I want to continue with what I have said about philosophical process and Love and Reason in “About ‘Emma’ (I)”. If we are to conduct philosophical process of analyzing how to set rules and values based on Love and Reason, then we are in the process of questioning not only philosophy as we know it, but also questioning many basic assumptions in our cultural and society that for the most part deemed fundamental.
I do realize I am undertaking a daunting task, the most “ambitious” task. But I am not motivated by ambition, but necessity. It is long over-due.
Since the declaration of “death of God”, things did not necessarily turn better, some may argue it might be worse now than before (I do not actually agree with). Does this mean “God” is necessary? I don’t think so. I think the problem is, the traditional philosophical structure, and the cultural and social structure based on it are derived from the assumption of the “existence of God”. Without changing the existing philosophical structure, and the cultural and social structure, simply declare the “death of God” could only cause other problems while not actually solving the existing problems.
For example, the purpose of “Ethics” is to set rules and values for people to adopt. But who should be given the authority to tell people what is good and what is not, and what to do and what not to do? Under the assumption of the “existence of God”, the answer seems to be quite simple, it would be “God”. But if “God” does not exist, then it would be very difficult for people to agree on many things.
But do people have to agree on everything in order to have a civilized society? I don’t think so. If we only emphasize Love and Reason, then we would not need to. We only need to agree to set our rules and values based on Love and Reason. Because they are relatively simple and obvious principles, people are less likely to disagree on them, but are given a lot more freedom to make their choices in their lives. And, if people are truly using Love and Reason as principles to set their own rules and values, their behaviors would likely lead to good outcomes. Basically, my goal is to persuade people to do so, and I like to demonstrate how to do so by analyzing Emma.
In other words, if we correctly use the principles of Love and Reason, “Ethics” would cease to exist, at least not the way we know it, and we would have a better society. But what about politics? I think the most generic definition of politics would be that it is about setting rules to protect “common interests”. But are there “common interests” in a society for everyone? I believe if everyone follow the principle of Love and Reason, then “common interests” will be found. What are they? I should be able to explore this subject further later. Here, I like to mention the “fights” in politics are actually mostly about “moral values”, or at least some people trying to unjustly promote their own interests under the disguise of “promoting moral values”. This is why I believe if everyone will be able to uphold Love and Reason as basic principles, many issues related to ethics and politics would cease to exist, so ethics and politics are not as important subjects as Love and Reason.
September 9, 2017