I have approximately four hours until I can force myself to stop writing my end of year essays and double check them and ensure the bibliographys and word counts are all top notch – so instead I thought I’d do another quick post (I’ll do a proper one that’s not you know, boring and about what I had for breakfast).
Are there any good reasons for denying the centrality of happiness to the moral life? Does one’s particular conception of happiness matter to the coherence and plausibility of the three normative theories (deontological, utilitarian, and virtue) we have considered? Should it?
SO LONG. EURGH GET AWAY FROM ME . YOU’RE JUST SO, SO LONG . DISGUSTINGLY LONG . PAINFULLY LONG . .. and big in girth also.
Anyway, once I’m done – I reckons we get our asses to the pub. BELIEF AND UNBELIEF went eerily well: I revised sort of four to six topics, and then they all came up, and the ones I’d heavily revised I didn’t really want to write essays on, so I did the following:
- What can we learn from the first centuries of the Christian era as regards the relation between religious belief and knowledge of nature?
- Is Richard Dawkins justified in extending his theory of genetics into ‘the new soup’ of human culture?
- What, if anything, does atheism have to contribute to religious belief today?
The first was fine, I rambled on about Aristotle (Daddy) Origen (The Good Son) Tertullian (The Evil one) and Augustine (The Shitty Shit-Stirring Son what sits on the fence) and the divide between the religiousers and the natural philosophers. The second one wasn’t as good because I hadn’t reeeally revised Dawkins but knew it vaguely so just argued that he isn’t really justified, because his theory of genetics involved explaining (somewhat) God in terms of memes – which according to the evil that is Alister McGrath (WHO spells their name ‘Alister’?!), one cannot do as it’s an overlap of magisteria >rolls eyes<. But still Dawkins was as justified as writing it as anyone is who writes a book.
The last question I went a bit nuts – not gonna lie – and just Holden Caulfield-esqued up an answer about when I went to see Alister McGrath and Stephen Law (from Heefwop) and they debated on whether God existed or not and the conclusions that I drew from the debate: Mainly that it didn’t really matter either way whether God exists; they both BELIEVED in the same things, except God (ie, truth, beauty, love, respect etc). So many philosophers and theologians love arguing about THE SAME THING from THE SAME SIDES it makes me blue as hell. Said Holden Caulfield.
Ok, I’m reading the Catcher in the Rye again and yes, it’s having somewhat of a mid-life-crisisy affect on me. Leave me alone, it’s exam period. I’m stressed. Sorry for being so whingey lately.
Loads of love anyway