Perhaps morality needs a combination of logic and emotion in order for it to be balanced. Logic or rationality is needed to assess the best course of action, juggling possible effects. However, there may also be need for emotional aspects as a motivating factor to aid an approach which involves empathy or compassion too. — Jack Cummins

Hi Jack Cummins. I was worried you had left us for greener pastures. Good to see you!


The torturer could not torture if...

Morality seems more pain/suffering-oriented (negative utilitarianism) — TheMadFool

Laugh, and the world laughs with you;

Weep, and you weep alone; — Ella Wheeler Wilcox (Solitude)

No, I haven't left for good and just finished doing house clearance yesterday...It was such a big job and I had to take about 100 teddy bears to charity shops, taking them on buses. So, I am exhausted and finding it hard to concentrate on philosophy but I hope to be able to do so in the next few days.

Empathy, does it exist?

David Chalmer's hard problem of consciousness and, more generally, theory vs praxis (Mary's room argument). Why does a discussion on morality end up becoming one on consciousness? Is this some kind of a package deal? — TheMadFool

Where I think animals live in the now, some might say living in the now is to be unconscious. I tent to think living in the now is a state of super-consciousness. Animals live in a state of super-consciousness which might also be considered a lack of self-awareness. As stated before, when I'm living in the now, I'm not really thinking, much less about myself. When I start thinking, especially about myself or what I'm experiencing when I'm living in the now, *POP* it's gone, and I'm back to the same old BS of life.

IMO, empathy exists. It's another feeling, like love, fear, etc. In fact, where I believe there are only two feelings, with sub-categories of each, empathy is just one manifestation of love.

That brings up another question in my mind: Is feeling akin to thinking (i.e. a leisure time activity) or is akin to living in the now? I'm seeing a trend here, where I wondered about whether thinking itself could be a type of action, or living in the now. It makes me want to create a third category: 1. Leisure time activity; 2. Living in the now; 3. Living in the now whilst engaged in a leisure time activity. It's this third one that I'd like to better flesh out and define in order to distinguish it from the other two. Anyone who takes great joy, or misery, in thinking might be able to do that. Not me.

Hmmmm. As the judges use to say "I will take that under advisement." :grin:

Living in the now is beyond both logic and morality. Logic and morality are distractions; leisure time activities. — James Riley

Yes, yes. :100:
And we can spend our "leisure time" reflectively rehearsing (like practicing (habitualizing) martial arts) "logic and morality" in order to optimize "living in the now" which otherwise would be sub/less optimal. Thinking is no substitute for doing and vice versa, yet they (can) positively reinforce (feedback to) one another.

And we can spend our leisure time reflectively rehearsing (like practicing (habitualizing) martial arts) "logic and morality" in order to optimize "living in the now" which otherwise would be sub/less optimal. — 180 Proof

:100: Muscle memory can be a good thing. :up:

Shortly after posting my last I came across a T.V. reference about a pending show on Sequoya and it used the word "polymath." I had to look it up and when I did, I thought, "Boy, bet that 180 Proof guy is a polymath!" I would imagine that a polymath might be a person who could be in the now whilst thinking. I'm not sure, but if so, that would be cool.

No, I haven't left for good and just finished doing house clearance yesterday...It was such a big job and I had to take about 100 teddy bears to charity shops, taking them on buses. So, I am exhausted and finding it hard to concentrate on philosophy but I hope to be able to do so in the next few days — Jack Cummins

:up: :smile:

Animals live in a state of super-consciousness which might also be considered a lack of self-awareness. — James Riley

A novel thought/idea!

There’s a force in the universe that makes things happen. And all you have to do is get in touch with it, stop thinking, let things happen, and be the ball. — Ty Webb (Caddyshack 1980)

There’s a force in the universe that makes things happen. And all you have to do is get in touch with it, stop thinking, let things happen, and be the ball. — Ty Webb (Caddyshack 1980)

Gravity? :grin:

I would imagine that a polymath might be a person who could be in the now whilst thinking. — James Riley

I imagine that's the end-in-itself goal of philosophy: contemplation (i.e. reflective praxis, lucid dreaming, Csikszentmihalyi's Flow) in contrast to e.g. mysticism which via meditation seeks to being via stillness, silence and not thinking (i.e. 'pure awareness'). I fail miserably at the latter and reach the former only by chance it seems when I least expect to. Ain't no "polymath", my man; just a jack(ass)-of-all-trades (and masturbator of none). :smirk:

NB: Btw, I've been lifelong devotee of Sequoias (and old growth forest trees), almost as bad as Don Quixote and those windmills. Must be the mushrooms ...

lucid dreaming — 180 Proof

I've had some oblique experience with that, but mostly when I was younger. Man, what a trip! I want to grab that and hold on, but my brain will even fuck that up and start thinking about it while it's happening. :lol: I've only had one out of body experience, where I looked down at myself in bed. I wanted to pursue that and bought a book but I lack the discipline. I want it all and I want it now!

Can't hold on to smoke or moonlight ... except for epiphaneous moments. Those ephemerae are the most sublime of all. "Ecstasies" I call them. I stopped chasing them (via drugs, etc) decades ago when I'd finally realized that all I have to do is, like Beckett's hobos, wait lucidly (i.e. philosophically, aesthetically, erotically ...) and keep on waiting and let the waiting itself become ecstatic. Anyway, for me at least, waiting is still thirsty work. :smirk:

keep on waiting and let the waiting itself become ecstatic. — 180 Proof

I might be able to do that! :smile:

Those ephemerae are the most sublime of all. "Ecstasies" I call them. I stopped chasing them (via drugs, etc) decades ago when I'd finally realized that all I have to do is, like Beckett's hobos, wait lucidly (i.e. philosophically, aesthetically, erotically ...) and keep on waiting and let the waiting itself become ecstatic. Anyway, for me at least, waiting is still thirsty work. :smirk: — 180 Proof

I guess you mean the moments when you feel the blood spinning in your veins, your heart beating like a bass and you feel all of yourself becoming a "life fireball" with every cell of your body smiling.

