Post by reza on Nov 17, 2017 18:43:46 GMT
Bismillah ir Rahman ir Rahim
In Damasio's final chapter he presents man's desire to be a part of something greater than oneself, ones desire to seek a meaning in life in order to achieve contentment. He also remarks that this desire is at odds with the biological/evolutionary view which proposes that contentment is achieved through purely physical means. (eg intimacy, longevity, pleasure, comfort, etc) Damasio then proposes Spinoza's idea of god; which views god as a life-force akin to "mother nature", a god which cannot think and has no morals. According to Spinoza, the desire of man to connect with a higher power is simply ones desire to align oneself with nature; this salvation is achieved "by a sociopolitical
system whose laws help the individual with the task
of being fair and charitable to others" (Damasio 274). Essentially, a virtuous life is achieved through general goodness and the rejection of negative emotions.
Honestly, I had a tough time reading the final chapter. After sifting through the Utopian society ideals, I wonder "What is his point?". Why does Damasio fail to acknowledge the existence of an intelligent higher power? He treats the belief of an intelligent god as something akin to a myth or legend, he demotes god to that of a "life force" when he does reference it. I find it ridiculous, with billions who believe in an intelligent god, why does Damasio fail to give organized religion a fair shout? He acknowledges the teachings of known prophets of god, he subscribes to the ideals of recognized holy books, yet he rejects god as an intelligent, moral being; thus he rejects the belief that life has purpose and that existence has meaning.
The problem with Damasio is that he is double dipping. He wants the best of two worlds, the fulfillment involved with belief and servitude to god (goodness, purpose, etc) but he also wants to be unrestrained from the baggage associated with religion (the adherence of a moral code, avoidance of sin, etc). To summarize, I believe that Damasio wants to believe in god but only on his terms, he wants a god that tells him he can do whatever he wants with no fear of punishment. The problem with this is that it contradicts his belief system of doing good, how can one have morals without belief in morals? How can one believe in "goodness" when there is no right and wrong? For example he talks of the goodness of giving charity, why is that "good"? Who told you that it was "good"? Can Damasio explain to me why it would be "Bad" to kill every poor person so they would not be a burden for the rest of us? Can Damasio tell me what is 'evil' about a pedophile, whom preys on young children? Can Damasio explain to me why suicide is 'bad'? The point I am trying to illustrate is that without belief in god, goodness and evil do not exist. So if goodness and evil do not exist, why would anyone ever do 'good'?
In response Damasio may remark about the idea of social construction, and that we create our own morals. To that I say, he as still not answered the question. He has only said that his society rejects these actions, but they are not "wrong". If I create a society where all children are rounded up every day for daily beatings and sexual abuse; have I made child abuse "right" and "natural". Would Damasio believe that this practice by my fictional society is inherently wrong and can never be 'right' even if is social accepted and celebrated by everyone in the society? What if the children looked forward to their daily beatings and enjoyed them, is the practice still 'evil'?
In organized religion, the human is not viewed as an intelligent animal like in western academia. Instead it is viewed a hybrid creature, one that belongs in the metaphysical realm but currently resides in the physical realm. The main differentiating factors of man are his intellect and 'fitra'. (Fitra: Arabic word which describes man's moral code, 'humanity' for lack of a better word.) Unlike the ape, man can reason and is guided by morals. Man is like no other creature on this planet, no creature is capable of a higher function than survival. Thus, man seeks a higher reality because he is a higher being. If all of man's physical desires are met (abundant food, comfort, sex, etc) he will not be happy for very long. Many of these realities are taken for granted as part of our nature, however these characteristics are far from natural in this physical universe.
To summarize the deliberate blindness of Damasio towards a greater reality and belief in an intelligent god is laughable. For a man of science, he presents bizarre, cryptic belief systems devoid of basic coherence and logic. In order to justify godlessness, he must ignore logic or demote god or both. Damasio does not present any views of mainstream religion in a open manner and Damasio cannot justify a belief for morals or the existence of 'good' and 'evil'.
