As yes well, I feel apologies are in order. Sorry if I offended.↪Chet Hawkins I don't think I've taken up a side of chaos or wallowing -- just the same old boring technique of reading the books, thinking about them, talking about them with others, and rethinking about them, and retalking about them, and . . . :D — Moliere
This 'mitigation of the ways' (to reflect out) is important. An unambiguous language, seemingly impossible, would help.Plato's a deep thinker and there's always a way to reflect out towards another, more charitable interpretation. — Moliere
So you support accidental progress, random progress, amid chaos. You are leaning then desire side in my model, wallowing in worthlessness, making too much of it by choice.But it seems a popular image, at least -- the Rational Being Controlling Emotion. The Charioteer Guiding. There's a part of the image that I like -- that one is along for the ride -- — Moliere
Yes, clearly. The fear-sided approach to reality is Pragmatic and proud, wallowing in JUST AS MUCH pride and worthiness as the chaos side does wallow in worthlessness (like you just did).but the part that I do not like is the idea of a charioteer choosing. Taken literally it's a homuncular fallacy -- we explain the mind by assuming a minded person within the mechanism of the mind. — Moliere
Myth is real. What about myth is not real?Plato himself doesn't commit this, I don't believe -- it's a myth, for crying out loud! All of Plato is mythic! — Moliere
Yes, blind fools abound.But look to the popularity of the stoics to see how popular the image of the Rational Man Controlling His Emotions is. — Moliere
How can one make sense of this? If one DOES contradict the other, then the alternative account has indeed been made. If there is no contradiction offered and only negation with no reason, then this could be almost right. It still fails because the meaning of the words used is not, in general OR in specific, quite accurate.When people on TPF and elsewhere contradict others for pages on end without giving any alternative account of their own, they are engaged in a dubious practice. — Leontiskos
And these realizations are meaningless because no such world exists. This one is alive in every way. All parts of it start with and cannot escape free will. They are all possessed of aims linking to all aims, towards the ultimate aim, perfection. It is only our lack of perfection that in every way suggests otherwise, encourages delusions like identity and 'alive'.We want to be the best person and live the best life possible. At the same time, goodness always relates to the whole, to unity. No doubt, we can usefully predicate "good" of events, but this goodness is parasitic on things. There is no good or bad in a godless world without any organisms (anything directed by aims). You can't have goodness without wholes with aims. — Count Timothy von Icarus
This is fairly nonsensical.The predication vis-á-vis some good event has to be analagous because nothing can be "good for an event." The event is good or bad for some thing, according to its measure. - Moliere — Count Timothy von Icarus
The obvious answer is yes. That is to say, all (or both in this limited case).In the 19th century there were many competing theories of heat and electromagnetism. There was phlogiston, caloric, aether, etc. Are we best of returning to the specific, isolated theories, or looking at how what is good in each can be unified? — Count Timothy von Icarus
Progress that is not moral is delusional (not really progress).You might say "but the natural sciences are different, they make progress." And I would agree. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Yes, the delusions of specifics pretend to allow progress, and can, if and only if that progress is LATER related to other progress which readdress ALL. 'Filling out the space' of immorality seems to be required to accept morality (as objective).It's easier to make progress when one studies less general principles. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Well, naming the study of the highest skill within reality is a GOOD idea, but naming it will not change it, because it is objective (truth).Yet they don't always make progress. Recall the Nazi's "Aryan physics" or Stalin's "communist genetics." The natural sciences can backslide into bad ideas and blind allies. It is easier for philosophy to do so. — Count Timothy von Icarus
This supposed conflation IS NOT a conflation at all. It is trivial to understand this IF the base model of reality is correct. That is there is ... passion (desire), reason (fear), AND ... BEING (anger). Being is the IS and each emotion contains a third of ought. That is to say ought is NOT merely desire. It is most associated with desire ONLY because we experience and communicate naturally AS IF time were unidirectional. Desire is the pull of perfection upon us, upon being, coming from the past accessible via only memory (and memory includes the current state of being from which the past may also be researched). But that limited association is WRONG.I'm saying he's making an advance in ethical thinking in pointing out how is/ought frequently get conflated as if they have the same import. — Count Timothy von Icarus
That presupposition is a dangerous immorality. There are facts about what is good. It is very hard to state them because our state is not perfection and we are trying to speak on perfection.I'd say it's question begging sophistry (in precisely the way Plato frames sophistry). To make the distinction is to have already presupposed that there are not facts about what is good. — Count Timothy von Icarus
