You are claiming that people cannot care about the environment or social inequality and that they can only care about being perceived as a good person?

You are claiming that people cannot care about the environment or social inequality and that they can only care about being perceived as a good person? — praxis

I think the difference between a genuine care and virtue signaling is that a person can critically evaluate his believes, actions and their consequences.
For example, burning down a minority neighborhood, driving out all the business is not a very productive way to combat social inequality.
Same as banning drilling in the US, than understanding that you still need oil, so importing it from Russia, thou financing their aggression, also isn't a good way to care for the environment.

Not sure I agree with some of your conclusions. My bigger question is, how is this model useful?

So this is a chronological 'life journey' process along the lines of Jung's theory of individuation?

He believes those concepts to be the ultimate truth and is very
combative against anybody questioning their validity. — stoicHoneyBadger

I don't think this is always the case. More likely they struggle to integrate and comprehend alternative concepts.

A person is able to generate his own concepts and build a coherent world view out of them. — stoicHoneyBadger

Not sure how often this would happen. How do you determine what amounts to a coherent worldview?

A person not only has his own unique world view, but is able to communicate it to others, creating his own schools of thought. — stoicHoneyBadger

I don't think this always happens. Or perhaps you are more charitable about the term 'school of thought'. Most people's beliefs systems probably end up being variations of the views of their parents/culture/peer group. Anger towards other views is more likely to arrive at this stage in a person's thinking - but not always.

I don't think this always happens. Or perhaps you are more charitable about the term 'school of thought'. Most people's beliefs systems probably end up being variations of the views of their parents/culture/peer group.

I think it is not applicable to one person's life cycle. I'd say some 85% are born on stage 1 and die there. People who reach stage 4 ( what you could call Jung's individuation ), probably is way, way under 1%.

My bigger question is, how is this model useful? — Tom Storm

Probably makes one think about the concepts he is using. Whether those are his concepts or he is enslaved by someone's else concepts.

Whether those are his concepts or he is enslaved by someone's else concepts. — stoicHoneyBadger

Hmmm. How does this make any substantive difference? Does it matter whose views they are if the person is fixed? Why use the word 'enslaved'? A homage to Nietzsche, or are you just going for a strong verb?

An original thinker with 'their own' concepts can be just as much of a rigid knob-jockey as anyone else. Incidentally, I'm not sure people develop their own concepts - they often borrow from more sophisticated sources as they get older. But not always.

It sounds like you have a kind of model of human development that privileges a hierarchical outlook about people's conceptual frameworks. It's still not clear to me what problem this is addressing or how it helps.

It's still not clear to me what problem this is addressing or how it helps. — Tom Storm

Makes one think about the concepts he is using. Whether those are his concepts or he is enslaved by someone's else concepts. Meaning whether he is just a pawn in someone else's game or is he at least trying to be his genuine self and develop a world view that help him live a more fulfilled life.

Hmmm. How does this make any substantive difference? — Tom Storm

For example, nutjobs aside, here I assume that a person who develops his own world view, his own values, is trying to individuate ( in Jungs terminology ) and is able to adjust those views as he progresses.

It sounds like you have a kind of model of human development that privileges a hierarchical outlook about people's conceptual frameworks. — Tom Storm

Yes, clearly some concepts are better than others, at least in aspects of 'do they work in real life', for example.

Ok, so it sounds like you are saying authenticity matters and people who are original thinkers are better people than those who slavishly follow others.

I would say being an authentic thinker is a higher evolutionary stage.

The thing is how far is someone willing to go that road of self development as you say. It is a damn hard constant inner fight with yourself, so we have to be lenient with people that don't dare to give that fight. I can understand that, though I find it wrong.
Personally I would be really happy if most people worldwide could reach to Stage 3 but unfortunately it's still Stage 2 in reality.

creating his own schools of thought. — stoicHoneyBadger

I would call that Stage 6 or the Final Stage.

In general your OP was really interesting, not long and clear. More or less I agree to most of what you mentioned.

I think the difference between a genuine care and virtue signaling is that a person can critically evaluate his believes, actions and their consequences. — stoicHoneyBadger

Nice.

I would say being an authentic thinker is a higher evolutionary stage. — stoicHoneyBadger

Evolutionary? How so?

Evolutionary? How so? — Tom Storm

By becoming more Human than Animal. Growing your spirit reduces the animal inside us. Tames it.
Still most of our beliefs are more based in our animal nature than our spiritual one.

understanding that you still need oil — stoicHoneyBadger

Do we need oil? Renewable energy is still more expensive than fossil fuel so if we tried to transition on a large scale now it would shrink the economy. However, we could devise a plan to scale back consumption and learn how to be content with less material wealth, perhaps by focusing on more meaningful pursuits, and also distribute resources so that those most negatively impacted by degrowth would have their basic needs met. We could also agree on population reduction.

