https://theconversation.com/dangerous-ideas-honour-killings-and-moral-seriousness-28442
I guess whats interesting for me is that I didn't really realise that the Western liberal position sees itself as transcendentally moral rather than cultural ("moral progress"). Its interesting also that in the same way as it sees non-secular culture as ultimately and irretrievably grounded in god as the good in itself, it doesn't see an equivalent in how it constructs life as the ultimate good in itself (ie the biopolitical / modern life as bare life) - and after all isnt that a cultural position. I guess this is always a hinging point between traditional epistemologies and modern ones, in that modern ones are utilitarian and can't see how it is possible that a human would prioritise the symbolic (meaning within life/ the social/ meaning within community / life as worthy only if meaningful) over the utilitarian (empty time / life for life's sake / the world of private meanings ) .
It seems to me to be a pretty central clashing point and in practice, like all oppositions, if one scratches the surface you would probably find that the opposition falls away to reveal something much more complex.
I think my problem is that when I understand something new, I automatically apply it to everything in a cookie cutter fashion. So, I guess both positions-Western secular liberal and 'The Rest' religious go too far in ascribing a total understanding to the world through the purely symbolic or the purely utilitarian. Are there religions or soceities in general which reverse some of these positions. Where the idea that bare life is seen as radically unimportant and completely a seeing it as a completely symbolic category while cherishing it on a day-to-day level. I guess Buddhism does this to a large extent, monks on certain days cant leave the temple for fear of crushing an ant while they preach that life is ultimately suffering, temporary and cyclical.
ReplyDelete