Damn drugs help for those kind of Epiphany moments. But yes, the real deal is waiting and just being. The epiphanies might be even greater then.

Waiting is being patient. And patience is a hell of a virtue.

Though I disagree that you don't need logic for living in the present. Maybe when you reach to that point you might not need it anymore. But as to get there you do need the "Logical hand" to lead you in front of the "door".

Imo, It's the most reliable way as to make yourself understand, in first place, that this is where you need to put all your effort on. To try "set your mind - self" behaving like that. When you do it well then it's very possible not to need logic anymore.

Though I disagree that you don't need logic for living in the present. — dimosthenis9

I appreciate your words though you misunderstand me. I didn't say we "don't need logic", dimo, rather logic comes before/after living in the moment and not during, that is, logical judgment ought to be like muscle memory, habitualized, e.g. in the way practiced stances and movements are habitualized in martial arts before/after sparring or realtime conflicts. Same with morality. My understanding is that we are our habits (Aristotle) and not the mere "sum of our actions" (Sartre).

dimo, rather logic comes before/after living in the moment and not during, that is, logical judgment ought to be like muscle memory, habitualized — 180 Proof

Then we agree.

Same with morality. My understanding is that we are our habits (Aristotle) and not the mere "sum of our actions" (Sartre) — 180 Proof

I would say we are both. At the end aren't our habits lead to actions? And vice versa?

Intrinsically actions are habits' way of reinforcing old habits or creating new habits.

:up:

Adam & Eve were evicted from the, ooooh!, garden of eden for disobeying. Yeah, gravity! We can fly of course but sooner or later we have to land - the easy way or the hard way.

Intrinsically actions are habits' way of reinforcing old habits or creating new habits. — 180 Proof

True. But habits are nothing else at the very end than just "repeatedly actions". It's a circle for me. Change habits and your actions will change too, change actions and your habits transform also. My theory don't really distinguish them as to be honest.

That may well be but in the process, you are engaging others in mutual caring, of which is vital in forming a community. No identification, no compassion, no community. The individual is stronger in a community than in the wilderness. Think community and collective organism.

Well the last thing I would want to be called is illogical.. if you say so. PM me your address, OP.

That may well be but in the process, you are engaging others in mutual caring, of which is vital in forming a community. No identification, no compassion, no community. The individual is stronger in a community than in the wilderness. Think community and collective organism. — boagie

Homo homini lupus.

Very close in context of nature.

Very close in context of nature. — boagie

Major O'Hara: Let’s just say our goals are temporarily aligned.

Baroness: Just for tonight.

Update

11% is the more than enough: Save the girl.

logic and emotion — Jack Cummins

effects — Jack Cummins

emotional aspects as a motivating factor — Jack Cummins

empathy or compassion — Jack Cummins

I'm not sure how this works but passion provides the drive to study/practice reason and while reason's preliminary findings suggest that passion is a hindrance, deeper analysis shows that passion can be, if managed well, a powerful ally.

Like I said elsewhere in another thread, there's a pain-joy asymmetry in morality; morality is, on the whole, negative utilitarian i.e. though happiness is important, suffering has more weightage. Misery is like a pounding migraine attack and until it's treated, doing anything else is simply out of the question.

Why does this matter?

Pain is extremely dangerous: When in pain, you can't think well (you become illogical); when you can't think well, you make (silly) mistakes; when you make (silly) mistakes, you worsen the pain...so on and so forth - a closed positive feedback loop that'll spiral out of control so fast that you wouldn't even know what hit you.

There's something illogical about morality.

When you're in a bad situation, there's no time to think (James Riley: leisure and morality); all you can manage is reflexively react, a well-considered response a distant, tempting but unreal mirage.

Suffering benumbs the mind, induces a state of torpor that utterly demotivates a person. So yeah, emotion is not always good for logic or you. At best, it's a necessary evil and at worst, it's holding us at ransom.

Compassion & empathy are emotional concepts that align with my thoughts that there's something illogical about morality. These concepts are meaningless in the absence of pain and, as I explained above, pain is at the heart of morality and where there's pain, there's no logic.

That's an interesting point you make about pain and suffering. However, I am not sure to what extent one may become illogical as a result of pain or lack of pleasure. It may go either way with pain having a detrimental effect on thinking or it could go in the opposite direction with it enabling a person to get to a newer and higher level that logic as a person searches in greater depth. This may apply more to emotional pain because it can bring about a challenge to the ego and lead a person to connect more with others' suffering through empathy. What do you think?

Morality is a general philosophy theorum, what we ought do is not moral, it's literal, but why we ought do, anything, is a general philosophy theory of morality.

Buy food, to eat.
Buy food, to eat, it's good.
Buy food, to eat, to save yourself from starvation.
Buy food, to eat, to save yourself from starvation, it's good.
... Add it's good.

Truthfully we subtract goodness in commands, in philosophical analysis. Trying to teach someone to be moral may be effective but the word good is a pseudo.

It may go either way — Jack Cummins

QUIET PLEASE!
EXAM IN PROGRESS!

I am glad that I don't have to do any exams. They really could go either way. I particularly hated multiple choices and preferred essays because it allowed for more fuzzy logic.