If I follow your tack here, you are suggesting that the assertion that 'there are NOT facts about what is good' was THE position that was already common by Hume's time. That means to me that the foolish and immoral confusion of subjective morality had become tempting to reason (fear) at least by Hume's time. In truth, immorality is (being) always tempting in exactly the three ways, cowardice(fear), self-indulgence(desire), and laziness(anger). If I am misunderstanding you, please let me know.Now, thanks to the theological issues I mentioned earlier in this thread, such a position was already common by Hume's time. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Yes, well, historically 'faith' has been an exercise in rampant idealism/desire and rampant fear. Left out often enough is wisdom itself. You can certainly understand why philosophy would represent a clear and present danger to religious pundits (being in essence). Clearly stating or trying to clearly state wisdom removes power from the pundits who prefer an impenetrable mystery behind which to hide (their immorality). The denigration of anger, of being, of WHAT IS, is typical of most aims at so called ideals. The tacit presumption is that there is something BASE about WHAT IS. As such, the immoral implication is that some form of desire (idealism) can get us to the right place, AWAY from this being thing. Likewise, the other large camp favors fear (pragmatism) and their cowardice presumes that near impossible seeming aspirations should be shunned, limiting what is possible to what is currently understood, rather than the infinity of truth that ACTUALLY IS, amid free will.It went along with fideism and a sort of anti-rationalism and general backlash against the involvement of philosophy in faith (and so in questions of value), all a century before Hume. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Your meaning here is unclear as the sentence structure is confusing. This is especially true for a reader that includes reason within morality, like me. So, I am forced to pick the idea apart in parts.Hume argues to this position by setting up a false dichotomy. Either passions (and we should suppose the appetites) are involved in morality or reason, but not both. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Both passion and WHAT? Reason I suppose is the other side. Correct me if I am wrong. But the trouble in the math and the model is the missing third part, anger and BEING. The correct model is a trichotomy, not a dichotomy. And that tripartite system collapses into monism quite nicely, with love, the entire system, being the monad. Again, it cannot be reiterated enough that truth, God, ALL, etc are just synonyms for love. Consciousness is just another synonym.Yet I certainly don't think he ever gives a proper explanation of why it can't be both (univocity is a culprit here of course). — Count Timothy von Icarus
Although I have read much of each of these, I confess that I take reading for what they invoke in me as ... ENOUGH ... and that I shy away from saying I understood the other. My assertions then are only a confident stand on current belief. I offer that other takes on this are just more delusion. We only ever have our current stand to assert. Even if we take the supposed position of another philosopher to stand on that is our current state, performing an AS IF with no certainty of being right.For most of the history of philosophy, the answer was always both (granted, Hume seems somewhat unaware of much past philosophy, and his successor Nietzsche seems to get his entire view of it from a particularly bad reading of the Phaedo and not much else from Plato). — Count Timothy von Icarus
Although I have had this very thought concerning reason, it is only tempting, a sure sign of immoral desire. So, this slavery thing, sort-of IN GENERAL has been shown to be immoral, yes? Do we believe that? If so, then enslaving fear seems immoral and I would assert that it is. Yes, I realize I am working with my model, and not maybe others' meanings.It's sophistry because it turns philosophy into power relations and dominance. Hume admits as much. "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions” (T 2.3. 3.4)." — Count Timothy von Icarus
It only seems like some points of view are invalid. They are part of all only so that they may suffer examination and amid being, change by reason of unhappiness/suffering as a consequence of not BEING at/with/for perfection (THE GOOD).This is Socrates fighting with Thacymachus, Protagoras, and that one guy who suggests that "justice" is "whatever we currently prefer" in the Republic (his name escapes me because he has just one line and everyone ignores him, since, were he right, even the sophists would lose, since there is no need for their services when being wrong is impossible). — Count Timothy von Icarus
Plato, again, for the win.The only difference is that now the struggle is internalized. This certainly goes along with Hume (and Nietzsche's) view of the self as a "bundle of sensations" (or "congress of souls"). Yet, Plato's reply is that this is simply what the soul is like when it is sick, morbid. — Count Timothy von Icarus
This explanation is VASTLY insufficient. The relative value of any ought is many-fold. That is to say each virtue has to weigh in on that choice. And EVERY virtue SHOULD weigh in on EVERY choice. leave even one out and you fail in that degree.Just from the point of view of the philosophy of language it seems pretty far-fetched. Imagine someone yelling:
"Your hair is on fire."
"You are going to be late for work."
