Go back to the initial definition: man is a machine, i.e. mechanical. His only freedom is that of a machine, the freedom to be part of a crowd of other machines that work, buy, consume. His only choices may be where to work, what to buy and consume so he should be happy with that. He is only homo economicus. There are references in Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind" that also relate to this when he talks about the philosophy of Jeremy Bentham. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianismnature said:I hardly grasp the notion of Mind/ everything else/ no limit ...
I hope these limitations in my understanding will desappear as soon I continue reading more and more.
As I misssed lots of things in IoH and in SM, I'm currently re-reading the notes I made during these readings. There is a little point I don't understand, from § 4. Duty or Concrete Ethics
Why being utile is selfish?At the scientific or materialistic point of view, man regards himself as a machine. Now to call oneself a machine is to prove that one is not a machine, for no machine calls itself one. By saying ‘I am a slave to mechanical law man actually lifts himself above such law. But he does so only implicitly ; he does not realize that he is doing it; and because he grasps his freedom only implicitly he does not really enjoy it. He enjoys only a perverted and abstract freedom, the freedom to make the best of a bad job, the freedom of utility. He becomes an economic agent ; he acts selfishly
It is more or less: eat, drink and be satisfied because tomorrow you will die and there is nothing else.