"That which is hateful to you, do not do to anyone."
~Hillel the Elder

↪darthbarracuda Easy enough to understand. — 180 Proof

Only intellectually. Hard to live by, especially by those who deny accountability.

Since ethics concerns itself at least in part with daily decisions and behavior, should a criteria of an ethical system be that it is simple and easy-to-understand? Should we expect an ethical system to provide not just a theoretical but also a pragmatic guide to life? — darthbarracuda

Isn't it as simple as personal accountability based on compassion (com + patti). Which cannot be expected from people.

That being said, will be seeing ya around.Nice chatting.

Copy that!

The Socratic call for self-examination serves a two-fold purpose then:


1. Make us aware of the problem - people are dumping stuff on us

2. Rationality is recommended to separate the wheat from the chaff

Becoming aware of a problem is the very first step towards a solution. Now that you've unplugged me too from The Matrix as it were, I at the very least have a choice on what kinda "garbage" I want to accept or reject. Come to think of it, actual garbage cans and dumpsites are very selective when it comes what we can put into them: Dry, Wet, Biohazard, Chemical, Plastic, Metal, Paper, Nuclear, so on. Interesting! — TheMadFool

That's easy. Any choice from the trashcan/garbage will simply be more trash. This is rather simple logic isn't it. A choice born of trash can only be a trash-y choice. So it's better to throw that choice back into the trash can.

↪skyblackThis is news to me. Not good news, bad news. Oh well, nobody said life was easy.

The antenna that thinks it can capture and separate the signal from the noise is deluding itself
— skyblack

I have similar thoughts about what Socrates said,

The unexamined life is not worth living.
— Socrates

I would love to examine myself but that would be futile because any bias I have will find its way into my self-report, effectively making the endeavor pointless. It would be like checking the accuracy of my watch with my watch - circulus in probando. To judge my judgment I have to believe in my judgment but that's precisely what I'm judging. By the way, what about rationality? Doesn't rationality improve the situation because even if it doesn't get to the truth, it seems capable of identifying bad ideas. That's an improvement, no?

As you will have already noticed, I didn't get to the point when one realizes that all my thoughts are actually not "original" (more on this below), just copies of preexisting memes that were/are circulating in the global community. Thus, it can be said, my unique self is but a collection of snippets of other people, unique yes but something to be proud about, no!

Just out of curiosity, how does your theory deal with originality - something that can be called one's own? If I have an oirignal idea, something no one's ever thought before, is it also garbage? Can't be because it wasn't "dumped" on me. Being one of a kind in this manner does seem to weaken your position because you could be a pioneer/pathfinder/trailblazer/founder and establish your unique self without rummaging through the trash other people have dumped on you. My hunch is that's why there's literally a mad scramble to be first in all manner of human activities. It gives the generic self good reason(s) to claim a unique self that's not simply a relation to an other. I'm not certain about this though, at least not as much as I'd like to be. — TheMadFool

Your thoughts about Socrates may not be accurate. Upon closer look you may find Socrate's call is to examine, unlike the antenna that thinks it knows. The former centers on a healthy inquiry,
and the the latter in a delusion of knowing.

Regarding your own examination of yourself: Then one has to examine what right examination means. Not give up on account of faulty reasoning or an aversion to accountability. .

Now, the sum total of all the dumpings in the trash can is the "Self " as you (and others) know it. That's the "unique self" you were mentioning earlier.

Ah! So you think people are dumping ideas, like we dump garbage, on each other? I'm only half-convinced because the analogy seems to break down once you consider the fact that ideas & relations come in two flavors - good and bad. I can understand bad ideas & relations as items you can stick a post-it notes which read "trash can", to be disposed of at the earliest but, what about good ideas & relations? Shouldn't good ideas & relations be appreciated from the heart and kept as far away from the grabage can as possible?

That said, I do see where you're coming from. The signal to noise ratio is so damned low that coming across a good idea or relation is going to be a once in a blue moon event. Good point! — TheMadFool

Well. people and society dump more than ideas, surely! Keep in mind the dumpers are your parents, your peers, your relationships, your schools, your work place, your boss, your wife, your children, the people posting here, so on and so forth. Ideas are the least of our worries! What you ought to be concerned about is how conditioning gets dumped. Racial, social,, economic, religious, political, ideological, affiliations and narratives all get dumped. The average person has nothing of their own! Everything has either been dumped or borrowed. The measure of “good and bad” is done by the particular conditioning a person is conditioned by, therefore that measure has either been dumped or borrowed (which is also part of the dump).