All of the above is possible and could lead to a happier and sustainable society. The problem is that people are not rational and DO NOT critically evaluate their beliefs, actions, and their consequences.

Whether those are his concepts or he is enslaved by someone's else concepts. Meaning whether he is just a pawn in someone else's game or is he at least trying to be his genuine self and develop a world view that help him live a more fulfilled life. — stoicHoneyBadger

A pawn can be fulfilled. I don't think you mean fulfilled. You seem to be talking about control or power. Nothing is more base than that.

Your hierarchy of self-actualisation looks to make Donald Trump the most evolved dude on the planet then. Or any other autocrat and cult leader.

Is personal authenticity actually the highest good? Or do we need something else to measure the apex human by?

By becoming more Human than Animal. Growing your spirit reduces the animal inside us. Tames it.
Still most of our beliefs are more based in our animal nature than our spiritual one. — dimosthenis9

I can't say this works for me. I wonder if HB had this in mind. Humans are animals. No matter how sophisticated our thinking becomes we will be sophisticated animals. What does 'spiritual' mean to you? Are you suggesting that what separates human animals from other animals is a 'higher nature' founded in some kind of spirituality?

Are you suggesting that what separates human animals from other animals is a 'higher nature' founded in some kind of spirituality? — Tom Storm

Isn't it? Not of course with any religious meaning of spirituality.
But can you say that humans are just animals and nothing else? Do animals have the human mental ability? Our fantasy, our critical thinking, our speech etc. And all that "Spiritual world" that our mind creates isn't what separate us from animals?
Not that we matter more than animals or we "deserve" more but we are higher in evolutionary stage.That's all. Nothing wrong to state it. Doesn't make us universally more significant than animals but it is just the way it is.
I can't accept seeing people as "just animals". We are more than that.

I can't accept seeing people as "just animals". We are more than that. — dimosthenis9

Yes, you made that clear earlier. You might note I wrote 'humans are animals' not 'just' - this suggests your own hierarchical sensibilities on this matter.

Do animals have the human mental ability? Our fantasy, our critical thinking, our speech etc. And all that "Spiritual world" that our mind creates isn't what separate us from animals? — dimosthenis9

I've already said we are sophisticated animals. Sophisticated does not mean 'better'. I'm not sure what more we can make of this other than describing the attributes.

Sophisticated does not mean 'better'. I'm not sure what more we can make of this other than describing the attributes. — Tom Storm

I didn't say better either. Just higher evolutionary stage than animals. That's all.
Same as I consider people with more self development at higher evolutionary stage also. Not better or that they deserve something more than others.But i agree with the way HoneyBadger described it.

I'm not sure what more we can make of this other than describing the attributes. — Tom Storm

Imo, if more people reached in higher self development stage. Be willing to give that hard fight with themselves, then our societies would be much better. And well here yeah, I do think "better" is the word.

Your hierarchy of self-actualisation looks to make Donald Trump the most evolved dude on the planet then. Or any other autocrat and cult leader.

Is personal authenticity actually the highest good? Or do we need something else to measure the apex human by? — apokrisis

- I don't like cult leaders, so I would put than down to stage 1. , since they are themselves slaves of the 'I need my followers to love me!' concept. stage 5. would be left for 'real sages', be those Nietzsche, Jung, Marcus Aurelius and such.

- Trump did pretty good, probably somewhat stage 4. , he certainly is his own man, not afraid to stand up against the mob. Or are you under the spell of the 'orange man bad' concept?
Note that it was the next guy, who handed Afghanistan to terrorists, turned US from an oil exporter into an importer, and enabled Putin to invade Ukraine by his weak "we will not intervene" rhetoric. In addition to supporting pedophile teachers grooming children.

We could also agree on population reduction. — praxis

WTF? Funny how those willing to reduce the population never want to start with themselves.
Seriously though, social engineering is an extremely complex topic and, as history shows us, those who reduce it to oversimplified concepts always do way more harm than good.

The thing is how far is someone willing to go that road of self development as you say. It is a damn hard constant inner fight with yourself, so we have to be lenient with people that don't dare to give that fight. I can understand that, though I find it wrong.
Personally I would be really happy if most people worldwide could reach to Stage 3 but unfortunately it's still Stage 2 in reality. — dimosthenis9

Thank you. I'd say most people are at stage 1 , maybe like 85%, some 15% at stage 2. But what seems to dawn on me is that everybody wasn't born to become a philosopher and that's OK. :)

WTF? Funny how those willing to reduce the population never want to start with themselves. — stoicHoneyBadger

Lol, are you suggesting that I fall on a knife? I haven’t had children, by choice, if that pleases your sense of consistency.

Seriously though, social engineering is an extremely complex topic and, as history shows us, those who reduce it to oversimplified concepts always do way more harm than good. — stoicHoneyBadger

The point was really to express unconventional ideas to see how you would respond to them. It seems you dislike the maverick and prefer the herd.

