Friday, January 05, 2007
Old and Odius Emotional Connections
(4)
Chess lessons first. As you already know I am one of those folks who are inclined toward public service: I love to enlighten my fellow man. Toward that end I have been playing a lot of chess at Comcast.net and kicking a lot of ass in the process. So far, so good. But recently I am of the impression that my public service in this regard is less and less appreciated. Eheh.
Wesley Autry is an amazing dude: he observed a white guy (honkey) fall off the subway platform in the path of an approaching train. His natural inclination was to help. So he jumped into the area between the tracks as the train approached, his mission being to save the honkey from destruction. Idiot! Autry obviously had not read Darwin. What was he thinking?!
Clearly Autry did not act after calculation but acted instinctively. Autry was not 'thinking' in the usual sense of that word. Autry did what needed to be done in the moment. Very Darwinian. Very emotional. Autry didn't need to read Darwin. And notice that 'race' played no role. Autry saw, not a honkey, but a human being who needed help. Note also that his decision to jump was not a moral decision in the sense that it was arrived via calculation: his decision was moral but not 'moral.'
What does this say about 'morality?' (And by 'morality' I mean Immanuel Kant's 'categorical imperative,' a theoretical construct which improved on received moral ideas.) In my opinion Autry was demonstrating an idea in chapter six of Dawkins' book. We shall see.
Which brings us back to the supposed source of morality: holy books. In this case it is the Old and Odious Koran. Seems some misguided Christian politicians are objecting to Muslims who have been elected to government office taking that oath of office while swearing on the Koran. Kieth Ellison is a case in point. They can't believe that Ellison has the same emotional connection to the Old and Odius Koran (OOK) that Christians and Jews have to the Old and Odius Testament (OOT).
Chess lessons first. As you already know I am one of those folks who are inclined toward public service: I love to enlighten my fellow man. Toward that end I have been playing a lot of chess at Comcast.net and kicking a lot of ass in the process. So far, so good. But recently I am of the impression that my public service in this regard is less and less appreciated. Eheh.
Wesley Autry is an amazing dude: he observed a white guy (honkey) fall off the subway platform in the path of an approaching train. His natural inclination was to help. So he jumped into the area between the tracks as the train approached, his mission being to save the honkey from destruction. Idiot! Autry obviously had not read Darwin. What was he thinking?!
Clearly Autry did not act after calculation but acted instinctively. Autry was not 'thinking' in the usual sense of that word. Autry did what needed to be done in the moment. Very Darwinian. Very emotional. Autry didn't need to read Darwin. And notice that 'race' played no role. Autry saw, not a honkey, but a human being who needed help. Note also that his decision to jump was not a moral decision in the sense that it was arrived via calculation: his decision was moral but not 'moral.'
What does this say about 'morality?' (And by 'morality' I mean Immanuel Kant's 'categorical imperative,' a theoretical construct which improved on received moral ideas.) In my opinion Autry was demonstrating an idea in chapter six of Dawkins' book. We shall see.
Which brings us back to the supposed source of morality: holy books. In this case it is the Old and Odious Koran. Seems some misguided Christian politicians are objecting to Muslims who have been elected to government office taking that oath of office while swearing on the Koran. Kieth Ellison is a case in point. They can't believe that Ellison has the same emotional connection to the Old and Odius Koran (OOK) that Christians and Jews have to the Old and Odius Testament (OOT).
