/lit/ - Literature

>>15993092
Read Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue. There are moral systems that have remained essentially intact for more than a thousand years.

>>15993092
Also, "historian" is just a job. Think of them like you would think of any other kind of specialized office worker.

>>15993092
>How can anybody, especially historians,
Because you're 250 years removed from learned positions also being populated by the philosophically high minded.

>>15993184
Thanks for the recommendation. Being an ecologist is also 'just a job', however, this job grants the insight of nature's disastrous current position and thus produces, very often, a common anti-polution mindset.

My point is that some knowledge provokes certain ideological positions. Having historical knowledge, for me atleast elicits more of an observing frame of mind in relation to a more activistic type of mindset.

I don't see how, with the knowledge of moral relativism, it is possible to still be a hard activist, conforming to contemporary morality.

>>15993229
>Because you're 250 years removed from learned positions also being populated by the philosophically high minded.
Please, elucidate.

There is no conduct that leads to liberation, but there is that which is conducive towards liberation, but this is not action, nor conduct. Morality is a tool and guide for conventional worldly beings to check their evil desires and dark wills. Wisdom alone is to be enjoined by those seeking transcendence, which brings proximity to the One, the Soul whose attribute is the Good. Beyond good and evil, proximity to the One via wisdom has no connection to the worldy realm where mere morality and ethics are praised by the many.

>>15993263
OP, there are many areas of "history." Anyone who isn't doing intellectual history with a focus on moral systems will never actually encounter a serious challenge to their moral beliefs.
Also, and this is a secret, so don't tell anyone: Historians tell themselves, each other, and their students that they should not allow their sources to influence them. They deliberately ignore the implications of their sources for anything other than whatever narrow project they are pursuing at the moment. This dovetails with what I said about it just being a job. As far as academics are concerned, their work is nothing more than a moderately interesting job. They are not interested in learning any broader philosophical lessons from their sources, and if they were to attempt to do so, they'd likely lose most of their friends.
There's more to be said about attitude formation, propaganda, the influence that existing in a particular social milieu has on one's views, and so on, but this is most relevant to your question.

>>15993293
>which brings proximity to the One, the Soul whose attribute is the Good.
I agree with you except for this. Why would you attribute a ethical judgement to the 'thing' you are attaining by refraining from ethical judgements like good or bad.

>>15993296
>OP, there are many areas of "history." Anyone who isn't doing intellectual history with a focus on moral systems will never actually encounter a serious challenge to their moral beliefs.
That's interesting. So you're telling me that by the mere observation of history different moral systems are not obviously implied? I thought moral relativism was one the most fundamental lessons historians could learn. What kind of intellectual cope is needed to ignore this lesson? Adding to that, if the lesson of moral relativity is not learned, couldn't that harm 'objective' historical work?

> they'd likely lose most of their friends.
Why's that? Also, would you say that historians in that sense are completely influenced by their Zeitgeist and are not even TRYING to be objective regarding cultural values?

>>15993175
I really like you anon, assuming you're the one who posts the MacIntyre threads and maybe the Rawls/Nozick ones. I can never reply to them cause I'm not familiar with their stuff but I'm always happy seeing them.

>>15993355
>That's interesting. So you're telling me that by the mere observation of history different moral systems are not obviously implied?
There's no way to get around it, but unless the historian in question delves into the underpinnings of the moral system of the period that he studies, he will come away unaffected. It's akin to knowing that our ancestors thought eugenics was a good idea. If you never bother to figure out what the reasoning behind that was, and instead just study the things that the people who led the eugenics movement did, then you will likely never be affected.
>Why's that?
Morality is one of the many fundamental beliefs that people must share in order to build a strong relationship. I'm not sure if you've ever experienced this, but drastic changes of belief and behavior typically result in exclusion from one's former social circles. Imagine being a Catholic who has decided that Vatican II is a mistake while continuing to attend Mass in Berkeley. That's not going to end well.
>Also, would you say that historians in that sense are completely influenced by their Zeitgeist and are not even TRYING to be objective regarding cultural values?
That depends on the person and the subject. I'd say that objectivity is indeed an ideal, but there is a difference between being objective about the things that other people have said and done and changing your own beliefs in response to those things. Think of a devout Christian who has devoted his life to the study of Islam. Such people typically do not convert, partly because their presuppositions prevent them from accepting any of the arguments in their sources.
>>15993374
Aww, thanks. There are a few anons who post MacIntyre threads, though, so I might not be the guy you're thinking of.

>>15993450
>If you never bother to figure out what the reasoning behind that was, and instead just study the things that the people who led the eugenics movement did, then you will likely never be affected.
Fair enough.
>Morality is one of the many fundamental beliefs that people must share in order to build a strong relationship.
I've come to the same conclusion from my own observations. Do you have sources that build on this perhaps?

>>15993092
>300 years ago
emissaries of the church are appalled by witchhunts in the backwaters and try to get it under control and condenm townspeople as hysteric
>now some autistic historic larper:
>UUUHHHH YOOOu CANT JUDGE PEOPLE FOR THEIR MORALINOS !!!11 NOOOO!!

>convictions are merely placed in a certain historical epoche?

You could say the same thing about philosophical views or scientific views.

>>15995657
Most people posting here are reactionary midwits that never thought of this