posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mmoa_writes at 12:26am on 28/06/2007
mmoa_writes at 12:26am on 28/06/2007I've always had a soft spot for Hatshepsut. I generally attribute this to my "African queens rawk!" thing I went through in Pirmary school, as well as my general fascination with decoding some of the riddles that history leaves us.
So the recent news has rather made me happy, even though it has little in lieu of important consequence for me. It's just... great! It's what archaeology was invented for, really.
*
Watching 'How to be 18th Century' (BBC2) and the note on how actors all seem determined to laugh in a particularly anal manner when playing fops/ladies with heaving bosoms and fluttering fans does hold true.
"Fie, he gad! Oddsbobs and zoons!"
18th century dialgoue is clearly teh best.
I think I keep on going on about this, but I personally blame taking the 87 bus home from Clapham Junction.
Religion as a supply for morality seems to be a major contention, but I think that's another misunderstanding. I think (and I would, so whatevs, I suppose) that people of religious beliefs and those without essentially do what they consider right because it is right, rather than any thought of some heavenly reward, because that is not the point of doing the right thing.
Whilst supplying god gives morality a sort of logic, I don't think this is the main problem behind allying a-religiosity and the ability to still be a moral person, either.
I think that what religion has done is supply us a conscience for the times when we don't want to do right (If we do right simply because that is what our sensibilities tell us, does that mean that when our sensibilities tell us otherwise, the same action in a similar situation is not right or is it more a case of our sensibilities, at that particular time, being wrong?), when the moral act is either impractical or inconvenient. This, I suppose, is where the concept of 'The Duty' comes from. From this perspective, it makes sense why people ranging in religious belief from the ancient pagans to the christian monk consider non-belief to be so dangerous: one no longer has any impetus to carry out 'The Duty', the doing of right even when one doesn't want to. This is also, I suppose, why philosophers have tried so hard to come up with a system to rival that of the religions with regards to providing such an impetus, from Utalitariansm to... etc.
My fingers are tired as I have been colouring and finishing posters all day. So that is enough rubbish from me.
Nighty night!
So the recent news has rather made me happy, even though it has little in lieu of important consequence for me. It's just... great! It's what archaeology was invented for, really.
*
Watching 'How to be 18th Century' (BBC2) and the note on how actors all seem determined to laugh in a particularly anal manner when playing fops/ladies with heaving bosoms and fluttering fans does hold true.
"Fie, he gad! Oddsbobs and zoons!"
18th century dialgoue is clearly teh best.
I think I keep on going on about this, but I personally blame taking the 87 bus home from Clapham Junction.
Religion as a supply for morality seems to be a major contention, but I think that's another misunderstanding. I think (and I would, so whatevs, I suppose) that people of religious beliefs and those without essentially do what they consider right because it is right, rather than any thought of some heavenly reward, because that is not the point of doing the right thing.
Whilst supplying god gives morality a sort of logic, I don't think this is the main problem behind allying a-religiosity and the ability to still be a moral person, either.
I think that what religion has done is supply us a conscience for the times when we don't want to do right (If we do right simply because that is what our sensibilities tell us, does that mean that when our sensibilities tell us otherwise, the same action in a similar situation is not right or is it more a case of our sensibilities, at that particular time, being wrong?), when the moral act is either impractical or inconvenient. This, I suppose, is where the concept of 'The Duty' comes from. From this perspective, it makes sense why people ranging in religious belief from the ancient pagans to the christian monk consider non-belief to be so dangerous: one no longer has any impetus to carry out 'The Duty', the doing of right even when one doesn't want to. This is also, I suppose, why philosophers have tried so hard to come up with a system to rival that of the religions with regards to providing such an impetus, from Utalitariansm to... etc.
My fingers are tired as I have been colouring and finishing posters all day. So that is enough rubbish from me.
Nighty night!
There are 2 comments on this entry.