we know the will subjectively, but the will itself - as thing-in-itself- exists independent of all thought.

Schop said all representations presuppose a subject/object distinction. Yet, through our body we know ourselves as both (representation) object and as will. We have a double knowledge of our body- as representation, but also as will (the driving and willing we feel). we can look at our hand and see it in time and space affected by causality etc, yet we have this inside knowledge of our body to as will. Does that make sense?

Not quite. I used the word "harm" to describe something being done to the will, not the state the will is in. Suffering follows harm. — Thorongil

I see what you mean, like infringing on another's will, as such.

The compassionate person “shares the suffering in him (the sufferer), in spite of the fact that his skin does not enclose [his] nerves”

Technically, I think what he means is we "share the suffering of the one identical will even though we are empirically distinct". That doesn't me I feel another's suffering 100% as they do (as their suffering).... but the will explains why my i feel any suffering at all at the sight of your suffering, and perhaps also explains why my suffering is similar to yours.... I think that's what he means.

Thanks,
In your answer, I am assuming "harm" is a synonym for "suffering".
Physical suffering and metaphysical suffering.

So essentially you are saying that, in compassion, I don't feel your physical suffering, yet I do feel your metaphysical suffering?

The will is one identical will or essence, yet this is not to say that all human beings are metaphysically identical. we all manifest one identical essence. It's a fine distinction.

Some of these Kantian ideas....I have noticed that many people need to keep them in their mind constant lest they appear wholly unintelligible. A student can have a reasonable understanding of what is going on (with regards to pure practical reason, for example) after spending an hour with them. YET, see the same student in 1 or 2 weeks after discussing Kant's ideas with them, and they are like "don't understand, explain again!" Although the notion of a "good will" seems to stick....it's just putting all the parts together as a cohesive whole. Thank you for your reference- I looked at that ages ago. Have you read Karl Amerik's works?- I found them extremely helpful too.

My friend, I have read Kant for years. I have read the Critiques, and the Groundwork. Yet trying to convey his thoughts to others (esp. with regards to pure practical reason). to enable real understanding, is a most arduous task.

It has truth value assuming a cognitivist view you mean?

Do you mean that these imperatives are instructions rather than statements? Like ''open the door''? — TheMadFool

More like commands, or imperative sentences.

epistemic paradoxes deal with what we know and can know — T Clark

The paradox supposedly there relates to the fact that we cannot "know" when altruism will be helpful or not since we cannot "know" if a person will reach salvation or not. But I agree with you, it doesn't seem like a paradox.

Sounds like psychopath logic — fishfry

I see what you are saying. I guess in this argument, though, that intentionally inflicting suffering (in order to "help" another") is precluded due to it being an evil or something of the like. But, it seems that your scenario does follow from the argument presented. It hinges on how one defines "evil", again.

So, in summary, I would state that suffering is relative to the sufferer. — Anonymys

Agreed 100% ! well stated.

So altruistic conduct is helpful for her. (because Jody never has a chance of reaching salvation). If she never has a chance of reaching salvation, how is altruism (or anything else) helpful to her? — Samuel Lacrampe

That's an excellent point. I guess one could say "salvation is the *greatest* good", yet there is still other goods. But, I agree with your implicit statement that it is a flawed notion. In the argument it seems that the only *good* is release from suffering. The only response then is that altruistic conduct provides negligible decrease, whilst salvation provides ultimate release. But I see all sorts of problems here too.

I will go with yes then; because in your scenario, the act of altruism is good for one's salvation in some case, and harmful for one's salvation in another case. And if we cannot know when it is the case, then we cannot know how to help one's salvation. — Samuel Lacrampe

Exactly how I thought! Yet, trying to put this into some "standard type form" (like Meno's paradox etc etc) is kind of weird.
I want to get it into a "standard form paradox" in order to dispel it


I

Exactly how I formulated it! Yet, trying to put this into some "standard type form" (like Meno's paradox etc etc) is kind of weird.
I want to get it into a "standard form paradox" in order to dispel it.

It's not my argument. And I don't think you need to suffer to achieve salvation. yet it depends on definitions...How does one define salvation? and "suffering"? I have my own definitions.
How do you define "sin"?

My initial post is an argument I do NOT agree with. My question was, assuming the premises to be true, does the argument result in a paradox? I agree with you (and the other posters) that the premises are faulty. Yet I'm trying to see how they think it is a paradox. Once formulated as a "paradox" it is easier to dispel! Your last statement sums up the view that it is an epistemic paradox: "and how do we know which ones [can reach slavation]"?

1. Only some people will reach Salvation
2. Most people who will reach Salvation need personal suffering (e.g. the personal suffering helps them renounce life which in turn leads to salvation)
3. Billy is altruistic to Bob
4. Bob's suffering is thereby removed.
5. Bob now finds it harder to reach salvation (with his suffering removed he is less likely to renounce life)
6. So Billy, the altruist, did not actually help Bob!
8. Jody never has a chance of reaching salvation
9. So altruistic conduct is helpful for her.
7. But how does Billy know that the receiver of his altruism can reach salvation? How does he know his altruistic conduct is going to help or hinder (another quest to salvation)?

Now, for the sake of argument, assuming all the above is true, is this really an epistemic paradox?

Well... from an implicit atheist stance, strictly speaking, there is no salvation — szardosszemagad

I think it could be stated that there is a salvation, such as the denial of all desire etc; even death itself. Even independent from a Buddhist perspective. There certainly are Buddhists who identify as atheists and find salvation in the aforementioned.

Thanks, I see exactly now. From the Buddhist (or an implicit atheistic stance) things are more complex.

How does Christianity avoid the paradox?

Altruism is real, and we need a lot more of it. — John Days

That I agree with 100%!

Hi many thanks for the answers, very thought provoking.

I would say, IF we assume the premises are true, does a paradox arise? (Like you guys, I also dispute the premises, but I am just agreeing with them for the moment to see how a paradox is meant to come about) It is from a Buddhist source definitely.

With respect to the reformulation, I agree with all except P2 "Altruism creates suffering in the emitter and removes suffering in the receiver."

For the purposes of my argument, only the second clause here is pertinent: "altruistic conduct removes suffering for the receiver". Actually, the whole argument is focused not so much on the altruist but the receiver of altruistic conduct.

So I'll try and reformulate better:

1. Only some people will reach Salvation
2. Most people who will reach Salvation need personal suffering (e.g. the personal suffering helps them renounce life which in turn leads to salvation)
3. Billy is altruistic to Bob
4. Bob's suffering is thereby removed.
5. Bob now finds it harder to reach salvation (with his suffering removed he is less likely to renounce life)
6. So Billy, the altruist, did not actually help Bob!
8. Jody never has a chance of reaching salvation
9. So altruistic conduct is helpful for her.
7. But how does Billy know that the receiver of his altruism can reach salvation? How does he know his altruistic conduct is going to help or hinder (another quest to salvation)?

Now, for the sake of argument, assuming all the above is true, is this really an epistemic paradox?

Thanks again for all the thoughtful answers!

You mean the statement "You should love everyone" is a proposition? (in light of the fact that propositions are not (always) truth-apt sentences? Thanks!

Thanks for both answers! I agree, it is hard to see how that is exactly a paradox in the proper sense of the word. Epistemic just means related to knowledge. I guess this "paradox" of sorts hinges on we can't know ahead of time whether or not any particular person has the capacity to attain salvation.
Mr Bee you are correct: altruistic action is not necessarily mutually exclusive with inflicting harm.

It's like this whole issue of Buddhist ethics: they say be compassionate yet at the same time renounce life? How can we be compassionate and renounce life at the same time?? Thanks again!