Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
Carlo, I don't really understand your narrative. You have some romanticizing about ancient tales and the wisdom they had, and how this is being dismissed by the sort of "lugubrious logic" of Dawkins et al. Ok. But I don't really follow why you think that narrative applies in this case, or really why you think that narrative is meaningful.
I think Dawkins point is basically sound. We've had these taboos historically for completely reasonable reasons. However, today, we can investigate whether the old taboos are still utterly immutable or whether the specifics of modern technology might result in versions where the taboo no longer makes sense.
My point is not so much that the ancients had insight into life and the living which we don't have nor comprehend which is true but none the less we are living in an advanced age which I clarified as our ability to "think" to which the ancient did not have.
Where we differ is that you mentioned modern technology and the ability to reason to matters which usurp the old taboos but the place to begin is to speak to the issue at hand " the taboo of cannibalism". The post I spoke to spoke of "logic" as if this "logic" usurps a good idea, grounded in reality ( modern or ancient) of any sort , such as the taboo of "cannibalism".
The difficulty is that we live in an age of "abstract thinking" which holds cold and indifferent ( more like dead) concepts as the standard of knowledge and comprehension. With these "abstract thoughts" one can approach any venue in life and prove the same, good, bad, or indifferent.
The thoughts have to touch the "real" and in this an imaginative picture of the act within and of yourself will bring some heart warmth to these thoughts which need to be ;pinned to the "real". I am not speaking metaphorically here for the thoughts and actions of abstract thinking are to be "warmed up" and in this a cogent reality will appear. Not so clear, i know but lets go back :
A man has a visceral response to "cannibalism" and the abstract thinker may say that this inner visceral response doesn't count for we believe in rational, unemotional thinking or the thinking of Kant , alike cold ice.
The visceral activity is real and cannot be dismissed and can and very often is a good way for a man to perhaps stay away from such activities. This doesn't mean he shouldn't think or mull or whatever on the matter but the visceral component must be considered . It can be a good guide throughout life .
Now the modern abstract thinker may offer that to follow an a "feeling" in life is fraught with error and he would be right . Unfortunately he might continue on and theorize into the blue the deleterious effects of following one's "feelings" or "emotions" which from what I can see are two different matters.
No doubt, truth, good, evil, beauty ,love ,hate are all comprehended through thoughts and thinking but the "feelings" are what these truths become when man takes in a "truth" . Our feelings are what individualizes the man but "truth" and comprehension is relegated to the thoughts and thinking but it is not individual but common to all men.
I have gone on and on,....
Cliff notes, warm up the thoughts and even Dawkins will become a new man. LOL