Is everything permissible?

[doppelganger]

"Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything.

"Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is constructive.

"Nothing is true; Everything is permissible"

"Everything is permissible"

The Tao doesn't take sides;
it gives birth to both good and evil.
The Master doesn't take sides;
she welcomes both saints and sinners.

Is everything permissible? If there's anything I want to do, can't it always be justified and called an outgrowth of "the truth"? Are the only constraints those of practical expediency? What about those who stand outside the consequences of betraying the adherence to social reality . . . .the sovereigns like kings, presidents, and multi-national corporations? Are they only constrained by the perception people have of them? And if that perception is fluid and controllable through symbols, groupthink and mythology, is that any constraint at all upon the sovereigns' decisions?

The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete
accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him
regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders--tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." -Herman Goering, (Reichsmarschall, Marshal of the German Empire)

"What luck for the rulers that people do not think." - Adolph Hitler

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's wisdom, dopp, so the meaning is tempered by the selflessness and self-control of the wise who live according to reason (or for the prophet, to live according to the word of God).

This reminds me of the proverb -

Two wise men said, let's settle down, for here comes a fool.

 

[doppelganger]

It's wisdom, dopp, so the meaning is tempered by the selflessness and self-control of the wise who live according to reason (or for the prophet, to live according to the word of God).

This reminds me of the proverb -

Two wise men said, let's settle down, for here comes a fool.

That's actually a central less of Karamazov. Perhaps wisdom isn't for everyone - or at least not for the Smerdyakov's of the world?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's actually a central less of Karamazov. Perhaps wisdom isn't for everyone - or at least not for the Smerdyakov's of the world?

Yes that's the point.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Dopp, I think that we should qualify the statement thusly:

"For the wise-person, everything is permissible."

The point of view therefore is this: that the wiseperson can do anything, and everything the wiseperson does is just because s/he is guided by wisdom.

 

[eudaimonia]

Responding to the OP:

Permissable... by whom?

Foolish action is permissible, in that it may be the case that no one is preventing you from acting foolishly, but why act foolishly?

If you are wise, then you will see that acting foolishly is counterproductive. The wise person has no reason to act foolishly when there are better alternatives, and so will not "permit" himself to do so. Perhaps not all is permissible to the wise in this sense.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Diogenes]

Responding to the OP:

Permissable... by whom?

Foolish action is permissible, in that it may be the case that no one is preventing you from acting foolishly, but why act foolishly?

If you are wise, then you will see that acting foolishly is counterproductive. The wise person has no reason to act foolishly when there are better alternatives, and so will not "permit" himself to do so. Perhaps not all is permissible to the wise in this sense.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I would agree-everything may be permissable but not everything is adviseable. I tend to question the acquisition of wisdom itself. A foolish person will know what wisdom is and still act foolishly. A wise person may not even be able to formulate a concept for wisdom but stll act in a wise manner. Is it possible for a leopard to change his spots? (I know I'm a bit off topic here)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Responding to the OP:

Permissable... by whom?

Precisely. It's a meaningless question ...

 

[Ozzie]

Not really Jay. You at least have to ask yourself permission.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not really Jay. You at least have to ask yourself permission.

Interesting point. What is its relevance? And what would suggest as a cognitively meaning definition for 'permisable'?

 

[Ozzie]

Is everything permissible? If there's anything I want to do, can't it always be justified and called an outgrowth of "the truth"? Are the only constraints those of practical expediency? What about those who stand outside the consequences of betraying the adherence to social reality . . . .the sovereigns like kings, presidents, and multi-national corporations? Are they only constrained by the perception people have of them? And if that perception is fluid and controllable through symbols, groupthink and mythology, is that any constraint at all upon the sovereigns' decisions?

Does the sovereign hope to be seen as constructive or what the hell, destructive and his own master? No sovereign is immune from adherence to social reality. Social improvement is a superior force that appears to be standing the test of time no matter the vaguaries of the sovereign.

 

[Ozzie]

Interesting point. What is its relevance? And what would suggest as a cognitively meaning definition for 'permisable'?

Ask the sovereign if the point is relevant to oneself or socially destructive.

 

[Ozzie]

BTW my attempts to quote you directly Jay appear to have earned a "hot" tag.

 

[doppelganger]

Precisely. It's a meaningless question ...

It's the central question of human morality though. Does that make the moral question, "What is right and wrong?" meaningless as well?

 

[doppelganger]

Does the sovereign hope to be seen as constructive or what the hell, destructive and his own master? No sovereign is immune from adherence to social reality. Social improvement is a superior force that appears to be standing the test of time no matter the vaguaries of the sovereign.

The sovereign with the power to manipulate social reality is immune from adherence to it. It need only be changed to correspond to what the sovereign wants to do. King Henry VIII, for example. It's doublethink. We are not allies with Saddam Hussein because he is a crazy person. We have never been allies with Saddam Hussein.

The sovereign wont fool everyone, but it doesn't have to . . .

Hitler and the Nazis, Pinochet, Mussolini, Hamas, Sudan, Czech Republic, Ferdinand Marcos, the Chinese Communist Party, Stalin, the rise of modern "conservative" fascism in the industrialized west . . . social improvement seems to only occur when there's an upsweep in the educated middle class with developed critical thinking. As that buffer grows and disappears, despotism comes and goes in a non-stop ebb and flow.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's the central question of human morality though. Does that make the moral question, "What is right and wrong?" meaningless as well?

Have you read Ayers? (a serious question)

 

[Ozzie]

The sovereign with the power to manipulate social reality is immune from adherence to it. It need only be changed to correspond to what the sovereign wants to do. King Henry VIII, for example. It's doublethink. We are not allies with Saddam Hussein because he is a crazy person. We have never been allies with Saddam Hussein.

The sovereign wont fool everyone, but it doesn't have to . . .

Hitler and the Nazis, Pinochet, Mussolini, Hamas, Sudan, Czech Republic, Ferdinand Marcos, the Chinese Communist Party, Stalin, the rise of modern "conservative" fascism in the industrialized west . . . social improvement seems to only occur when there's an upsweep in the educated middle class with developed critical thinking. As that buffer grows and disappears, despotism comes and goes in a non-stop ebb and flow.

Well here you are proposing a mechanism.

I think the "educated middle class" epitomises doublethink.

Vive la revolution!

and god save america.

 

[doppelganger]

Well here you are proposing a mechanism.

I think the "educated middle class" epitomises doublethink.

Vive la revolution!

That isn't always the case. Though I concur that it has been lately. Societies under stress think less critically of the manner in which their leaders manipulate social reality and moral standards.

 

[doppelganger]

Have you read Ayers? (a serious question)

Do you mean A.J. Ayer? If so, I've read some. I have a growing interest actually in logical positivism.

 

[doppelganger]

Societies under stress think less critically of the manner in which their leaders manipulate social reality and moral standards.

I would add that one sure way to increase the power of manipulation of the sovereign over the content of social reality, even against an educated middle class, is to heighten the perception of stress. Wars (and perpetual war if you can pull it off) are perfect for this. So it perpetuating racism and ceaselessly combatting political parties that appear to be different but really both serve the same masters.