"You're hurting her."
"Keep doing that and you'll break the car."
"You forgot to carry the remainder in that calculation."
"You are lying."
"You didn't do what I asked you to."
"That's illegal."
"You're going to hurt yourself doing that."
"There is a typoo in this sentence."
...or any other such statements. There are all fact claims. They are all normally fact claims people make in order to spur some sort of action, and this is precisely because the facts (generally) imply oughts. "Your hair is on fire," implies "put the fire on your head out." And such an ought is justifiable by the appetites (desire to avoid pain), passions (desire to avoid the opinions of others related to be disfigured or seen to be stupid), and reason (the desire to fullfil rationally held goals, which burning alive is rarely conducive to). — Count Timothy von Icarus
I disagree. To invoke a lack of desire, to point it out, is an attempt, which could indeed be wrong, to express the fact that what IS currently is only a state and not perfect. There is then a tacit implication of a perfect state, a non-moving goalpost, to which one may aspire. Laying out this challenge is always wise unless the assertion is that perfection is already present and represented by this state of being.At least on the classical view, the division is incoherent. There are facts about what are good or bad for us. To say "x is better than what I have/am, but why ought I seek it?" is incoherent. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Acting in 'good faith' is a sword of Damocles proposition. This is again why Deontological morality is valid and Utilitarianism is a dangerous and immoral lie. If one acts with the strength of one's convictions TOWARDS or INTENDING the GOOD, that is generally good. This is the general OUGHT. It implies a destination. I name that destination perfection, and suggest it is best to consider that an objective state.What is "truly good" is truly good precisely because it is desirable, choice-worthy, what "ought to be chosen" (of course, things can merely appear choice-worthy, just as they can merely appear true). Why should we choose the most truly choice-worthy? We might as well ask why we should prefer truth to falsity, or beauty to ugliness or why 1 is greater than 0. — Count Timothy von Icarus
This is INCORRECT reasoning.J - For the second, could you perhaps say briefly how analogous predication would apply here, in the case of what looks like two usages of "good"? It's quite possible I don't yet understand how that would work.
Short answer: just as the measure of a "good car" differs from the measure of a "good nurse" (the same things do not make them good) the measure of a "good act" or "good event" will differ from that of a "good human being" (and in this case the former are not even things, not discrete unities at all, which is precisely why focusing on them leads to things like analyzing an unending chain of consequences). — Count Timothy von Icarus
If the GOOD is properly understood, then it will be the same GOOD in every way at the same time to everything in the universe, unchanging and omnipresent.I can share a long (but still cursory) explanation when I get to my PC, but the basic idea is that "good" is said many ways. The "good" of a "good car," a "good student," and a/the "good life" are not the same thing. Yet a good car certainly relates to human well-being, as any — Count Timothy von Icarus
Agreed that at least an understanding is required, which is what measurement implies. Measure infinity! That challenge seems hard, yet we dabble in the concept.More specifically, to make these sorts of comparisons/predications requires a measure. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Indeed and this immoral act of separation is useful only amid the DENIAL of a final whole (objective). We cannot be objective. We can only TRY to be objective. Writing it that way EVERY TIME is required to be honestly trying. Be careful with assertions regarding subjectivity. "You are going to hurt yourself doing that." (ha ha)This is in Book 10 and 14 of the Metaphysics I think (and Thomas' commentaries are always helpful). Easiest way to see what a measure is it to see that to speak of a "half meter" or "quarter note" requires some whole by which the reference to multitude is intelligible. Likewise, for "three ducks" to be intelligible one must have a whole duck as the unit measure. — Count Timothy von Icarus
If it is a fundamental truth that anything is a part of everything and that there is no real live between them, then anything IS everything at some level of awareness. Unity was always true. This is the source of compassion and that is a result of the force of anger. This relationship seems counterintuitive, but it is not finally.For anything to be any thing is must have some measure of unity. — Count Timothy von Icarus
And these observations offer a staggering assertion. All fear, all separation, is delusional. This is a tautology, if the observer is wise enough. The difficulty of wisdom is thus again shown. How do we leverage this wisdom in our choices to generally increase the GOOD?We cannot even tell what the dimensive quantities related to some abstract body are unless that body is somehow set off from "everything else" (i.e., one cannot measure a white triangle on a white background—there are a lot of interesting parallels to information theory in St. Thomas). — Count Timothy von Icarus
Ah yes, the delusion of self-determination, reinforcing the delusional identity of the self. The self-made man is another hilarious immoral non-sequitur. We could go on and on. But the unity principle is that "you are me and I am you" The unity principle is that 'you are ALL and cannot be made to un-belong". You are a white triangle on a white background. And you may 'for the moment' consider the triangle or the background, but there is always finally only the whole.I think I already explained Plato's thing about how the "rule of reason" makes us more unified and self-determining (self-determining because we are oriented beyond what already are and have, beyond current beliefs and desires). — Count Timothy von Icarus
