I think that I can make a positive contribution, you think you cannot. — Pantagruel

In what way?

In what way? — Sir2u

In the way that you just rejected meliorism, which I endorse. I think that is pretty straightforward.

In the way that you just rejected meliorism, which I endorse. I think that is pretty straightforward. — Pantagruel

So yu doing that is going to improve the world. Endorsing meliorism is all fine and dandy, but saying that makes no difference to the world at all.

What effort are you going to make to improve the world?

What effort are you going to make to improve the world? — Sir2u

Well, my efforts at understanding have culminated in the discovery and embrace of a lot of highly "social" philosophies (like Mead, Marx, Habermas) which are oriented primarily around the notion of a communal good and a communal mind. And I am endeavouring to live my life according to principles conformant with those philosophies. And I feel that this is working, in my own life and in what I am able to give back to my community....Including rationalizing this activity.

Well, my efforts at understanding have culminated in the discovery and embrace of a lot of highly "social" philosophies (like Mead, Marx, Habermas) which are oriented primarily around the notion of a communal good and a communal mind. And I am endeavouring to live my life according to principles conformant with those philosophies. And I feel that this is working, in my own life and in what I am able to give back to my community. — Pantagruel

Side stepping the question does not help. I asked what EFFORT you are making to improve the world, not which books you are reading.
Conforming to the principles of long dead philosophers, or even many living ones for that matter, is not going to make the world any better.
Thinking like or thinking about everyone else in the hood is not necessarily a good thing. Conformists are usually a bad thing in the end.

Off the topic still going on here, I just wanted to say that I find Syamsu’s weird philosophical system kind of anthropologically interesting, and I’m kind of sad to see him go before anyone could tease out exactly what it is.

From what I’ve gleaned of seeing him here and elsewhere (I first saw him editing the wikipedia article on free will, where I learned he is also kind of a notorious creationist on talk.origins), it seems like he divides the world up into two kinds of things:

- creators, including God and human souls,
- and their creations, which are everything else.

The creators are also “subjects” in the sense that they have a first person, subjective perspective; unlike their creations, which are mere objects.

Things to do with those creators or subjects are subjective, and exist entirely in the minds that those subjects/creators are; while things to do with their creations, objects, are objective, and exist in the material world.

Subjective things in the minds of creators are “opinions”, and are freely chosen; while objective things in the created material world are “facts”, and are determined (ultimately by the choices, or opinions, of the creators, including the laws that God chose to put in place).

That’s about all I’ve gleaned. I pretty much disagree with the whole picture of it but it’s kind of a fascinating study in someone else’s system of philosophy.

Also, I’m not sure if Syamsu believes this, but if I were building a system like this, I would draw an analogy between the relationship between God and the material world, and between the human soul and body: God is the world-soul, and as human bodies are parts of the material world, human souls are part of God’s soul. And as God’s choices determine the laws of the material world, human souls’ choices determine the actions of their bodies.

Also, I’m not sure if Syamsu believes this, but if I were building a system like this, I would draw an analogy between the relationship between God and the material world, and between the human soul and body: God is the world-soul, and as human bodies are parts of the material world, human souls are part of God’s soul. — Pfhorrest

That seems familiar somehow, where did I hear it before? :chin:

It’s pretty common:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anima_mundi

Yeah, mother nature, Gaia, plenty of them around that have similar ideas.

Side stepping the question does not help. I asked what EFFORT you are making to improve the world, not which books you are reading.
Conforming to the principles of long dead philosophers, or even many living ones for that matter, is not going to make the world any better.
Thinking like or thinking about everyone else in the hood is not necessarily a good thing. Conformists are usually a bad thing in the end. — Sir2u

I'm conforming to my own system, thank you very much. And the standard to which I hold that conformance is the currency of my own happiness and the happiness of those around me. And I very much feel I am living up to my personal philosophy every day. I stand by my philosophy and I make every effort to live by it every day, as anyone who knows me personally will vouchsafe I am sure.

I'm conforming to my own system, thank you very much. And the standard to which I hold that conformance is the currency of my own happiness and the happiness of those around me. And I very much feel I am living up to my personal philosophy every day. I stand by my philosophy and I make every effort to live by it every day, as anyone who knows me personally will vouchsafe I am sure. — Pantagruel

So apart from following your own philosophy and trying to live a happy life you are doing nothing to make the world a better place.
Endorsing meliorism and practicing it are apparently two very distinct things then. Much better to not endorse something if you cannot practice it.

So apart from following your own philosophy and trying to live a happy life you are doing nothing to make the world a better place.
Endorsing meliorism and practicing it are apparently two very distinct things then. Much better to not endorse something if you cannot practice it. — Sir2u

I think attempting to live by a set of universalizable rules is the most practical way to make the world a better place, expressing itself in one's every action.

You have absolutely no grounds for saying I am doing nothing to make the world a better place and are essentially offering me personal insult. That does not say much for your own philosophy.

I think attempting to live by a set of universalizable rules is the most practical way to make the world a better place, expressing itself in one's every action.

