When you or Joshs talk about guilt in this way it is much the same as claiming that a tool such as a knife is inherently evil, and imputing bad motives to everyone who uses knives. — Leontiskos

Guilt serves a function. Sometimes it triggers functionally, sometimes it misfires.
But ultimately, it is, like a knife. And in that context, you are correct, it has no inherent value beyond function.

This, I submit, applies not just to all tools of morality-ethics, but to all words, thoughts, ideas. They have neither inherent value, nor is there necessarily inherent value in what they purport to represent; nor, and especiallythis, do they import value upon their users.

There is only used functionally, thus settled upon (believed) or dysfunctionally, thus modified or abandoned.

And all of these, temporarily, cyclically, perpetually, and autonomously (as in not under the direction of any central agent including any so called Subject).

Hence there is no (absolute) right or wrong in our concepts etc., and the OP is correct, a body should follow its "heart." [Albeit, alas, that final imperative, too, is empty and fleeting].

...my intrinsic nature... — T Clark

What's that, then?

I ought say yes to be consistent, but I feel like saying no?

Yes, our actions are what it's all about.

But I somehow want to prioritize "listening" as an action. Or togetherness. I'd say that our being-with is prior to our Dasein, tho Dasein is more accessible -- tho terribly close and thereby needing exposition -- something something Levinas lol. (or Sartre)

In terms of morals and talking about morals and ethics and talking about ethics -- I think Sartre provides a good ontology for us.

And Levinas provides a good text to reflect upon: we are all an infinity and our everyday interactions are the face-to-face, at least after ethical puberty. (meaning, it's easy to sling statements together and even live by them, but becoming a truly ethical person requires hearing others and changing yourself even though it feels like you ought not to)

But I somehow want to prioritize "listening" as an action. Or togetherness. I'd say that our being-with is prior to our Dasein, tho Dasein is more accessible -- tho terribly close and thereby needing exposition -- something something Levinas lol. (or Sartre) — Moliere

The pendulum swings between two poles: understanding and judgment (I got this from cabbalism, ha!) If I fall deeply toward understanding, then I eventually lose the ability to judge. I see it all. I understand why the Nazis did that, and how Stalin never meant to become what he was, and so on. I see all the biology and culture and twists of fate that produce the villain. I can't punish, because the only difference between him and me is that fate was kinder in my case.

On the deep end of judgement, I've closed the door to any further understanding. I know all I need to know to condemn. And I'm righteous. I stood up for the cause. And I have no mercy.

We partake of both sides. Understanding tempers judgment. There are those who have hearts of stone. For whatever reason, all they can do is condemn everyone and everything. Then there are those who can only welcome understanding and they become bumps on logs. I think maybe that these two kinds of characters balance one another. If you're all judgment, that's what you bring to society: the will to act. If you're all understanding, that's what you bring to your world: mercy.

This image came to me one time, it was a dragon that flies blindly, destroying. Mercy is a dove that has the power to put a mirror in front of the dragon so it can see itself. The two are eternally bound.

I'm not even sure that behaving in accordance with the golden rule will arise automatically when I live in accordance with my inner nature. — T Clark

That's ok. :smile:

I can't punish, because the only difference between him and me is that fate was kinder in my case. — frank

Judgment is necessary. But is punishment? Is it even useful? Might it not be enough to stop the destructive person, and if you can't rehabilitate him, kill him - quickly, efficiently, painlessly if at all possible. For less egregious offenses than devastating countrysides and exterminating populations, there might be other, less drastic remedies: rehabilitation should at least be attempted.
Then, there are destructive behaviours that go unpunished, because no law, no judgment can touch the perpetrators.

On intrinsic nature.

The temptation to say "I see it like this", pointing to the same thing for "it" and "this". Always get rid of the idea of the private intrinsic nature in this way: assume that it constantly changes, but that you do not notice the change because your memory constantly deceives you.

Let us imagine the following case. I want to write about my intrinsic nature. To this end I associate my intrinsic nature with the sign "S" ——I will remark first of all that a definition of the sign cannot be formulated.—But still I can give myself a kind of ostensive definition.—How? Can I point to my intrinsic nature? Not in the ordinary sense. But I speak, or write the sign down, and at the same time I concentrate my attention on my intrinsic nature — and so, as it were, point to it inwardly.—But what is this ceremony for? For that is all it seems to be! A definition surely serves to establish the meaning of a sign.—Well, that is done precisely by the concentrating of my attention; for in this way I impress on myself the connexion between the sign and the sensation.—But "I impress it on myself" can only mean: this process brings it about that I remember the connexion right in the future. But in the present case I have no criterion of correctness. One would like to say: whatever is going to seem right to me is right. And that only means that here we can't talk about 'right'.