That which contains the seed of life is itself alive, obviously.Next, consider that organisms are proper beings because they have a nature, because they are the source of their own production and movement (not absolutely of course, they are not subsistent). Some non-living systems are self-organizing to some degree (and stars, hurricanes, etc. have "life cycles").The scientific literature on complexity and dissipative, self-organizing systems is decent at picking up on Aristotle here, but largely ignores later Patristic, Islamic, and medieval extensions. — Count Timothy von Icarus
This is an immoral lack of awareness. Clearly, that which contains the seed of life, is itself alive.Yet non-living things lack the same unity because they don't have aims (goal-directedness, teleonomy) unifying their parts (human institutions do). — Count Timothy von Icarus
You show the contradiction and continue as if that is ok. Is that reasonable?The goodness for organisms is tightly related to their unity. In general, it is not good for an organism to lose its unity and die. "Ok, but sometimes they do this on purpose, bees sting and stinging kills them." — Count Timothy von Icarus
Your self-contradiction without synthesis is STUNNING to behold.Exactly! Because what ultimately drives an organism is its goals. Brutes can't ask what is "truly good" but they can pursue ends that lie beyond them. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Agreed. Why is this not included though in the realization of all parts being the whole (for you, seemingly)?And note, bees sacrifice themselves because they are oriented towards the whole, just as Boethius and Socrates do. This is because goodness always relates to the whole (because of this tight relationship with unity). — Count Timothy von Icarus
This is a delusional nod back to separation and identity, itself a delusion. The only GOOD identity is ALL. You are separate from ALL only by immoral choice. The act of being and even dying is your participation in the effort to overcome all of your delusions and admit to being all in the first place by re-becoming it. What part of all will you deny is you, is to be properly included in the final all?So to return to how goodness is said in many ways, goodness is said as respect to a measure. The measure of a "good house" is a house fulfilling it ends (artifacts are a little tricky though since they lack intrinsic aims and essences; people want different things in a house). The measure of the "good duck" is the paradigmatic flourishing duck (no need to posit independent forms existing apart from particulars here BTW). — Count Timothy von Icarus
Renaming something DOES NOT change it in truth. Sophistry is still the 'art of wisdom' and that is despite the colloquial accepted definition, possibly a GOOD thing and not charlatanry.Because equivocity is so rampant in our day, essentially the norm, let's not use "good person." Let's use "excellent person." The excellent person has perfected all the human excellences, the virtues. "It is good for you to be excellent." Or "it is excellent for you to be good." In either case the measure for "you," as a human, is human excellence, flourishing. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Reason is UNLIKELY to aim at perfection. It limits us via cowardice, its typical sin. If you are a proponent of reason OVER desire or anger, you ARE being cowardly as a guarantee. If you instead DO NOT ENSLAVE reason to passion (desire), and yet admit its grounding in BEING (anger, a current state), you can begin to realize and accept the profoundly equal forces of fear, anger, and desire; the ONLY three forces that are love when combined in all permutations. This love is God and truth and ALL. They are again, synonymous terms.But because reason is transcedent, we can aim at "the best thing possible," which is to be like God. God wants nothing, lacks nothing, and fears nothing. Yet God is not indifferent to creatures, for a few reasons but the most obvious is that the "best" lack no good, and love is one of these. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Nothing is missing if it is perfection.God can also just be the rational limit case of perfection, having the best life conceivable. We might miss much in this deflation, but it still works. — Count Timothy von Icarus
There are so many launching points in this OP that it's hard to choose a start. But, time is a wasting, so, ...Why should one do that which is good? No, I don't think that good is synonymous with, "something one ought to do". For example, most people would agree that selling all your worldly possessions and donating the money to charity is something that would be good. However, that doesn't mean that one is obligated to do so. Please input into this conversation with your own takes. — Hyper
Not 'knowing' (a bad choice of words because we DO NOT 'know' things, but instead we are aware in varying degrees of things) does not have a direct relationship with things being random or determined.In this case, it is effectively random because we don't know the information. — Brendan Golledge
This 'but' is crazy. ANY precondition of perfection, in this case omniscience, requires ALL perfection. So, if you get your precondition, NOTHING ELSE need be mentioned because we are AT perfection.But if we knew all the information — Brendan Golledge
No, the randomness is NOT judged AFTER the toss. The randomness is included in HOW the chooser chooses to toss the die. You are focusing on the wrong timeframe in general. The various vagaries of choice in something as powerfully empowered as a human being is quite relevant. For example, it would be a miracle human, but not impossible, who could FEEL the divots in a die representing the pips well enough to know how the pips on the die were situated in their own closed hand. Then they need only develop a very controlled throw in roughly the same wind conditions and against similar bouncy surfaces and voila! they can 'control' chance and determine the results of the throw of the die.and if quantum mechanics didn't make a difference, then in theory, it would all be determined. This is the same way that a die is technically determined if you do the physics equations to predict how it will fall. — Brendan Golledge
I agree heartily. The 'moral' police of Iran and China are horridly immoral.So, although yes people can make choices, all of us have a valid say in every choice. And immoral choices need to be called out. So, patterns of immorality must be restrained.