You have absolutely no grounds for saying I am doing nothing to make the world a better place and are essentially offering me personal insult. That does not say much for your own philosophy. — Pantagruel

If the truth hurts, you have three options
Take an aspirin
Grin and bear it
Change the truth

There is no insult intend. The questioning of beliefs is something that is commonly done here.

You know nothing of my philosophy, except that I ask a lot of questions, I have made no mention of my beliefs and your assumption that I believe in anything could be mistaken for an insult.

Yo were the one that brought up the topic of meliorism, the belief that the world can be made better by human effort, and your belief in its virtues. But you have failed to defend your opinion in any way at all. The burden is on you to provide evidence of the benefits of that belief to convince others that you are correct.

If the truth hurts, you have three options — Sir2u

Who are you to pronounce truths about my life? That is black letter ad hominem and I am offended. It is certainly a commentary on you.

Who are you to pronounce truths about my life? — Pantagruel

Let me go back a bit.

You have absolutely no grounds for saying I am doing nothing to make the world a better place and are essentially offering me personal insult. That does not say much for your own philosophy. — Pantagruel

I did not even try to pronounce anything about your life. All I did was to say that you have not presented anything to make me think that you practice what you preach.And that is the truth to which I refer.

I have absolutely no grounds for thinking that you are doing something for the world either.
A simple explanation of the effort you are making to make the world a better place would be sufficient.

That is black letter ad hominem and I am offended. It is certainly a commentary on you. — Pantagruel

Oh dear, I had no idea that there were levels to that.

ad hominem: Appealing to personal considerations (rather than to fact or reason)

I had no idea I was appealing to anything, I thought that I was simply stating the fact that you have failed to present any evidence of your belief in meliorism.

The human species is as much a part of the world (universe) as everything else, and so deserves the benefit of melioration. Unless you are an anti-meliorist. — Pantagruel

I have decided that you insulted me here and taken it upon yourself to judge the truths of my life without even knowing me.

Last chance, why is the human deserving of the benefits of melioration? How do you reason this out?
If there is no answer then I could quite easily come to the conclusion that the rest is just melodramatics to cover that fact.

I did not even try to pronounce anything about your life. All I did was to say that you have not presented anything to make me think that you practice what you preach.And that is the truth to which I refer. — Sir2u

People are not in the habit of justifying their lives to one another. That is what life is for. My life speaks for itself, as do my words. If I say I live by my philosophy and that has positive benefits in my life then that is true.

People are not in the habit of justifying their lives to one another. That is what life is for. My life speaks for itself, as do my words. If I say I live by my philosophy and that has positive benefits in my life then that is true. — Pantagruel

Please don't bother answering anything I say here, because it is obvious that you have nothing to say.

You stated quite clearly that you endorsed meliorism and that it was obvious that I did not.
I asked you to give some evidence that there was a way to make the world a better place, which you did not do.
I then asked for you to at least give me an idea of the way you practice meliorism, what you do to make the world a better place.
You have failed on all counts to show that meliorism has any more value as a way of life that stroking cats.
Thank you for your time.

I asked you to give some evidence that there was a way to make the world a better place, which you did not do.
I then asked for you to at least give me an idea of the way you practice meliorism, what you do to make the world a better place. — Sir2u

Re. your first point, I have made it quite clear this is a choice and assumption. I don't have to prove meliorism to you, only to my self. I embrace meliorism because I believe it is possible to act melioristically and because I believe it is better to do so than not to do so. As I said, it appears we have a fundamental disagreement in this respect.

Re. your second point, I gave you an exhaustive and detailed description of what it means to me to act melioristically. I did. Reread my posts. I described how my philosophical position is socially orientated, making it suitable for guiding melioristic choices. And then I said:

"I think attempting to live by a set of universalizable rules is the most practical way to make the world a better place, expressing itself in one's every action."

That is specifically an elucidation of the mechanics of an act-meliorism: formulate a suitable philosophy to guide your motives, and enact that philosophy at every opportunity. I never asked you to agree, but I most certainly did explicate my position.

All you have done is disputed whether I live by my own philosophy, and that is insulting. Every person here represents a certain unique philosophy, which is in a sense a personal ideal. You can dispute the cogency of a someone's propositions, but not whether they believe in their own propositions. If I say that I believe I am acting melioristically you have no right to dispute that. You are calling me a liar, with no justification. And that is a commentary on you, not me.

I was thinking again about Syamsu’s system of philosophy as I understand it, and it occurred to me that if “mind”, “will”, and “god” are all interpreted in the trivial senses of “having a first person experience”, “not being determined”, and a non-personal pantheistic kind of “god” (as differentiated from more substantial functional senses of mind and will, and a personal god), and then the duality is dissolved (so all objects are subjects, all “creators” are “created”, etc), I don’t actually disagree with it all that much anymore.

Of course, I suspect Syamsu would object vehemently to all of those caveats, so we really don’t agree at all, but I found it interesting to identify those exact differences between us, and that they are so small and simple and kind of beautifully symmetrical, when on the surface his views look like incoherent nonsense to me that are so drastically different from my own.