(Paraphrasing Investigations).

- This is a worthy critique, but has already implied that if your "intrinsic nature" recommends serial murder then you should go ahead and be a serial killer. Presumably this "intrinsic nature" is no more bound by the law of non-contradiction than a prohibition against murder. Here is T Clark's quote in full:

---

And if your intrinsic nature is a serial killer? — Philosophim

Several others on this thread have made similar comments. I've responded with this quote from "Self-Reliance." — T Clark

I remember an answer which when quite young I was prompted to make to a valued adviser, who was wont to importune me with the dear old doctrines of the church. On my saying, What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within? my friend suggested,--"But these impulses may be from below, not from above." I replied, "They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil." No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it. — Emerson - Self-Reliance

Again, we're social animals; we like each other; we want to be around each other. But there is no requirement that this be so. And I've tried to make it clear that Taoism rejects consideration of "the order of the societal whole" as a proper guide to behavior. — T Clark

Strictly speaking this is only true beyond a certain point in juvenile development. We require nurturing. I do find a lot of eastern mysticism has a habit of being interpreted as things happening in a Void of sorts.

btw how does Chuang Tzu differ from Lao Tzu? I've only read the latter extensively.

Good points, I agree.

I don't see the point you're making with this reference except that Emerson seems to "morally" excuse e.g. antisocial psychopathy ... almost as Heideggerian / Sartrean (romantic) "authenticity". — 180 Proof

Sorry, I overlooked this response previously.

I don't see how it is an excuse when I don't recognize the legitimacy of your moral judgment against me. Or, looking at it a different way, nothing I have written immunizes me from having to face the consequences of my actions, no matter what their motivation.

I think it starts around age 10. — Vera Mont

I think I would say it starts much later than that, perhaps in middle age, long after they have "worked out an ethical system for themselves" and have become dissatisfied. In reality, it could probably start any time, but for many of us, age provides us with freedom for contemplation.

Not necessarily. Yes, if they were indoctrinated in a strict religious dogma. It's a very hard struggle for them. But children who have been gradually given more autonomy, and opportunities to exercise good judgment, sportsmanship, altruism, deferred gratification, disciplined pursuit of goals, etc. can make the transition to reliable self-governance without too many ructions. — Vera Mont

In my understanding, and I think Chuang Tzu's and Lao Tzu's, any socially influenced "reliable self-governance," no matter how benign, will result in us losing sight of our intrinsic virtuosities. Whenever we act to gain a benefit - love, approval, success - or avoid a negative consequence - guilt, shame, punishment - we lose our way.

So have other philosophers, sages, shamans and prophets. — Vera Mont

I read other philosophers not in order to be shown what to think, but rather to get their help becoming aware of and putting into words things I am already capable of seeing. I use Chuang Tzu's, Lao Tzu's, and Emerson's words because they describe, maybe better than I can, things I can see are true.

The pendulum swings between two poles: understanding and judgment (I got this from cabbalism, ha!) If I fall deeply toward understanding, then I eventually lose the ability to judge. I see it all. I understand why the Nazis did that, and how Stalin never meant to become what he was, and so on. I see all the biology and culture and twists of fate that produce the villain. I can't punish, because the only difference between him and me is that fate was kinder in my case. — frank

When I first read that, I thought it said "cannibalism."

As for Nazi's and Communists, I would ask what course makes for the most effective response to their behaviors? Understanding is clearly required.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” — Sun Tzu, The Art of War

As for judgment, if I call my enemy "evil," "monster," "inhuman," what value does that provide? As far as I can see, and I see it everywhere in the world, all it does is distract from the most effective response.

Judgment is necessary. But is punishment? — Vera Mont

A good question.

your moral judgment against me — T Clark

I have not stated or implied any "moral judgment against" you or anyone in the current discussion. I've only taken issue with your concepts and conception of moral philosophy for being uselessly vague and arbitrary.

Strictly speaking this is only true beyond a certain point in juvenile development. We require nurturing. — I like sushi

It's hard to say if I agree with that. The texts I've read are all aimed at mature adults.

I do find a lot of eastern mysticism has a habit of being interpreted as things happening in a Void of sorts. — I like sushi

I'm not sure what you mean.

btw how does Chuang Tzu differ from Lao Tzu? I've only read the latter extensively. — I like sushi

I've been reading and rereading Lao Tzu for a long time, but only recently got around to Chuang Tzu. It was really eye-opening. It really helped clarify my understanding of what Lao Tzu wrote. I felt right at home. Strong recommendation if you're interested.