You are quite right about the signal to noise ration. You know what’s even funnier? The antenna that thinks it can capture and separate the signal from the noise is deluding itself. As that antenna is part of the dump. It’s a trash-y antenna, incapable of accurate measurement. However all is not lost, once in a blue moon is god enough! (no need to be greedy)

@TheMadFool

I wouldn't have noticed that error had you not brought it up. Thanks ;-)

Let me correct the original post from above, The correction is emboldened:

The generic self (whatever that is) won't know "sadness". It never has and it never will. It's not possible for it to feel sad. And it's not possible for it to feel lonely. It has never recognized any "other". It's full, complete. and in prefect order unto itself. All these "feelings are of the unique self (as you call it). And this unique self isn't really that unique. Think of it as a social construct, a garbage bin of society. — skyblack

Excuse me there was a typo in

"The unique self (whatever that is) won't know "sadness". It never has and it never will. It's not possible for it to feel sad. And it's not possible for it to feel lonely."

Please read "unique self" as "generic self"!

Nothing seems amiss. — TheMadFool

Well something was amiss when you objected to me saying,

"The unique self (whatever that is) won't know "sadness". It never has and it never will. It's not possible for it to feel sad. And it's not possible for it to feel lonely."

and tried to refute it with the mother's sob example. I had to straighten that. After straightening, yes, nothing is amiss.

Can you elaborate a bit? I didn't quite get you. — TheMadFool

It's isn't that difficult. please take a minute to read this and coiuple of realted posts on the same thread.

As a side note, the distinction between a generic self and a unique self goes back to thousands of years, It's nothing new.

But the point is, one cannot start one's inquiry from that premise. That would be called a bias. The existence or the lack of any generic self has to be discovered at the end of the inquiry, and has to be supported by some reasoned evidence.

Are you saying a mother's sobs when she gets that dreaded phone call letting her know the only son she has was KIA isn't real? You're kidding right?

As for the self being a "...social construct..." I agree insofar as relations are included in it, the best-case scenario being "...social constructs..." boil down to relations. — TheMadFool

The mother's sobs are real, but they aren't the sobs of the "generic self". They are the sobs of the "unique self".

Your agreement or disagreement doesn't mean much to me ,so feel free. But my emphasis was on the "garbage bin", not on the "social construct".

The unique self (whatever that is) won't know "sadness". It never has and it never will. It's not possible for it to feel sad. And it's not possible for it to feel lonely. It has never recognized any "other". It's full, complete. and in prefect order unto itself. All these "feelings are of the unique self (as you call it). And this unique self isn't really that unique. Think of it as a social construct, a garbage bin of society.

@Jack Cummins

People/the serious, who have asked such questions are known for the price they have paid to find out. They are known to give up the crutches of security and comfort, that we can't seem to live without. Questions like these surely require more than a superficial curiosity. Not the cup o tea of washed up, burdened, corrupted, neurotic, reactionary minds ( not pointing to you, but to whom the shoe fits). These things can't be approached by medicated, drugged/alcohol, sloppy, idle people with food dripping on their shirts, while they are sitting on a recliner watching TV, as an exmaple.

I think that the question 'who am I?' is indeed central to psychology and philosophy, but I do believe that it can be asked on many levels. It may appear to be a superficial question of identity, but I also believe that it goes much deeper. It involves questions about ego identity, and what lies behind the surface. How do we differentiate ourselves as individuals? — Jack Cummins

It does go much deeper. I was teasing.

You may say what's the fuss about, but I would be interested to know how you see the idea of the self. It may be seen as a psychological idea, but it does figure as an aspect of philosophy too. — Jack Cummins

I am sure you do. smile

What are you? What am i? What are people? Is that the question? Aren't we our violence, our envy, jealousy, pettiness, vanity, arrogance etc.? Or do you think there is a self that's not part of all that?

Why fuss over the self? After all it's just the self. smile

Well, the way our body understands emotions is through chemicals and hormones. — Kinglord1090

Sounds like someone did their homework and educated themselves on some biology. Good for ya.

So your decision to "close" the thread, is well-timed. It's time you saw the absurdity of what you were proposing in the OP, and in your subsequent posts.

The system won't work on those who prefer to lose their reputation. ;-) They actually work towards that end. Then the fun of slapping yellowbelly wannabe bullies and scat loving trolls is doubled. Perhaps another way of looking at it is, any value in approvals from the valueless, has no value. But maybe your efforts are apprenticed by some.

You and others might be pulling at a different feather of the same bird.

All my replies so far have been either based on logic and reason or been educated guesses. — Kinglord1090

Yes, that's the point, You are guessing. While i am talking about your so called scientific facts.Not sure if there are any biologists in this forum, but if there are then perhaps they can educate you on the evidence that comes from biology. Actually you can start by watching some videos of Robert Sapolsky called the Stanford classes, if you wish.

As to "succeeding" in debate...well, what can i say, other than to point to my posting history. This is about the longest i have engaged with anyone. That kind of thing (succeeding) may be important to you but has as much value as TP for me. I think i have had enough for now. Carry on my friend.

lol

And the evidence is, you have no choice over emotions. Emotions trump over "intelligence". This is straight from biology and related sciences.