— Chet Hawkins
That may be fine or horrific, depending on who defines "immoral" and what they mean by restraint. — Vera Mont
Again, I think I agree with you. No forced pregnancies. But, paying it forward as a species duty will probably not be needed much longer. Technology will eventually make artificial wombs I suspect and sooner than we think.If you mean stop people from beating and raping one another, I'm in agreement. However, forcing people to have more children than they can cherish, or than the ecosystem can support, I don't see as either moral or beneficial to society.
How did birth control turn into prisons? — Vera Mont
I mean tech is already at the level where, as Simon and Garfunkle say, 'They'd never match my sweet imagination ...' and what I mean by tech is porn or other aids that reduce that whole thing as a need. I am NOT saying I do not prefer or would not prefer an ideal real woman, but, I surely have not found even a tolerable one yet (and I am 58 years old). But most of that discussion is for another thread.In my impression, it is mostly women who complain that they "want more". It is rarely men who start the "What are we?" conversation. Men just want sex. If we can get it without putting in any effort or any money, so much the better.
— Tarskian
And, again, what has your twisted idea of the nature of men and women to do with reproductive choice? — Vera Mont
I love the latter part of your idea.Without even trying. I said a good society would let women make their own decisions as to the bearing of young. My purpose in saying so had little to do with sex and much to do with overpopulation. My naive notion of a good society is a community of self-regulating individuals who all contribute to and share in the welfare of the whole. — Vera Mont
I understand the sentiment. But I do disagree. Your take on it is quite order-centric.The history of society is one of growing degeneracy and growing depravity. You cannot even trust yourself because all of us grew up in the degenerated filth and got indoctrinated by it. The oldest record of the rules of morality is undoubtedly the most usable. You can find the oldest record of moral rules in the Torah and the Quran. — Tarskian
I tend to agree because humans have gotten tech than empowers their choice WELL BEYOND their wisdom. That means chaos will ensue for the near future and disintegrate all societies, plunging the world into more wars and such until an orderly regime rise again to assert a 'new world order'. But that is just as terrifying a specter because of the right wing over-expression of fear.In my opinion, reprogramming the biological firmware of humanity will result in something full of bugs, i.e. contradictions. The likelihood that reproduction will still be functional, is close to zero. — Tarskian
How did you two get all sexist in this disucssion?And this is your idea of a good society?
— Vera Mont
In your "good" society, you would get something for nothing. Fine, but not from me.
But then again, there are enough western men nowadays simping in the friend zone of an entitled boss babe. It is called "simpflation". The only male authority that these men have ever known is their single mother. That is why they gravitate towards bossy masculine women to duly bully them around. I am sure that you can easily find yourself that kind of feminized little man-bitch to domesticate and exploit ad libitum. If so, more power to you!
So, yes, for a lot of men, a "good society" amounts to getting the opportunity to simping around in the friend zone. I wish them all the best from SE Asia! — Tarskian
Youre failure to recognize the evidence all around you, and my valid arguments does not change their validity. You are saying nothing that argues the other way, just saying my offering has no evidence.(I believe)
The belief is all I have.
I am only really speaking of order and chaos as emotions ...
I would say that COMMON sense shows this is very true.
My belief is that the entire universe has as a rule ...
... the seemingly ephemeral 'thoughts and prayers' all have an effect.
... my model of belief suggests ...
