You note the connection between being pharisaical and being self-righteous. As it seems, being pharisaical is incompatible with being perfectly virtuous or ethical, since it involves the vice of self-righteousness. Here is a question for you, William: What is the precise relationship between righteousness and self-righteousness? Is self-righteousness a form of righteousness? Or is self-righteousness incompatible with righteousness? On the one hand, the name “self-righteous” suggests righteousness. On the other hand, self-righteousness is a blameworthy defect, whereas righteousness is often considered a perfectly praiseworthy state.
I liked your side-by-side definitions of “demagogue” and “Pharisee”. Defining these concepts side-by-side helped me better understand their connections and potential differences. Have you ever met anybody whom you considered both a demagogue and a Pharisee? Whom in history do you consider an example of both a demagogue and Pharisee? Whom do you consider a demagogue but not a Pharisee? A Pharisee but not a demagogue? Or would you argue that all demagogues are Pharisees, or vice versa?
Alright, that’s all for now, William. As always, it’s a pleasure to discuss these stimulating and vital issues with you. Take care, and good luck on your further intellectual and spiritual endeavors.
Thank you for your kind and meaningful compliment: “Nice reprise with the MORAL EMANCIPATION challenge.” I think you raise deep questions that most humans underthink.
I appreciate your examination and derivation of concepts like “moral”, “Pharisee”, and “religion”. I think I better understand what you’re getting at. I want to comment a little bit on your response, as well as raise a few questions that I find interesting.
First, I like your distinction between “moral” and “ethical”. Unless I have a misunderstanding, you seem to be making the following distinction: Morals deal with conformity to socially accepted or institutionally established standards, whereas ethics deal with rightness, fairness, or equity. What do you think is the precise relationship between morals and ethics? You suggest that there is at least a difference in difficulty: “ETHICAL may suggest the involvement of more difficult or subtle questions…” Is there also a difference in kind? To what extent do ethics and morals deal with the same subject matter, if at all?
Second, I think you’re right about the connection between virtue and morality. Being virtuous is possessing a set of human excellences. The philosopher Aristotle would wholeheartedly agree. You specifically mention that being virtuous involves “moral excellences in character”. I have for you a question that I find interesting: Do you think that being virtuous involves not just moral excellences in character, but also intellectual excellences? Is being able to do calculus, for example, a virtuous excellence? I’m not so sure what the answer is. Perhaps intellectual excellences are just a certain kind of moral excellences in character. Here is another question that I find interesting: How do ethical excellences differ from moral excellences, if at all? The answer seems to depend on what difference, if any, there holds between ethics and morals.
I also agree that righteousness suggests the sanctimonious. The concept of righteousness often shows up in religious and theological thought, for example. I often wonder about the connections between righteousness and virtue. It seems that being righteous is enough for being minimally virtuous. If a person substantially lacks virtue, then she is somehow guilty or blameworthy, and hence unrighteous. But is being righteous enough for possessing all or most of the virtues? Can someone be righteous but nevertheless lack many crucial virtues? Your comments on Pharisees may shed light on the matter.
WOW... just wow. I'm sitting here in my work place success program reading this... with only 15 minutes left before I have to leave and pick up my son from school. I have to come back to this, but I wanted to leave a note incase I procrastinate and don't return. This is such a good read, truly! It is intelligent and thoughtful and well written. You have a way with words! I really admire that. And to be able to articulate that with the environment you are in... I can't write a page in my diary with out it being quiet in the room, never mind the noise of prison! Good for you man! I only made it half way through your post, but I am eager to return and finish. Thus far, I believe we have a similar take on why we are who we are and the way we are and are we responsible for that? It is fascinating. I think you are right. There are so many factors that create who we are and how we react and how we see ourselves. It is an endless series of what ifs! I appreciate the time and thought you put into this paper! Nicely done!
I lived by the squares in my calendar while I was incarcerated! In jail your calendar is almost like those charts they used to put up in school to show which child did well and got a sticker on their book report and then those who did not. It made me feel good to see every time my mother came to visit my 19 year old self but then at the same time I would see other inmates calendars posted to their wall with only one day highlighted.... the haves and the have-nots. Every thing in life is only worth as much as the value you assign to it. You can choose to focus on the empty squares or you can choose to look at all the hours that are filled in on those special days where the clock seems to play tricks on us... Lightening fast when we're doing something pleasing to pass the time and then molasses like slow when you are sitting there waiting for something to happen. It's great to see such a full weekend schedule for a positive thing like a visit with a novelist. That is exciting for sure. I hope you enjoyed your time and got the chance to learn something new!
