LRH's "Basics of Ethics" Your Grade?

[fisherman]

LRH claimed to be 'well schooled' in the ideas of history's 'most famous thinkers', but this is simply not the case.

How would you 'grade' this "HISTORY" section from HCOB 12 July 1980R "The Basics of Ethics" by L. Ron Hubbard ?

If you were a high school teacher, you'd likely assign readings from Plato/Socrates/Aristotle and a general text like Will Durant's "Story of Philosophy" before asking for this 'paper'. This is what LRH 'turned in' for grade. So how did he do? And what grade would you offer?

These subjects [ethics and justice] are, actually, the basis of all philosophy. But in any study of the history of philosophy it is plain that they have puzzled philosophers for a long time.

The early Greek followers of Pythagoras (Greek philosopher of the sixth century B.C.) tried to apply their mathematical theories to the subject of human conduct and Ethics. Some time later, Socrates (Greek philosopher and teacher 470? - 399 B.C.) tackled the subject. He demonstrated that all those who were claiming to show people how to live were unable to defend their views or even define the terms they were using. He argued that we must know what courage, and justice, law and government are before we can be brave or good citizens or just or good rulers. This was fine but he then refused to provide definitions. He said that all sin was ignorance but did not take the necessary actions to rid Man of his ignorance.

Socrates' pupil, Plato (Greek philosopher, 427? - 347 B.C.) adhered to his master's theories but insisted that these definitions could only be defined by pure reason. This meant that one had to isolate oneself from life in some ivory tower and figure it all out—not very useful to the man in the street.

Aristotle (Greek philosopher 384 - 322 B.C.) also got involved with ethics. He explained unethical behavior by saying that man's rationality became overruled by his desire.

This chain continued down the ages. Philosopher after philosopher tried to resolve the subjects of ethics and justice

Unfortunately, until now, there has been no workable solution, as evidenced by the declining ethical level of society.

So you see it is no small breakthrough that has been made in this subject in the last 30 years or so. We have defined the terms, which Socrates omitted to do, and we have a workable technology that anyone can use to help get himself out of the mud. The natural laws behind this subject have been found and made available for all to use

------------------------------

LRH, 1st paragraph:

These subjects [ethics and justice] are, actually, the basis of all philosophy. But in any study of the history of philosophy it is plain that they have puzzled philosophers for a long time.

"Ethics" and "Justice" are NOT the "basis of ALL philosophy" -- God, Existence, Evil, Epistemology, Society, and Politics are more prominent subjects in philosophy. But let's 'cut some slack' and assume Mr. Hubbard meant to say "Ethics and Justice are 'important' topics in philosophy"... that would be an 'o.k.' start.

LRH, 2nd paragraph:

The early Greek followers of Pythagoras (Greek philosopher of the sixth century B.C.) tried to apply their mathematical theories to the subject of human conduct and Ethics. Some time later, Socrates (Greek philosopher and teacher 470? - 399 B.C.) tackled the subject. He demonstrated that all those who were claiming to show people how to live were unable to defend their views or even define the terms they were using. He argued that we must know what courage, and justice, law and government are before we can be brave or good citizens or just or good rulers. This was fine but he then refused to provide definitions. He said that all sin was ignorance but did not take the necessary actions to rid Man of his ignorance.

Mr. Hubbard completely misses the 'WOW' concept in Pythagorean 'ethics' which is belief in the transmigration of the soul. It became one of the most powerful ideas in human history. The seperation of the soul and body is central to Pythagorean thought and was immensely influential to Socrates/Plato. Hubbard's failure to mention this key tenet will have to result in 'grade reduction'.

Pythagoras' followers were not especially interested in "human conduct". Pythagoreans believed in "the harmony of nature" positing that mathematical relationships formed the underpinnning for all phenomena in the cosmos and the natural world. "Human Conduct" is only one facet of the natural world and Hubbard's emphasis here is misplaced.

Mr. Hubbard says that Socrates 'tackles the subject' of 'ethics' but fails to mention how. Most importantly, the Pythagorean duality of 'body and soul' inspired Socrates/Plato's "Theory of Forms" which sets a framework for the evolution of the soul to higher states. This is the central idea in 'Socratic Ethics' and Hubbard neglects it entirely. Points off here!

Instead of covering the impotance of Pythagorean duality, Mr. Hubbard describes Socrates 'paripatetic' methodology but is scanty on specifics. Hubbard's comment "all those who were claiming to show people how to live" is probably a reference to a class of itinerant professors known as 'the sophists'. Why not say so? Socrates did outwit well known 'sophists' in debate -- demonstrating that 'sophist' conceptions of such ideals as 'courage' and 'justice' were shallow and unfounded. Points off for lack of clarity.

Hubbard is correct that Socrates asserted that "good citizens" and "good rulers" should understand what THEY mean by 'ideals' but this is not Socrates' central message.

Mr. Hubbard writes, "This was fine but he [Socrates] then refused to provide definitions." Hubbard gets 'points off' for this incorrect interpretation. Socrates' intention was to show that absolute "definitions" are largely impossible. That was precisely Socrates point in proving the 'sophist's' "definitions" of such ideals as 'courage' and 'justice' were merely situational or ephemeral. Socrates can't be 'blamed' for "refusing" to provide what he set out to debunk!

