When Iris Murdoch published The Sovereignty of Good, she no longer believed in moral philosophy. During English philosophy's linguistic turn, large parts of our moral vocabulary were thrown out. Systems of ethics were contrived to take the place of good and evil. It was such a dead end that Murdoch left Oxford to spend the next few decades writing novels instead.

Before she went, she gathered three of her essays together in The Sovereignty of Good, arguing that moral philosophy must embrace metaphor and emotion. We won't learn much by thinking about moral behaviour in terms of an unhindered will that bursts into the world at explicit moments of choice. Rather, it is how we think about and look at the world that conditions how we behave: "visible acts of will" emerge in ways which "are often unclear and often dependent on the condition of [our psyche] in between the moments of choice."

Instead of rationalising every choice and action, Murdoch invites us to still our minds and attend to the world that exists apart from us. That is the only motive we need to be good. Once we witness the light shining through reality, we are drawn to imitate or attain it. Having personally observed certain broadly manifested concepts--truth, justice, greed, etc.--we develop an idiosyncratic vocabulary to understand them. This is where we need metaphors. Philosophy can help us to examine and clarify them.

Though goodness may elude us, having acknowledged its distant star we may begin the journey towards it, seeking "a distant transcendent perfection, a source of uncontaminated energy, a source of new and quite undreamt-of virtue."

I will look up to this piece. Never heard of her.

Using metaphors to describe elusive truths might be useful, but doesn't it lead to mysticism or religion where both end up having their own specific instructions on truth debatted among its priests and scolars ?

Also, relying on emotions to build the foundations of truth might seem dangerous, especially in our current context where our perceptions are altered by engagement-driven algorythms. It feels "good" and it feels "right" to hate the enemy, whether they are libs, republicans, taliban or anyone from another tribe.

Maybe we need reason now more than ever before. And that's not an invitation to hardcore utilitarism either. But instead having the courage to say : "I don't know what that is" instead of using metaphorical shortcuts to comfortable truths.

I think I understand it more as an acknowledgment of a world of being outside of subjectivity. As far as I can see a move like that is needed in order to escape utilitarianism and solipsism (D.C. Schindler writes beautifully about this and calls it “misology”).

I don’t think we can continue to deny that what humans care about is not implicitly part of all of our rational systems. I see where the concern about mysticism arises, but I also tend to think that once we enter into serious thought about these questions we are properly in mystical or religious territory and that’s ok.

Metaphors and shared mythologies are useful tools for the purpose of having multifaceted concepts better understood by more people. As long as no one’s taking those things literally. There’s definitely people low-key building internal philosophies and general moral codes from all those Marvel movies, but no one’s turning to a friend and saying, “so I was praying (attempting a telepathic link) to The Hulk last night, and I really think he’s finally gonna do something about the cancer in my foot”.

Emotionally understanding a thing is an empathetic understanding, or feeling, which also furthers understanding. The shared experience of the confusion of “I don’t know what that is” comes from the expected empathetic response. Or the courage to be lacking the understanding. It allows a call to utilize shared knowledge, experience, and understanding to further the use of reason, when the depth of reason regarding a certain matter has reached its limits of being understood under current circumstances.

The algorithmic dopamine machine really is something. I get caught up with it, and I’m fully aware of the sensation of what’s happening as I’m getting sucked into a good scroll. I’m of the opinion that wider discussion of that shared sensation is necessary to have us all reasoning our way out of it. Because that shit’s a drug, yo.

So. Metaphor is useful in expanding understanding of current circumstances via the addition of similar circumstances. Getting caught up in a scroll, to me, feels somewhat like getting subtly pulled into a field of slot machines in a casino. Even though I don’t gamble, I feeeel the pull. I don’t like it. It makes me feel weird. But not good. I wonder if anyone else feels this way, and sometimes have the opportunity to inquire about the empathetic sensation, as well as if there is a known reason.

[Like now. Seriously. Having everyone pull out of the dope web would be super helpful to society. Any ideas towards how that could be peacefully finessed are more than welcome.] But I digress.

There is no reason without understanding. And understanding is expanding by empathy. A person can easily and unreasonably reason that a thing is so, but shared understanding is the agreed-upon reasoning that establishes the limits of the knowledge-stacked truth of a matter.

Some might even argue that metaphor is just an interpersonal form of direct propaganda. Even absent it being misleading. Or that sharing emotions is manipulation. Even absent malice. We need emotion. IT is the spice of life which is manipulated through the dope web. It is the understood intention, based upon internal reason, that justify any given communication or act with another person. Most of us possess empathy, which enables us to more easily process interpersonal exchanges. This allows for both enjoyment and expanded understanding, which is the best way forward towards more-better reasoning.

Significance defines reality, for the observer. Key moments in each person’s unfolding quest for understanding are often motivated by their identifying with a key part of a story, popular phrase, or even meme that seem insignificant to others. Yet their emotional contents are necessary to allow for people to reach opportunities to share collected understanding that will contribute to expanded collective reasoning. Especially if expanded knowledge is being conveyed to a person whose reasoning is limited by their lack of a similar understanding.

If we can know that “this is that” or even that “this is like that”, we can run data through the process of the the gospel of memory towards knowing that we don’t know, and choose to seek to know. Together, and with understanding.

[removed]

There's a very interesting podcast called Living Myth by Michael Mead which specifically addresses this aspect of your sharing. How Mythos (myth/mysticism) is equally important as logos (logic/rationality). It is the balance of these two that creates a much better understanding of human life and its balance with nature.

[removed]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Mostly unrelated: AI is the bane of humanity.