I haven’t had children, by choice, if that pleases your sense of consistency. — praxis

Why? I have one son so far, another 1-2 with time would sound great.

The point was really to express unconventional ideas to see how you would respond to them. It seems you dislike the maverick and prefer the herd. — praxis

I try to critically evaluate any ideas and beliefs that stand behind them. So far all that 'climate catastrophy' or 'population bomb' seem to be not backed up by reality, putting it mildly. ;)

I can only hope this is all a joke on your part.

What exactly? No...

Would you promote Trump to grade 5 enlightened if he wasn’t so pro-vax? :rofl:

Nah, his communication style was rather cringy and he failed to enforce his believe with sufficient vigor. :grin:

You are claiming that people cannot care about the environment or social inequality and that they can only care about being perceived as a good person? — praxis

I think you may be confusing the ends with the means. One can care about the ends of a clean environment and social inequality but not agree with the means by which some groups try to achieve those ends.

Stage 1.
A person seems to be owned by one or more concepts. He is unable to critically evaluate the concepts animating him or appraise them in a broader context. He believes those concepts to be the ultimate truth and is very combative against anybody questioning their validity.
Usually such concepts fulfill one's need to be perceived by the society as a “good person”.
For example, “a good person has to fight climate change” or “a good person has to support BLM”. — stoicHoneyBadger

I agree that most people are at this level and never climb out of it. Thinking for yourself is difficult, especially when you don't want to take the time to educate yourself on certain topics or issues. You simply adopt the position of the group you find yourself in and you compartmentalize those concepts from other concepts that you hold that you end up holding contradictory concepts because being part of a group is more important than being consistent for these types of individuals. They naturally gravitate towards the collective mindset.

Stage 2.
A person is no longer owned by random concepts, but chooses a concept to serve more or less deliberately out of what is offered by his culture.

Stage 3.
A person already starts understanding the relativity of concepts and is actively exploring different world views. He mentally dissects existing concepts, tries to rearrange some parts, etc.
For example, “what if we take a Stoic world view and spice it with Yogic exercises?” — stoicHoneyBadger

I find 2 and 3 part of the same stage - at least for me in my development. I went through this stage in my late teens-early twenties when, as a young Christian, I began to question my beliefs primarily as a result of my observations of other "Christians" in how they didn't behave as if an all-knowing, all-seeing god existed and was going to ultimately judge them for their actions. I lost faith in my religion so I began exploring other religions and turned to explore those fields of science that my religion had told me was the "devil's work" like evolution by natural selection.

Stage 4. A person is able to generate his own concepts and build a coherent world view out of them. Cultural norms are no longer relevant to him. He himself has the authority to determine what is good or bad, regardless of other people.
Stage 5.
A person not only has his own unique world view, but is able to communicate it to others, creating his own schools of thought. — stoicHoneyBadger

I didn't reach this stage until much later in life - like nearly 20 years later - after I had time to digest all of this new information and integrate it into a more general worldview. It seems to me that 5 comes with 4 as you need to be able to articulate it to yourself and understand it to be able to communicate it to others. Communicating vs proving it to others are two different things as well. It's essentially three stages for me. 1) Living in the bubble you find yourself born into. 2) realizing that you are in a bubble and attempt to break out of that bubble. 3) emerging from the bubble.

Of course the numbers of stages are arbitrary, but still there can be a distinction between "realizing that you are in a bubble and trying to find the one true world view" and understanding that all world view are relative, so just pick whichever suits your needs best.

He himself has the authority to determine what is good or bad, regardless of other people. — stoicHoneyBadger

I could agree up until this point. This is 100% wrong, and dangerously so. Let me translate what this really means:

"I have the right to do whatever I want and call it good, no matter how it affects other people."

This is evidence of someone who has stumbled in their evolution of thinking and simply gave into their animalistic instinct of power and selfishness and need for dominance. You never have that right. Its a complete contradiction of the underlying notion of good.

Let me rephrase what could work, "I have the ability to do whatever I want and call it good, no matter how it affects other people." No denial there. But do you have the right? No. Do I have the right to nuke the entire world and call it a good thing? Absolutely not. The ability to do anything does not mean you have the right to do anything.

You have the ability to create your own words, and invent your own concepts. It is what we all did when we were children. But, you apply those words and concepts to the world. You see if they make sense. You see how they affect the world, society, and your own life. While it is good to dip back into a child like view of wonder to think on things again, never lose sight that the real world consequences of your words and concepts have impacts beyond your control, and any thinker must consider that as well.

Never give into the temptation to be all powerful and all knowing. History is littered with these "Gods" of humanity that cause pain, misery, and destruction all around them. We are not Gods. We are humans attempting to figure out how to view the world in a way that causes the world to be a better place not only for ourselves, but through minimizing unnecessary harm as well. We are always fallible, and we can always be wrong.