In Damasio's final chapter he presents man's desire to be a part of something greater than oneself, ones desire to seek a meaning in life in order to achieve contentment. He also remarks that this desire is at odds with the biological/evolutionary view which proposes that contentment is achieved through purely physical means. (eg intimacy, longevity, pleasure, comfort, etc) Damasio then proposes Spinoza's idea of god; which views god as a life-force akin to "mother nature", a god which cannot think and has no morals. According to Spinoza, the desire of man to connect with a higher power is simply ones desire to align oneself with nature; this salvation is achieved "by a sociopolitical
system whose laws help the individual with the task
of being fair and charitable to others" (Damasio 274). Essentially, a virtuous life is achieved through general goodness and the rejection of negative emotions.
Honestly, I had a tough time reading the final chapter. After sifting through the Utopian society ideals, I wonder "What is his point?". Why does Damasio fail to acknowledge the existence of an intelligent higher power? He treats the belief of an intelligent god as something akin to a myth or legend, he demotes god to that of a "life force" when he does reference it. I find it ridiculous, with billions who believe in an intelligent god, why does Damasio fail to give organized religion a fair shout? He acknowledges the teachings of known prophets of god, he subscribes to the ideals of recognized holy books, yet he rejects god as an intelligent, moral being; thus he rejects the belief that life has purpose and that existence has meaning.
The problem with Damasio is that he is double dipping. He wants the best of two worlds, the fulfillment involved with belief and servitude to god (goodness, purpose, etc) but he also wants to be unrestrained from the baggage associated with religion (the adherence of a moral code, avoidance of sin, etc). To summarize, I believe that Damasio wants to believe in god but only on his terms, he wants a god that tells him he can do whatever he wants with no fear of punishment. The problem with this is that it contradicts his belief system of doing good, how can one have morals without belief in morals? How can one believe in "goodness" when there is no right and wrong? For example he talks of the goodness of giving charity, why is that "good"? Who told you that it was "good"? Can Damasio explain to me why it would be "Bad" to kill every poor person so they would not be a burden for the rest of us? Can Damasio tell me what is 'evil' about a pedophile, whom preys on young children? Can Damasio explain to me why suicide is 'bad'? The point I am trying to illustrate is that without belief in god, goodness and evil do not exist. So if goodness and evil do not exist, why would anyone ever do 'good'?
In response Damasio may remark about the idea of social construction, and that we create our own morals. To that I say, he as still not answered the question. He has only said that his society rejects these actions, but they are not "wrong". If I create a society where all children are rounded up every day for daily beatings and sexual abuse; have I made child abuse "right" and "natural". Would Damasio believe that this practice by my fictional society is inherently wrong and can never be 'right' even if is social accepted and celebrated by everyone in the society? What if the children looked forward to their daily beatings and enjoyed them, is the practice still 'evil'?
In organized religion, the human is not viewed as an intelligent animal like in western academia. Instead it is viewed a hybrid creature, one that belongs in the metaphysical realm but currently resides in the physical realm. The main differentiating factors of man are his intellect and 'fitra'. (Fitra: Arabic word which describes man's moral code, 'humanity' for lack of a better word.) Unlike the ape, man can reason and is guided by morals. Man is like no other creature on this planet, no creature is capable of a higher function than survival. Thus, man seeks a higher reality because he is a higher being. If all of man's physical desires are met (abundant food, comfort, sex, etc) he will not be happy for very long. Many of these realities are taken for granted as part of our nature, however these characteristics are far from natural in this physical universe.
To summarize the deliberate blindness of Damasio towards a greater reality and belief in an intelligent god is laughable. For a man of science, he presents bizarre, cryptic belief systems devoid of basic coherence and logic. In order to justify godlessness, he must ignore logic or demote god or both. Damasio does not present any views of mainstream religion in a open manner and Damasio cannot justify a belief for morals or the existence of 'good' and 'evil'.