I wouldnt mind if you dont believe in science or dont share the same opinions as me.
However, saying science is ever-changing seems contradictory, as science believes there to be a single non-changing answer for everything.
Apart from that, I guess we have reached an impasse, as I cant simply let all evidences collected by millions of years of research by scientists go to waste. — Kinglord1090

No one is asking you to. Go with what your gods of biology have proved so far. Stay with the evidence. Don't make up your own BS.

And to add, i suspect, everything i have said above about the consciousness of the heart and the fundamental nature of emotions can be corroborated by your gods of science.

TO continue from the previous post:

If you are a faithful follower of science then you ought to know, biology has quite clearly established that emotions are the foundation for behavior. It's much quicker than your so called "thinking ability". In fact according to the science of biology you do NOT have any free will. You have NO choice to pick and chose, or to stop your emotions. It's silly to think you can control emotions. It doesn't even match our everyday reality.

So before you give out advice such as "Please read the quote carefully", it might be best to understand that your comprehension is limited by your thought. I am not being mean here. Just stating a fact.

I dont know where the part of science came in as, science know that the heart, in fact doesnt have consciousness or the ability to think.
If we take heart as a metaphor for emotions, then science still doesnt agree that emotions are required to find truth.
Please read the quote carefully.

"The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of... We know the truth not only by the reason, but by the heart"
— skyblack
Pascal used the words very carefully by saying, 'We know the truth not only by reason, but by the heart.'
It does not say that, in order to find truth, emotions are necessary, only that it has been useful in achieving it, so far.
He doesnt state that emotions are required to find out the truth, only that it is a viable tool in doing so, an alternate way, if you will.

Pascal once said, "The understanding and the feelings are moulded by intercourse; the understanding and feelings are corrupted by intercourse. Thus good or bad society improves or corrupts them. It is, then, all-important to know how to choose in order to improve and not to corrupt them; and we cannot make this choice, if they be not already improved and not corrupted. Thus a circle is formed, and those are fortunate who escape it."
Meaning, if somehow everything doesn't go right, tht is if violence still continues to be a thing, it would from an unbreakable circle, and the only one fortunate enough to break out of it would make the choice to die rather than live in such a world. — Kinglord1090

The part on science was intended for the worshipers of science, not at you. Unless you are such an worshiper, are you? Maybe this post of yours:

Kinglord1090
2
Science begs to differ.
If we go to the root of all emotions and desires, we are not that different from robots.

I believe that emotions and desires don't define us, our intelligence does.
A murderer has reasons to do crime, he did it because of his desire to kill or emotion.
Whereas if he just used logic, he would have come to the conclusion of killing someone. — Kinglord1090

indicates you are one but I am not sure of it.

Yes, I do not buy the authority of science in these matters, so I will let you blindly accept what science says or doesn’t. You are welcome to a be a faithful follower of an ever-changing god called science.

That being said, common sense tells me the heart is just as much conscious and intelligent as the brain, if not more so. Common sense/common knowledge tells me, the heart’s intricate pathways and responses (to and fro) to electrical impulses/messages from the rest of the body is still being investigated. The consciousness of the brain, which you are pointing to in your very first statement, with the seeming authority of a faithful believer of science, is a petty expression of consciousness as whole. It is a superficial consciousness of thought/thinking, and you have said so (ability to think). However the consciousness of the heart goes much deeper than linguistic/thought. Truth be told it doesn’t give a rats ass to your linguistic/thought capacity. It’s consciousness is finely tuned to the core of life, and it’s function over a span of approx. 80 years is a testament to it’s intelligence and fine crafting, unparalleled by anything created by the god of science. If this “thought consciousness”/ you/ we weren’t this stupid then it could run for 100 years without ‘missing a beat’. You feel that? In fact your pinkie might have more consciousness and intelligence than your “thinking ability”. Because, we have ruined our thinking ability. I could go on but let me stop here and go to something else. TBC:

But it's more like common sense.

Dear ole Pascal correctly noted, "The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of... We know the truth not only by the reason, but by the heart", which is supported by science (for all ya science worshipers).

Form the profile picture it seems Chicken shit seems to confused about her gender now.

That's why i stared by saying "copy cat", there ya go. Now choke on that evidence.

chicken shit alert @180 Proof

im doing a great job at debunking you guys

you just dont know it yet, cuz your a slow learner lol — MikeListeral

I know you're slow, kitty kat, Otherwise you would have noticed yours truly stands alone ( not part of a you guys). Now come back to daddy when he isn't busy, huh.

What do you get when you invoke religion's invisible forces? — Banno

No skin in the game, but just for the heck of it, you will get the peace that passeth all understanding, if you are lucky. Then you may not have to live and die like a dog, that get's kicked around by the very same things/people that you beg to invoke. But again, i have no investments in this...

Yes, you seem to be doing a great job educating yourself. Glad to be of help.

Copy Cat

It's ok though...

and to you as well.

welcome back

WB