People say that only what are called the "inner chapters," the first seven chapters, are authentic, but I found the rest of them very helpful too.

I have not stated or implied any "moral judgment against" you or anyone in the current discussion. I've only taken issue with your concepts and conception of moral philosophy for being uselessly vague and arbitrary. — 180 Proof

I think you've misunderstood my point. I know you weren't judging me for the positions I was describing. When I wrote:

I don't see how it is an excuse when I don't recognize the legitimacy of your moral judgment against me. Or, looking at it a different way, nothing I have written immunizes me from having to face the consequences of my actions, no matter what their motivation. — T Clark

I was talking about how you might judge my behavior in a situation where you thought I was doing wrong.

And if your intrinsic nature is a serial killer?
— Philosophim

Several others on this thread have made similar comments. I've responded with this quote from "Self-Reliance." — T Clark

The quote didn't answer my question. The problem is you're likely a good person already, so have no qualms with believing in yourself. I'm talking about people who aren't good people. Good on you if you haven't encountered many, but their nature is nothing you ever want to bump into.

The quote didn't answer my question. — Philosophim

I think it does, although you might not like the answer.

The problem is you're likely a good person already, so have no qualms with believing in yourself. — Philosophim

You seem to be assuming I am not self-aware enough to recognize my own motivations. I'm certainly not perfect - I'm still subject to fear, shame, anxiety, pride - but on questions of how I treat others, I think I see clearly. You can doubt that, but that sort of ends the discussion.

I'm talking about people who aren't good people. — Philosophim

I have been explicit that I am describing my personal philosophy. If a bad person takes up Chuang Tzu as justification, we'll have to ask them about it.

In my understanding, and I think Chuang Tzu's and Lao Tzu's, any socially influenced "reliable self-governance," no matter how benign, will result in us losing sight of our intrinsic virtuosities. Whenever we act to gain a benefit - love, approval, success - or avoid a negative consequence - guilt, shame, punishment - we lose our way. — T Clark

To me "intrinsic virtuosities." is problematic, if not suspect. How do you tell intrinsic from extrinsic? How does your heart sort out the sentiments you've learned and internalized from the ones you extrapolated from all the stuff you've experienced, learned and internalized? How do you trace the origin of all your ideas, ideals, convictions and beliefs? How do you decide which is a virtuosity, which is a conceit and which is a delusion?
I have some recollection of how I came by my present convictions, and they differ very little from the ones I held at age 15, 20, 30 and 45. Really, the only difference is my ability to articulate and advocate for them.

To me "intrinsic virtuosities." is problematic, if not suspect. — Vera Mont

To be blunt, why should I worry about your problems with and suspicions about my ideas. I'm not asking you to endorse them or change your own understanding of morality.

How do you tell intrinsic from extrinsic? How does your heart sort out the sentiments you've learned and internalized from the ones you extrapolated from all the stuff you've experienced, learned and internalized? How do you trace the origin of all your ideas, ideals, convictions and beliefs? How do you decide which is a virtuosity, which is a conceit and which is a delusion? — Vera Mont

First off, I haven't discussed the source of intrinsic virtuosities. I don't say that they are all inborn and are unaffected by things I have experienced. I usually fall back on general statements about humans as social animals who like each other and want to be around each other.

As for how I recognize my own intrinsic virtuosity - self-awareness. Before I became interested in Taoism I was very self-aware of my own motivations. That's not the same as saying I wasn't also subject to social convention, e.g. fear, pride, shame, etc. Recognition is much easier than overcoming. As I said to another poster earlier in this thread, if you doubt that explanation, there really isn't much else for us to discuss. I've always said that everything Lao Tzu wrote can be boiled down to one declaration - pay attention.

I'm not sure what you mean. — T Clark

We can leave that for a another day. Too much of a tangent.

People say that only what are called the "inner chapters," the first seven chapters, are authentic, but I found the rest of them very helpful too. — T Clark

I will have to give it go. Someone I know mentioned it a few years back in a very positive light - I actually bought the book for them when they asked me to buy them 'something interesting'. I have only read snippet of it a long time ago.

Many inauthentic texts are useful. The Hermetica is one I found to be an intriguing read. Even though it has been shown to be a 'fake' of sorts it still has some interesting lines of thought in it.

But in the present case I have no criterion of correctness. One would like to say: whatever is going to seem right to me is right. And that only means that here we can't talk about 'right'. — Banno

Several others on this thread have made similar comments. I've responded with this quote from "Self-Reliance." — T Clark

Banno is right. What you are proposing is not normative in any way, and therefore it has nothing to do with morality. "Do whatever feels right to you," offers no real measure for others or for oneself to understand better or worse courses of action. How could this be called morality?

