Does everything have purpose?
In the "Past Lives" thread I commented on seeing constructive purpose in what could be perceived as "moral" and "immoral" action.
I see the ability to make meaning in many things – assuming we sit down and ascertain their purpose. By that I'm referencing world events.
History is my guide here, and how a close reading of any part of human history shows how inextricably linked events are. Cause has effect, and effect initiates cause.
Where injustice is perceived humanity has a habit of addressing the wrong, where it can – though not often in terms of an individual lifetime (think: apartheid here).
A more specific example that comes to mind is Adolf Hitler and his rule over Nazi Germany – more precisely, the effects of the Second World War. On the one-hand, the Nazi's are held responsible for the callous execution of around 7million people (mainly composed of Jews, but also Romany, Soviets, etc) – all performed with a precision beyond the Japanese, despite the fact that history records Hirihito's men as directly responsible for the deaths of 10 million Chinese.
Did Adolf Hitler serve a purpose, though? Could it be said, after all, that he was nothing more than a tool of Fate? Aside from the technical and medicinal innovations that resulted directly from WWII, there were also marked ideology changes. The most marked that comes to mind was of Eugenics.
Darwin's proposition of evolution of species created fertile ground for imagining a superior human race. Frederick Nietsche wrote about it. Even Darwin's eccentric cousin, Francis Galton, promoted and developed the theory. What Adolf Hitler showed us is precisely what Eugenics can deliver – a single "superior race" that seeks to exists by exterminating (purifying) others. The Nazi's taught us to be repulsed by Eugenics – a decade before the DNA molecule was mapped.
Now we have a developing embryonic field of genetic science – the science of genetics – just at the right time to abhor the direct genetic construction of a "superior" human race.
The point of this waffle – in the scheme of all things and in the breadth of the universe – has humanity ultimately been positively affected by acts of terrible immorality? If so, does that mean therefore there are positive moral consequences or negative immoral action?
Therefore does that not mean that morality itself has far less meaning in the universe than world religious thought would prefer? In fact, is morality itself not an irrelevant term excepting within the confines of human cultures? Is the universe not ultimately amoral?
Something for discussion.![Smile :) :)]()
In the "Past Lives" thread I commented on seeing constructive purpose in what could be perceived as "moral" and "immoral" action.
I see the ability to make meaning in many things – assuming we sit down and ascertain their purpose. By that I'm referencing world events.
History is my guide here, and how a close reading of any part of human history shows how inextricably linked events are. Cause has effect, and effect initiates cause.
Where injustice is perceived humanity has a habit of addressing the wrong, where it can – though not often in terms of an individual lifetime (think: apartheid here).
A more specific example that comes to mind is Adolf Hitler and his rule over Nazi Germany – more precisely, the effects of the Second World War. On the one-hand, the Nazi's are held responsible for the callous execution of around 7million people (mainly composed of Jews, but also Romany, Soviets, etc) – all performed with a precision beyond the Japanese, despite the fact that history records Hirihito's men as directly responsible for the deaths of 10 million Chinese.
Did Adolf Hitler serve a purpose, though? Could it be said, after all, that he was nothing more than a tool of Fate? Aside from the technical and medicinal innovations that resulted directly from WWII, there were also marked ideology changes. The most marked that comes to mind was of Eugenics.
Darwin's proposition of evolution of species created fertile ground for imagining a superior human race. Frederick Nietsche wrote about it. Even Darwin's eccentric cousin, Francis Galton, promoted and developed the theory. What Adolf Hitler showed us is precisely what Eugenics can deliver – a single "superior race" that seeks to exists by exterminating (purifying) others. The Nazi's taught us to be repulsed by Eugenics – a decade before the DNA molecule was mapped.
Now we have a developing embryonic field of genetic science – the science of genetics – just at the right time to abhor the direct genetic construction of a "superior" human race.
The point of this waffle – in the scheme of all things and in the breadth of the universe – has humanity ultimately been positively affected by acts of terrible immorality? If so, does that mean therefore there are positive moral consequences or negative immoral action?
Therefore does that not mean that morality itself has far less meaning in the universe than world religious thought would prefer? In fact, is morality itself not an irrelevant term excepting within the confines of human cultures? Is the universe not ultimately amoral?
Something for discussion.