— Chet Hawkins
You're entitled to "believe" whatever you like but these "beliefs" are not supported by either corroborable evidence or valid arguments. — 180 Proof
I can agree that we seem unable to relate well to one another. But no, I am reasoning these issues and not JUST rationalizing.You're merely rationalizing, not reasoning – preaching, not philosophizing. We don't even disagree, Chet; we're playing different games, talking past one another. — 180 Proof
I was conflating them in the case I referred to them, because they are the same in that case. I realize your case as well, and that is not what I am referring to.the philosophical difference between 'direction' and 'goal' is rather disingenuous ... The terms are effectively synonymous.
No they aren't. For example, dying is not life's goal, only life's direction; thus, it's incoherent (or "disingenuous") to conflate them. — 180 Proof
I disagree. My disagreement is based on what I am referring to as order, which may or may not have a relationship with your reference (I believe) to dynamical systems.Order is dissipative and thereby a phase-transition of disorder (i.e. chaos). Re: entropy. — 180 Proof
That is your assertion/belief. And I might point out that quibbling about the philosophical difference between 'direction' and 'goal' is rather disingenuous, and classical order-apology (my term). The terms are effectively synonymous. It, order-apology, means the speaker is too caught up in the trapped and circular sub order set rather than also embracing equal parts of chaos and thus able to escape any sub order trap excepting only the final order, objective truth. This subset at least appears conservative. To have a meaningful span of time before recurrence, order must be stronger within the system. This means of course that a higher amplitude of chaos/desire is required to break that cycle and return the trapped energy to the external order. The final external order is only perfection.Also, the universe has a direction (i.e. thermal/cosmic equilibrium aka "balance"), not a "goal"; — 180 Proof
I disagree again. My belief is that the entire universe has as a rule, the only rule really, causing all others, that everything in it should strive towards perfection, which can in the simplest sense be thought of as transcendence or unity plus. The plus part is what allows for transcendence to the next dimensional plane of intent. And if intent is not the verb/object of the new dimension, then it is integrated in some fashion with intent.and "perfection" is not a/the "moral goal" but the dream of "the Good" that paralyzes – excuses failure at – actually doing good (i.e. preventing and reducing disvalues as much as practically possible aka "negative consequentialism"). — 180 Proof
We agree on this point. But it takes nothing from my argument so there is no need to counter it nor disagree.'Utopias' are mostly just thought-experiments (i.e. counterfactual what-ifs, forecasts, crises, etc) used to critique real world social systems in order to provoke public reasoning about alternatives and reforms which might prevent or reduce structural disvalues (e.g. injustices, inequities). — 180 Proof
I disagree. And over time it will be proven that intent at all levels, those intents driving hard action and reforms, AND the seemingly ephemeral 'thoughts and prayers' all have an effect. These 'thoughts and prayers' are tidal forces expressing the highest most effervescent form of sentiment and will of ALL. We are not yet evolved enough to sense the consequences from these efforts so we tend to scoff at such efforts. But my model of belief suggests they are the seed of a greater will to power. Just like imagination they do effect change even now and again obviously so. The more these practices are repeated and the will fortified within the ALL-self of the universe, the more and more they reinforce harder action/intents and help to cause them. In time the relative stability of this phase of moral agency (current human limits and such) will disintegrate because the desire will rise up and break the limits. Its all around us the wish for magic and superpowers and it is NOT going away. It will intensify until it is manifested.Btw, "intention", like mere "thoughts & prayers", is mostly solipsistic (pace Kan't) and contra (Peircean-Deweyan) pragmatism. — 180 Proof
Every single aspect of life involves only one thing really, free will. This free will is the infinitely precarious order/chaos balance. If the universe and all aspects of it were not infinitely balanced on this single point, free will, choice, would not have the strength to move things, to choose. But everything moves and vibrates back and forth along the balance. The order/chaos balance is EVERYTHING.A society without pain, suffering, disease, wars, poverty or even death.
The angle of my question is not aimed at the human obstacles of achieving such a civilisation or whether it’s technologically possible but rather whether it’s philosophically possible.
What would Joy feel like without pain, what would riches mean without poverty or what would health mean without sickness. What would life mean without death?
To live in a society where we were incapable of experiencing such things as unhappiness, sadness, pain would be the same as being colour blind to the complete palette of human emotion of what truly makes us human.