Thanks for writing! I finished the transcription for your post. I really enjoyed reading your post. It is so descriptive that I could see the scene you were describing. You have a definite talent. I hope 2019 brings you happiness and peace! In my world 2019 is a definite for being better than 2018.. last year was one of my worst due to a near divorce between my husband and I. But after 6 months of marriage counseling, I think 2019 could be my best year yet! Here's to hoping that 2019 brings us both some sort of relief from the misery we've endures through out the years!!!
Dreams were one of my few escapes in jail. I would always wake up and open my eyes and look down to see if I was still in jail and when I saw the orange jumpsuit the depression would set in. I feel your pain man!
RSS
You note the connection between being pharisaical and being self-righteous. As it seems, being pharisaical is incompatible with being perfectly virtuous or ethical, since it involves the vice of self-righteousness. Here is a question for you, William: What is the precise relationship between righteousness and self-righteousness? Is self-righteousness a form of righteousness? Or is self-righteousness incompatible with righteousness? On the one hand, the name “self-righteous” suggests righteousness. On the other hand, self-righteousness is a blameworthy defect, whereas righteousness is often considered a perfectly praiseworthy state.
I liked your side-by-side definitions of “demagogue” and “Pharisee”. Defining these concepts side-by-side helped me better understand their connections and potential differences. Have you ever met anybody whom you considered both a demagogue and a Pharisee? Whom in history do you consider an example of both a demagogue and Pharisee? Whom do you consider a demagogue but not a Pharisee? A Pharisee but not a demagogue? Or would you argue that all demagogues are Pharisees, or vice versa?
Alright, that’s all for now, William. As always, it’s a pleasure to discuss these stimulating and vital issues with you. Take care, and good luck on your further intellectual and spiritual endeavors.
Peace,
Calhoun25
Hey William,
Thank you for your kind and meaningful compliment: “Nice reprise with the MORAL EMANCIPATION challenge.” I think you raise deep questions that most humans underthink.
I appreciate your examination and derivation of concepts like “moral”, “Pharisee”, and “religion”. I think I better understand what you’re getting at. I want to comment a little bit on your response, as well as raise a few questions that I find interesting.
First, I like your distinction between “moral” and “ethical”. Unless I have a misunderstanding, you seem to be making the following distinction: Morals deal with conformity to socially accepted or institutionally established standards, whereas ethics deal with rightness, fairness, or equity. What do you think is the precise relationship between morals and ethics? You suggest that there is at least a difference in difficulty: “ETHICAL may suggest the involvement of more difficult or subtle questions…” Is there also a difference in kind? To what extent do ethics and morals deal with the same subject matter, if at all?
Second, I think you’re right about the connection between virtue and morality. Being virtuous is possessing a set of human excellences. The philosopher Aristotle would wholeheartedly agree. You specifically mention that being virtuous involves “moral excellences in character”. I have for you a question that I find interesting: Do you think that being virtuous involves not just moral excellences in character, but also intellectual excellences? Is being able to do calculus, for example, a virtuous excellence? I’m not so sure what the answer is. Perhaps intellectual excellences are just a certain kind of moral excellences in character. Here is another question that I find interesting: How do ethical excellences differ from moral excellences, if at all? The answer seems to depend on what difference, if any, there holds between ethics and morals.
I also agree that righteousness suggests the sanctimonious. The concept of righteousness often shows up in religious and theological thought, for example. I often wonder about the connections between righteousness and virtue. It seems that being righteous is enough for being minimally virtuous. If a person substantially lacks virtue, then she is somehow guilty or blameworthy, and hence unrighteous. But is being righteous enough for possessing all or most of the virtues? Can someone be righteous but nevertheless lack many crucial virtues? Your comments on Pharisees may shed light on the matter.
Thanks for writing this, I hope my transcription is OK. I really enjoyed this beautiful prose/poem.