Many inauthentic texts are useful. — I like sushi

When they say it's inauthentic, they just mean they don't think it was written by Chuang Tzu himself. Even so, it was roughly contemporaneous and I find it completely consistent with what Lao Tzu wrote. Again - strongly recommended.

What you are proposing is not normative in any way, and therefore it has nothing to do with morality. "Do whatever feels right to you," offers no real measure for others or for oneself to understand better or worse courses of action. How could this be called morality? — Leontiskos

My ideas on motivations for my behavior have nothing to do with anyone else. As I've tried to make clear, and which you seem to have ignored, I have not claimed any amnesty from facing the consequences of my own actions. As for my own understanding, I don't need to satisfy you. Or Banno.

As for my own understanding, I don't need to satisfy you. Or Banno. — T Clark

You sort of do, given that this is a philosophy forum and all:

Don't start a new discussion unless you are:

a) Genuinely interested in the topic you've begun and are willing to engage those who engage you. — TPF Site Guidelines

To be blunt, why should I worry about your problems with and suspicions about my ideas. — T Clark

Because this is a philosophy forum, not your private diary. You wrote a whole thread on your ideas, and a philosophy forum is by definition a place where people engage the ideas you present.

You sort of do, given that this is a philosophy forum and all: — Leontiskos

No, I have some obligation to respond to your arguments civilly. Which I have done. That's it. I'm not responsible for convincing you, although I have tried at least to explain my ideas to you clearly.

Because this is a philosophy forum, not your private diary...You wrote a whole thread on your ideas, and a philosophy forum is by definition a place where people engage the ideas you present. — Leontiskos

And I have engaged with all my respondents, including you, as thoroughly as I could. I've tried to be clear and respectful of others ideas. You just happen to disagree with what I've written. That often happens in philosophy discussions.

I think you and I have reached the end of our discussion.

I don't disagree, but I am trying to make a stronger statement - what we call "moral" isn't about good and bad, right and wrong, it's about greasing the social skids. — T Clark

Morality definitely isn't inherently about what's "good and bad" and it's heavily tied to pragmatic factors necessitated thanks to the logic of morality needing to conclude that rules benefit the group. This can serve an important function in keeping groups united and coordinated. as an example, I can compare a children's football club to a semi-professional club.

For the children's football club, as it's less serious, parents mightn't want the coach to be too harsh on the players and they may expect every player to get a good amount of playing time. In the semi-professional club, everyone wants to win and is willing to submit to much harsher coaching and discipline, to let possession/play time be determined by merit and etc. If a player is slacking off, his teammates could get upset with him because it's a betrayal of the team's motivations and expectations. If one wants to be part of a serious football club, then they need everyone involved to be on board with that, or it doesn't happen. Morality exists in situations where we require others to act in a specific way in order to get what we want.

Another reason why morality isn't just "right and wrong" is that morality is rules for the group, for the benefit of the group, but only your group. Morality can facilitate cruelty and tyranny in this way.

Still, to disavow this process is kind of like refusing to vote in a democracy. Voting still happens, the process continues as normal, all that was achieved was the forfeiting of the opportunity to have a say. There'll never be enough people refusing to vote that'll make a difference either, politics is inevitable.

It seems to me that you're advocating for the superiority of this "intrinsic" morality as a replacement for the "coercive" morality, and I can't agree with that. I do want to live under a set of group conditions that I see as the best for everyone and I'm willing to do "evil" to get it. A good example of this would be cheating. Cheating hurts the enjoyment of everyone playing the game, I dislike it and so I'll help support and enforce many countermeasures against cheaters. I couldn't care less about the cheater's reasons or what they have to say about it. First I'll try to persuade, then if that doesn't work then I'll make ultimatums, threats and whatever else I can do. I'm also likely to get upset with people who sit by and say nothing, or worse, oppose me, thereby defending the cheating offender.

It's important to recognise that for many such acts, even 1% of the group is more than sufficient to be disruptive and adversely affect the rest. While it can seem almost like bullying for the majority to push these outliners back into line, it is in fact necessary to do. To "live and let live" and only be guided by your own moral principles is unacceptable. There are times where one must stand up for the conditions that benefit the group.

But in the present case I have no criterion of correctness. — Banno

This is pretty much Kripkenstein. You just need to apply the principle to historic rule following.

For Emerson, it wasn't a wishy washy situation. Around 3-5% of America's white population were abolitionists, and Emerson was in that tiny minority. He was surrounded by people who were afraid that a racially diverse society would crumble. His advice, which has been passed down for generations was; think for yourself.