For this reason I don’t think Utopia is possible as life is about opposites ying and yang otherwise it would just be all yang and without ying. All black or all white. But what do you think ? — kindred
There are several points to be made JUST here. The main one is that 'everything happens for a reason' is both true and NOT RELEVANT to this issue.I added the word "real" to the title of this thread in order to eliminate an ideal Heavenly realm from consideration. Some people, when faced with the moral ambiguity and uncertainty of personal or world events --- especially when bad things happen to good people --- will express the belief or hope that "everything happens for a reason"*1. And they don't seem to be concerned that the "reasons" & purposes motivating Cause & Effect are seldom obvious, and must be taken on faith. — Gnomon
I love this take. Even the way you write it about someone else writing about it SEEMS to be saying that 'fair' means something akin to NOT 'good for you', but MORE LIKE 'easy and perfect for you'. I think it is safe to presume, to infer, that most people will interpret the statement or idea that way. And THAT is the problem.The topical question was raised in my mind by an article in Skeptical Inquirer magazine (vol48), authored by psychologist Stuart Vyse, in his discussion of Skepticism and tolerance for Uncertainty, as illustrated by movie plot spoilers. In his preface, Vyse noted that "religious and spiritual beliefs promote the assumption that the universe is fair". — Gnomon
And THAT specific delusion is morally repugnant to me. Acting or choosing in the name of GOOD, is ... evil, if you do it for any reward other than the sake of the perfect moral GOOD within any moment. That means that clearly, ANY AND ALL transactional efforts towards morality are highly immoral.Then, he adds, "they find solace in the belief that they will be made whole in this life or the next". — Gnomon
No, indeed not. The concept of karma is deeply silly. It again assumes an immoral transactional nature to actions and choices. I suppose if one approaches the moment of now, of choice, as an asymptote, a limit, then that is still ok. That would mean what I already outlined above. The reward or punishment (still somewhat transactional) happens immediately.Perhaps, a non-Christian source of solace is the Eastern religious concept of Karma : that Good & Evil acts in this life will be morally balanced in the next incarnation. — Gnomon
No, that is incorrect. Such a conclusion can only be drawn if one is blatantly incorrect (subjective) and transactional in outlook (again incorrect). I guess an easy way to say this is that such a person has NO IDEA what fairness really is.Ironically, both approaches to a Just World seem to accept that the real contemporary world is neither fair, nor balanced. — Gnomon
Again, this is incorrect faithless subjective nonsense.As Vyse summarizes : "The universe has no interest in your success or failure, and things don't happen for a reason --- they just happen". — Gnomon
I would define this conclusion, as constructed, as blatant sophistry of a very low order.For example, the current hurricane in the Caribbean is indiscriminately destructive. But is the obvious bad stuff offset by punishing an evil group of people : e.g. Jamaican politicians, oligarchs and landlords ; while poor innocent Jamaicans are just collateral damage? Are blessings & curses proportional? — Gnomon
You should change your mind. The mind and all fear constructs are prisons, limits, by definition. They NEVER arrive at perfection. Only by balancing the transcendence of desire and the being of anger into fear, is moral choice made wise.Although I'm not comforted by scriptural assurances that "all things work together for good", — Gnomon
Philosophers are not only divided. Taht rather implies a duality. Instead it is a multiplicity of infinite variation of failure.I do infer a kind of Logic to the chain of Cause & Effect in the physical world --- and an overall proportional parity between positive & negative effects. Of course, that mathematical & thermodynamic symmetry may not always apply to the personal & cultural aspects of reality : to people's feelings about those effects. I won't attempt to prove that vague belief in balance, but it seems that philosophers have always been divided on the question of a Just World*2. — Gnomon
And see then how Plato was waffling. And then how modern science waffles.Plato was not conventionally religious, but he argued from a position which assumed a Rational*3 First Cause, that he sometimes referred to as Logos*4. That philosophical principle was not necessarily concerned about the welfare of individuals, but only that the world proceed in an orderly manner toward some unspecified teleological end point. Rational humans are able to detect the general organization & predictability of physical events, and often refer to the regulating principles as Laws --- as-if imposed by a judicious king. Ironically, modern science has detected some essential Uncertainty at the foundations of Physics. So, we can never know for sure what's-what & where & when. — Gnomon
Nonsense! Politeness, as most often portrayed colloquially, is an uncommitted position. It is THE quintessential waffling mistake, an immoral choice.I get a sense that this forum has some moralists who feel that the physical world is morally neutral, yet organized human societies should be scrupulously fair & balanced toward some ideal of Justice ; and some amoralists or nihilists who think its all "just one damn thing after another" ; plus perhaps some nameless positions in between. Since my amateur position typically falls in the muddled middle, and as part of my ongoing education in philosophical thinking, I'd like to hear some polite, non-polemic, pro & con discussion on the topical question. :smile: — Gnomon
Well, ... I thought I already gave YOU the rundown. But in this case, objective morality is argued as causal to all concepts of balance. That is to say in my model, the fear, anger, and desire are the only forces in the universe. Instead of reality being a dichotomy as most systems will show, a duality, the real nature of reality is trinary, between these three emotions.And the reason free will does exist is because morality is objective. I can explain much more deeply and thoroughly, if needed.
