Good - at a certain point in writing this, I had confused Sorge and Angst. I thought "care" and "anxiety" might be the same German word. However, with an edit or two, I kept the point. Without a belief in the objectivity of goodness, of the sort common to Christianity and Platonism, the logical positivists win - good is a projection of h…
Good - at a certain point in writing this, I had confused Sorge and Angst. I thought "care" and "anxiety" might be the same German word. However, with an edit or two, I kept the point. Without a belief in the objectivity of goodness, of the sort common to Christianity and Platonism, the logical positivists win - good is a projection of human psychology, emotion. Then, the ethic that arises from that will have to be founded in psychological projection.
This is certainly how things play out when liberals do analytic philosophical ethics and philosophy of emotion. Everything comes down to "valuing." But "valuing" is the source of value, rather than a response to value having been detected in the world. So valuing is a mere projection.
Stoicism is a philosophical ethic. As a result, it implies at least some objective standard beyond human psychology from which to critique the common workings of human psychology and passion. That's the core of the argument. I'm actually very sympathetic to Heidegger's critique of positivism/materialism - I think phenomenological critique of materialism (like Jordan Peterson's) point to the objectivity of the moral or "value"-dimension of things. But in the cultural zeitgeist, we have a world stripped of all objective value (scientism), and an ethic of self-realization and subjectivism (emotivism), approximately.
Good - at a certain point in writing this, I had confused Sorge and Angst. I thought "care" and "anxiety" might be the same German word. However, with an edit or two, I kept the point. Without a belief in the objectivity of goodness, of the sort common to Christianity and Platonism, the logical positivists win - good is a projection of human psychology, emotion. Then, the ethic that arises from that will have to be founded in psychological projection.
This is certainly how things play out when liberals do analytic philosophical ethics and philosophy of emotion. Everything comes down to "valuing." But "valuing" is the source of value, rather than a response to value having been detected in the world. So valuing is a mere projection.
Stoicism is a philosophical ethic. As a result, it implies at least some objective standard beyond human psychology from which to critique the common workings of human psychology and passion. That's the core of the argument. I'm actually very sympathetic to Heidegger's critique of positivism/materialism - I think phenomenological critique of materialism (like Jordan Peterson's) point to the objectivity of the moral or "value"-dimension of things. But in the cultural zeitgeist, we have a world stripped of all objective value (scientism), and an ethic of self-realization and subjectivism (emotivism), approximately.