APELC Class Notes
Period 2 and 4 APELCers, as yesterday in first and third, we enjoyed another contentious day discussing Emerson’s metaphysical and moral claims after reviewing the Gregory text. Several more students agreed with Emerson that:
No law can be sacred [. . .] but that of [one's] nature. [That] good and bad are but names readily transferable to that or this; that right is what after [one's] constitution; the only wrong what is against it [. . . .] What [one] must do is all that concerns [one's self], not what people think.
We had too little time to really explore the implications of what this would really mean if it actually reflected reality, that is, if individuals were the true arbiters of good and bad. While most philosophers find such Moral Relativism metaphysically incoherent and unsustainable, it remains popular among the un-schooled, principally, I believe, because it protects one from criticism of one’s behavior and ideas.
It’s popular to say “Don’t judge me and I won’t judge you”, I think, because once we begin to judge another’s behavior or ideas we necessarily open up ourselves to the same scrutiny. And that troubles, even scares us because we often don’t know how we know what we know or how we come to believe the things we do or act the way we act other than to claim “This is who I am, this is what I believe, and I’m not gonna make any apologies for it”.
Maybe we’ll spend some time again on this on Monday, but I hope the importance of power, meaning, and definition isn’t lost on you and I hope all APELCers will think hard on what we talked about today and yesterday. Take a look at the articles I linked in yesterday’s notes and continue focus the lenses of your worldview.
Attend your homework and I’ll see you next week.