>
>
> Philip Pilkington wrote:
> >
> > > Well, while I agree, that still seems to leave it fairly undefined. It
> seems
> > to me to be a fairly abstract term which agrees, throughout the ages,
> with a
> > certain "something" which isn't properly talked about or defined. I still
> > see the spectre of the "ideal ego <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_ideal>"
> > here... And since Freud we should surely see this as the necessary
> illusion
> > that it is.
>
>
> The question is: On what metaphysical foundation can one claim the
> existenced of trnahistorical norms constraining human activty?
>
> No one except Ted has made the slightest effort to answer this question.
> (I don't accept Ted's arguments, but they _are_ arguments; Doug, et al
> have offered no arguments but either oersibak attacks on those raising
> the question or wails that what will we do if you take ourmorals away
> from us.
>
> Put another way, Where do Ethics come from? Have they an existence prior
> to and independently of particular human activities? Those professing a
> theistic religion of course _also_ have a coherent argument, though one
> I do not accept.
>
> Carrol
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
Well, I can only answer where my ethics come from....
Rationality.
That's all I can say. I believe that if people can adhere to rationality they can "sublate" [aufhebung] the current order. But this means a total adherence to, as Marx put it, a "criticism of absolutely everything".