Home > Income Generating Tools > Do metaphysical beliefs say something about your social beliefs?

Do metaphysical beliefs say something about your social beliefs?

December 11th, 2012 Leave a comment Go to comments

I believe that the primordial state of the universe (or primordial chaos) still exists, just that it is calmer and less chaotic because it is spread out via expansion, and gets more chaotic when it contracts and shrinks as everything is huddled together. I also believe the universe has no inherent meaning or purpose, and any of such menaing or order is artificially created by humans and other sentient beings as a tool to understand the universe, and when humanity dies, the knowledge, understanding, order, and meaning is no longer there.

Does that mean my social ideals reflect it?

My social ideals are freedom, equality, income equality, economic equality, the right to an enjoyable, pleasurable and fun life etc. That does not relfect my metaphysical beliefs at all, other than the fact that morality is created by humans and only has value in human societies.

But are humans stupid enough to think metaphysical views always exactly reflect social views?

Note: A good example may be early attitudes to Darwin’s idea of evolution by natural selection.
@Greengo Well, answer me this: If your metaphysical beliefs are about chaos, or primordial chaos, does that really make your social views anything like the misguided conservative ideas of human nature?
@bored I don’t care if anyone invokes Godwin’s Law. It’s just another limit on free speech.

I don’t think that people form their social instincts from the philosophical reasoning that they might start to engage in seriously towards their late teens. Rather their social instincts come from a dynamic combination of human nature and childhood social environment. The interesting exercise of trying to develop a metaphysical world-view through philosophical enquiry, need not then conflict with your social instincts. You can be a great member of society, whilst pursuing philosophical enquiry, even in ways that disturb yourself and others. Intellectual exploration will not reprogram your social instincts.

In philosophy, I think it is a matter of honour to always pursue reason and evidence wherever it takes us, and then see what new understanding we can generate. We are looking to grow knowledge, not to hold it back because we imagine that the results might be disturbing. We could point to examples where a person’s philosophical ideas have negative consequences, but these are not sufficient reason to close off paths of enquiry, since it is very difficult to know which future paths could have negative consequences, and which positive. Philosophy should be conducted in an open and transparent way, where all paths are fully explored. Never hold back from exploring for fear of committing a social faux pas.

  1. greengo
    December 11th, 2012 at 09:39 | #1

    Of course your metaphysical beliefs affect your ethical beliefs.
    You believe in purposelessness. Your ethical system is compatible with purposelessness, in that you have answered the question "how then shall I live" in a pragmatic fashion. Pragmatists believe in living a life that maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain for the greatest number of people. Pragmatism is based on a naturalistic world view such as your own.

    Those who are strong Darwinists who still do not believe in eugenics are simply being influenced by the horrors that were wrought from the Darwinian application of ethics in Nazi Germany. And plus, many are still influenced by the societal norms of the Christian west.

    No, metaphysical views do not always exactly reflect social views, but that is simply a result of the hypocrisy and intellectual weakness of people who fail to examine their lives and beliefs.

    Cheers
    References :

  2. WB
    December 11th, 2012 at 09:53 | #2

    To a point, yes.
    References :

  3. bored
    December 11th, 2012 at 10:31 | #3

    Your belief is unfounded (at least regarding the existence of primordial chaos as a discrete entity in the universe), and should be disregarded.

    That being said, it likely affects your view of the world , and therefore, your social beliefs. Though social values are created by societies of people, that doesn’t mean that they are not valuable or enforceable upon others.

    @Greengo

    The Origin of Species was banned by the Nazi party well before WWII. Hitler was a Roman Catholic, who opposed it on religious and ideological reasons.

    The theory of evolution by natural selection has nothing to do with eugenics. Genes aren’t selected for through one’s social success, but through one’s reproductive success. I don’t see why creationists make this connection. You have a very poor understanding of the theory

    Besides, you just invoked Godwin’s Law. Congrats, your argument fails.
    References :

  4. jparfit
    December 11th, 2012 at 10:51 | #4

    I don’t think that people form their social instincts from the philosophical reasoning that they might start to engage in seriously towards their late teens. Rather their social instincts come from a dynamic combination of human nature and childhood social environment. The interesting exercise of trying to develop a metaphysical world-view through philosophical enquiry, need not then conflict with your social instincts. You can be a great member of society, whilst pursuing philosophical enquiry, even in ways that disturb yourself and others. Intellectual exploration will not reprogram your social instincts.

    In philosophy, I think it is a matter of honour to always pursue reason and evidence wherever it takes us, and then see what new understanding we can generate. We are looking to grow knowledge, not to hold it back because we imagine that the results might be disturbing. We could point to examples where a person’s philosophical ideas have negative consequences, but these are not sufficient reason to close off paths of enquiry, since it is very difficult to know which future paths could have negative consequences, and which positive. Philosophy should be conducted in an open and transparent way, where all paths are fully explored. Never hold back from exploring for fear of committing a social faux pas.
    References :

  5. Jim V
    December 11th, 2012 at 11:26 | #5

    I agree, your social ideals are not based in your metaphysical beliefs.
    It seems to me that there is nothing here that can be rightly called a "belief structure" (maybe it does reflect the chaos).

    The physical reality you describe is purposeless chaos and chance evolving by purely naturalistic forces in which the weaker force or being is subject to the stronger force or being.

    On the ground of nature being "red in tooth and claw" why should any of us expect to have personal freedom? In fact, most of mankind’s recorded history has 30-50% of the population in servitude.

    It is indeed hard to see why is equality is more moral than rule by strength on this basis.

    And unless you mean something different than I understand, these social ideals are – at points – contradictory. "Income equality", as expressed and enforced by socialism, is a contradiction to human freedom and does not lead to human flourishing. May I suggest the experience of the Plymouth Plantation, as recorded by Gov. William Bradford, illustrates this clearly.

    Also, please do not mistake the right to /pursue/ happiness as a right to actually have happiness (an enjoyable and fun life).

    If we want humans to have an intrinsic worth, that worth (and objective morality) must be based on something that transcends a purely natural metaphysic.
    References :
    http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1650bradford.html

  1. No trackbacks yet.