Attacks of moral philosophies usually involve drawing up a scenario in which the philosophy allows “unconscionable” things. What makes something “unconscionable”? It seems really as if we are just trying to derive a formula that approximates best the curve that we all already built – culture.
I’m also too tired to make sure this makes sense (what’s my excuse the rest of the time?)
Just because someone is brilliant and studies psychology doesn’t mean their ideas are correct. Classic structural, self-reflecting psychology is an ape recognising himself in the mirror taken a step further. So, brilliant people make inroads in psychology, but, because of all of our lack of perception, they are just as wrong. Indeed, different self-reflectors come up with different absurd answers!
Our perceptions reflect reality insofar is it not doing so would have been deleterous. But the way we accept reality is often wrong. Statistics -with correct understanding- is a way to brint it all down and let us say “wait a minute! 176 is a bigger number than 140!”
Back in the 1800s, everyone had syphillus. It was the fashion back then. Either that, or one of a host of other diseases no one even knows about any more. Anyway, I wonder what affect this had on the philosophies and ideas of the time..