Mr. Hubbard next writes, "He [Socrates] said that all sin was ignorance but did not take the necessary actions to rid Man of his ignorance." Major 'points off' for this wild assertion! I don't believe Socrates said anything significant about "sin". More importantly, Socrates most famous insight, 'I know that I do not know' underscores that Socrates' never expressed any egotistical power "to rid Man of his ignorance".

LRH, 3rd paragraph:

Socrates' pupil, Plato (Greek philosopher, 427? - 347 B.C.) adhered to his master's theories but insisted that these definitions could only be defined by pure reason. This meant that one had to isolate oneself from life in some ivory tower and figure it all out—not very useful to the man in the street.

This section contains major flaws. Plato was, indeed, Socrates student, but we can't tell which "theories" belong to who. There's too little historical evidence to differentiate how much of Plato's 'Dialogues' is attributable to Socrates or attributable to Plato's own thinking. As a practical matter, most scholars consider the philosophy of Socrates and Plato to be ONE work. Points off for conjecture.

Neither Socrates or Plato "insisted" on "definitions" in the way Mr. Hubbard suggests. Socrates and Plato did not 'disagree' that philosophy is the work of "pure reason" (what else could it be?) Points off for Mr. Hubbard's failure to 'check facts'.

"Ivory Tower" is a major error!! Mr. Hubbard's assertion that Plato/Socrates' philosophy "meant that one had to isolate oneself from life in some ivory tower" is diametrically OPPOSITE to Plato/Socrates ideas and methods. Socrates was a social gadfly, always 'on the prowl' for groups and individuals to engage in conversation. 'Socratic Method' is an investigation of meaning through lively discourse. Plato's dialogue, "Symposium" is an account of Socrates 'philosophizing' at a "drinking party"!

Hubbard's description of Socrates/Plato's philosophy as "Ivory Tower" and "not very useful to the man in the street" is way 'off the mark'! Socrates', Plato (and Aristotle's) teaching method is called "the peripitetic school" because it takes place 'walking around' with students and talking to citizens in public spaces. Mr. Hubbard's error here so egregious we might want to return the paper for a rewrite before offering a final grade!

LRH, 4th paragraph:

Aristotle (Greek philosopher 384 - 322 B.C.) also got involved with ethics. He explained unethical behavior by saying that man's rationality became overruled by his desire.

Aristotle's 'ethics' are straightforward. Aristotle's "Golden Mean" claims that the 'middle path' leads to the best ethical outcomes. I call it Aristotle's 'Goldilocks Rule' -- 'not too hot, not too cold, but just right'. Aristotle believed that reason, pragmatism, experiment and compromise are 'benchmarks' of truth'. Mr. Hubbard's generalization that Aristotle "explained unethical behavior by saying that man's rationality became overruled by his desire" has some validity, but failing to mention Aristotle's famous "Golden Mean" is a significant blunder.

LRH, 5th paragraph:

This chain continued down the ages. Philosopher after philosopher tried to resolve the subjects of ethics and justice.

The history of philosophy is NOT a 'chain of thinkers toiling unsuccessfully to resolve the problems of ethics and justice'. 'Ethics' is a characteristic of a specific philosopher's thinking based on an attempt to describe phenomena in the 'real world'. Mr. Hubbard's generalization is incorrect and not substantiated in this 'history' of Greek philosophy.

Socrates never embarked on a quest to resolve an abstract notion of absolute ethics. Socrates' 'ethics' evolved from talking with friends and fellow citizens. Socrates observed 'man in society' and concluded that the structure of the 'polis' defines the individual. Socratic 'ethics' is largely a 'political philosophy' that describes the individual in relation to his community.

Points off for Hubbard's unsupported conclusion.

LRH, 6th and 7th paragraphs:

Unfortunately, until now, there has been no workable solution, as evidenced by the declining ethical level of society.

So you see it is no small breakthrough that has been made in this subject in the last 30 years or so. We have defined the terms, which Socrates omitted to do, and we have a workable technology that anyone can use to help get himself out of the mud. The natural laws behind this subject have been found and made available for all to use

Mr. Hubbard's sweeping generalization that 'ethics has not been solved' is not supported. Mr. Hubbard fails to show the history of 'philosophy' as a systematic endeavor to create a comprehensive 'solution to ethics'.

Mr. Hubbard's statement, "as evidenced by the declining ethical level of society" is entirely 'out of left field' and not mentioned previously in this essay.

Mr. Hubbard's final paragraph is a 'sales pitch' introducing "Dianetics" as a solution to a 'problem' Socrates never attempted to solve. None of the 'philosophers' Hubbard mentions ever proposed that "man" needed a "technology" to "get himself out of the mud". I'm not aware of any philosopher who specifically considered 'mankind' to be 'in the mud'.

Mr. Hubbard's concluding paragraphs are 'non sequitar' to the rest of this essay. Points off for lack of evidence and a poor ending.

How would you grade Mr. Hubbard's essay on the 'History of Philosophy' ??

fisherman

 

[Zinjifar]

How would you grade Mr. Hubbard's essay on the 'History of Philosophy' ??

fisherman

About average; for Ron. Flawed, mistaken, deliberately misrepresentative and misleading, but, still far superior to his efforts in Nuclear Physics and Calculus.

Zinj