrote: "Jim, I play those too, but it's not real mah jong. The real mah jong is a bit more complicated. I have a copy of the rules for it, if I ever get a set of tiles...."That's like saying poker is real cards & spider solitaire isn't, don't you think?
;-)
No, that's not what I meant, Jim. I only meant that the original Mah Jong is not a matching game. So in continuing with your analogy, it'd be more like saying poker is real cards and spider solitaire is poker. So, no, not the same.For the third time in this thread: The four player table version should not be confused with the popular Western single player (tile matching) computer game (Mahjong solitaire), which is a recent invention and completely different from the table game.
I just finished reading a book of short stories that has excellent writing. Some stories I wasn't too fond of but the good ones made up for the time spent on them. So if you are in the mood for short stories by a prize winning author, Maile Meloy, "Half in Love," go for it. Several of the stories are set in MT as that is the author's home. Jim, I think you especially would like the horse racing one.
What's going on? No discussion posted, they say.
Nina, the program did that to me, too. But when that happened, I just clicked on "previous," and then it took me to this page. (It should have gone to this page immediately, but that's probably just a temporary glitch.)
GR fixed things again.Nina, I'll try to keep it in mind, but my TBR pile is literally falling on the floor. That doesn't count all the ebooks I have, too.
Jackie wrote: "No, that's not what I meant, Jim. I only meant that the original Mah Jong is not a matching game. So in continuing with your analogy, it'd be more like saying poker is real cards and spider solit..."I read that the first couple of times, but I'm not convinced that there is a 'real' Mah Jong nor that the newer Western solitaire version is any less 'real' than older versions. They're different games, that's for sure, but just that - games.
I have an old set of ivory tiles that my father got umpteen years ago somewhere in the Far East & my grandfather played it a lot. He had a book with a number of different games. There are several variations called Mah Jong, usually with a regional name associated. Others were more like domino games & there were a couple of versions of the solitaire game. Again, all were called Mah Jong, but had another word or two attached, often fairly arcane.
As I recall, there were several 'old' forms listed, but I don't think any claimed to be the 'original'. The impression I had was that they're as adaptable as playing cards to any number of games & had done so through the ages. I see that's not the conclusion the Wikipedia entry would lead anyone to, though. Since it's Wikipedia, I wouldn't bet any money on it, but my childhood recollections aren't anything to bank on, either.
I agree that there are many variations of Mah Jong, some like dominoes, some like card games but none are matching games. Not that I know of. If you ever want to sell that set, let me know.
Too many memories wrapped up with that old Mah Jong set for me to ever think about selling. My father got it & gave it to his father shortly before he died & we played more than a few games together with it. Since it's ivory, it might actually be worth something to one of the kids some day.
I figured as much, but thought it was worth asking anyway.
Nina wrote: "I just finished reading a book of short stories that has excellent writing. Some stories I wasn't too fond of but the good ones made up for the time spent on them. So if you are in the mood for short stories by a prize winning author, Maile Meloy, "Half in Love," go for it. ..."Nina, here's the link to Maile Meloy's book of short stories: Half in Love : Stories
I don't usually read short stories because by the time you get into them, they're over.
However, yesterday at the library I picked up an album of audio CDs called: Selected Shorts: Whodunit? (Selected Shorts. The GR description says:
===============================================
"...these audio anthologies feature short stories from the Selected Shorts program that airs nationwide [on PBS radio]. ... [The CD's include] favorite tales read aloud by an assortment of distinguished actors. A dashing lineup of elegant crime tales and gritty hard-boiled detective stories, alternately menacing and cozy, with exotic locales and murder in the mix. ... Among the stories are:
-Ed McBain's "Improvisation" read by Isaiah Sheffer
-Louise Erdrich's "Gleason" read by Robert Sean Leonard
-Nadine Gordiner's "Country Lovers" performed by Hattie Winston
-The Dashiell Hammett classic "The Creeping Siamese" performed by John Shea
-Shirley Jackson's "The Summer People" performed by René Murat Auberjonois
-C. S. Montanye's "A Shock for the Countess" read by Fionnula Flanagan
===============================================
I thought I'd try listening to some of the short stories on these discs. The jacket says that they're "spellbinding". We'll see if I can follow the plot lines. Usually I have trouble with complex mysteries, but how complex can a short story be?
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Glens Falls (NY) Online Book Discussion Group
Books mentioned in this topic
Great Expectations (other topics)Understanding Cultural Differences: Germans, French and Americans (other topics)
Never Cry Wolf: The Amazing True Story of Life Among Arctic Wolves (other topics)
Bel Canto (other topics)
State of Wonder (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Edward T. Hall (other topics)Ann Patchett (other topics)
Andre Norton (other topics)
Dean Koontz (other topics)
Andrea Mitchell (other topics)
More...
We're back where we started.
Someone somewhere expressed his opinion that his morality comes from experience. If he's been hurt than he knows that hurting is bad. Pretty simple way to look at it.