If once upon a time people turned to the classics (e.g., Nicomachean Ethics) for moral guidance...

[gggg gggg]

..Could a sign that society is in decline be when they start turning to the likes of STAR TREK?:

https://uhethics.wordpress.com/2017/12/12/ad-astra-per-aspera-to-the-stars-through-hardships-author-andrea-garza/?unapproved=852&moderation-hash=051f5055dd968c1023fecdeb359a2cc3#comment-852

[John W Kennedy]

Post by gggg gggg
https://uhethics.wordpress.com/2017/12/12/ad-astra-per-aspera-to-the-stars-through-hardships-author-andrea-garza/?unapproved=852&moderation-hash=051f5055dd968c1023fecdeb359a2cc3#comment-852

I’m sure the Sons of the Confederacy think so.

Not that “Star Trek” is perfect; it is clear that the last episode
originally broadcast, “Turnabout Intruder” (“turnabout” being an
allusion to the novel by Thorne Smith), despite (or because of?) William
Shatner’s bravura performance, has been retconned away with extreme
prejudice, albeit for reasons that Aristotle would never comprehend.

Aristotle had a great mind, but he was only a pioneer, and his work was
pioneer work. We don’t even know what he meant by κάθαρσις. His physics
is all wrong. His astronomy is all wrong. His anatomy is all wrong. His
logic is a stone axe. And his ethics, while important, is frequently
downright disgusting.

Now, frankly, if I wanted to learn ethics from a TV program, I’d rather
go with “Babylon 5”—and, to be honest, I think Aristotle would prefer it
as much as I do. But “Babylon 5” or “Star Trek”, when it comes to
ethical questions, Aristotle is way back in their rear-view mirrors.

[gggg gggg]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by gggg gggg
https://uhethics.wordpress.com/2017/12/12/ad-astra-per-aspera-to-the-stars-through-hardships-author-andrea-garza/?unapproved=852&moderation-hash=051f5055dd968c1023fecdeb359a2cc3#comment-852

I’m sure the Sons of the Confederacy think so.
Not that “Star Trek” is perfect; it is clear that the last episode
originally broadcast, “Turnabout Intruder” (“turnabout” being an
allusion to the novel by Thorne Smith), despite (or because of?) William
Shatner’s bravura performance, has been retconned away with extreme
prejudice, albeit for reasons that Aristotle would never comprehend.
Aristotle had a great mind, but he was only a pioneer, and his work was
pioneer work. We don’t even know what he meant by κάθαρσις. His physics
is all wrong. His astronomy is all wrong. His anatomy is all wrong. His
logic is a stone axe. And his ethics, while important, is frequently
downright disgusting.
Now, frankly, if I wanted to learn ethics from a TV program, I’d rather
go with “Babylon 5”—and, to be honest, I think Aristotle would prefer it
as much as I do. But “Babylon 5” or “Star Trek”, when it comes to
ethical questions, Aristotle is way back in their rear-view mirrors.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

Do you know about the controversy with Star Trek: Deep Space Nine?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_5#Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine_and_Paramount_plagiarism_controversy

[John W Kennedy]

Post by gggg gggg

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by gggg gggg
https://uhethics.wordpress.com/2017/12/12/ad-astra-per-aspera-to-the-stars-through-hardships-author-andrea-garza/?unapproved=852&moderation-hash=051f5055dd968c1023fecdeb359a2cc3#comment-852

I’m sure the Sons of the Confederacy think so.
Not that “Star Trek” is perfect; it is clear that the last episode
originally broadcast, “Turnabout Intruder” (“turnabout” being an
allusion to the novel by Thorne Smith), despite (or because of?) William
Shatner’s bravura performance, has been retconned away with extreme
prejudice, albeit for reasons that Aristotle would never comprehend.
Aristotle had a great mind, but he was only a pioneer, and his work was
pioneer work. We don’t even know what he meant by κάθαρσις. His physics
is all wrong. His astronomy is all wrong. His anatomy is all wrong. His
logic is a stone axe. And his ethics, while important, is frequently
downright disgusting.
Now, frankly, if I wanted to learn ethics from a TV program, I’d rather
go with “Babylon 5”—and, to be honest, I think Aristotle would prefer it
as much as I do. But “Babylon 5” or “Star Trek”, when it comes to
ethical questions, Aristotle is way back in their rear-view mirrors.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_5#Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine_and_Paramount_plagiarism_controversy

I’ve been familiar with it for nearly thirty years, since before the
first frame was shot on either series. But the article you started off
with clearly means, by “Star Trek”, the original series of 1966–69,
starring William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy.

[gggg gggg]

Post by gggg gggg
https://uhethics.wordpress.com/2017/12/12/ad-astra-per-aspera-to-the-stars-through-hardships-author-andrea-garza/?unapproved=852&moderation-hash=051f5055dd968c1023fecdeb359a2cc3#comment-852

"Has Star Trek lost its moral relevance?":

https://www.newsweek.com/has-star-trek-lost-its-moral-relevance-79995

[John W Kennedy]

Post by gggg gggg

Post by gggg gggg
https://uhethics.wordpress.com/2017/12/12/ad-astra-per-aspera-to-the-stars-through-hardships-author-andrea-garza/?unapproved=852&moderation-hash=051f5055dd968c1023fecdeb359a2cc3#comment-852

https://www.newsweek.com/has-star-trek-lost-its-moral-relevance-79995

You weren’t around in 1966, were you? What are the complaints here? That
the hero of a TV show behaved like a TV hero? That the women sported
hemlines that had been coded as “futuristic” for over thirty years? (Cf.
“Just Imagine”, 1930, available on YouTube.) That there was “only” one
black regular? That the episodes were only one hour long?