— Chet Hawkins
Needed. Please. — ENOAH
That makes no sense. It is either free or not. There is no in between. If you are TRYING to say that some choices are hard and that seems like not free, then that would be a wrong opinion. Yes, admittedly, some choices seem impossible or not free. But choice is infinite and our delusions, lack of awareness, lack of effort, lack of restraint; are the problems, the immoral aims we choose that make it seems not to be free will.If choice is predetermined there is no way to be immoral.
— Chet Hawkins
What if choice wasn't predetermined, but still not free? — ENOAH
And then you MUST say what your theory is. You do not here. So, I cannot explain how your theory is wrong, if you do not have one.What if the root of confusion is not in whether or not there is "freedom;" but in what is "choice." — ENOAH
Yes, luckily, freedom and morality both exist and it cannot be otherwise, as shown above. And by the way, luck has NOTHING to do with it. It could only be this way.The OP suggests, at least asks, if there's no freedom, is morality doomed (to) nihilism or fatalism. And you state that if there is no freedom its impossible to be immoral. — ENOAH
No, there is no need. There is no problem with morality. The problem is immoral choice. Imbalances impeded our progress towards perfection. So, we have only ourselves to blame. Progress CAN BE MADE. If morality were subjective, no progress can be made. That is because what subjective morality really means, is that from one nanosecond to the next acting the same way would feel perhaps 180 degrees different. We would literally wake up and feel that quick and rapacious murder was correct. It would be like every M Night Shyamaylan movie all rolled into one. Moving goalposts on feeling would be the least worrying aspect of it. Because of what I just described, atoms themselves would not cohere together. They would fall apart if morality were subjective. Almost instantly, the pressure to make a choice would become impossible to overcome and the entire system would die in frozen lock. Really, people have NO IDEA what they are saying when they suggest that morality could even possibly be subjective. Morality upholds all other laws of nature. Their consistency means morality is objective. Time and the atom and the emotive model are the only thing holding this universe together and all of it is only free will.Both imply that a reason to accept free will is it resolves the problem of morality; I.e., free will serves a function. Keep that in mind because it will re-emerge in a second. — ENOAH
Well, yes. But, the whole idea of subjective morality is just chaos and insanity. People WANT to believe that morality is subjective because then they do not have to own up to truth. Truth and objective morality state quite obviously that perfection is the only worthy aim. Incremental progress is laudable. But this requires the choice to suffer to earn wisdom. Each suffering is a chance, an opportunity to then choose to earn wisdom or to deny it.Moreover I can infer that "choice" is at the root of both of your statements. The reason freedom allows for immorality (yours) and no freedom renders morality impossible (OP's) is because we can "choose" moral or immoral. — ENOAH
Yes, sort-of. I mean the whole evil thing is really overdone. It's just LESS good. Just by being and having some balance there is a ton of good happening. The universe's constant serving up of the truth of that balance amid free will is being thrown back in its face, in our face, because WE ARE IT. As you no doubt can tell here, 'God', 'All', 'truth', the universe, and Love, are really all just synonymous things. There is no point to separating them. Fear tries to, to limit, to flee in fear from that truth, and is responsible for all separation. And all of those separations are only delusional. Desire tries to get, but, it tries to get everything in every direction, and there is only one step you can make that is perfect at any time and from any state and that is the single next step towards perfection.This ultimately must be rooted in (to bring in concepts from your other posts) fear. If we can't "choose" how could we be blamed, and without blame (one fears; i.e. the OP suggests the fear) there will be nihilism. In plain English without choice and blame, who cares? — ENOAH
Yes, you can take that tack. I have thought much on this. Is Love and Truth a tyranny? Is it finally some odd form of evil? No. The reason why is that morality IS objective. In other words being biased is ok in one case only, when that bias is to perfection, the GOOD. So, this means GOOD is actually good. It is a natural law of the universe that good is better for you. Because of free will only, we only are to blame for our choices and thus, all suffering we experience is our fault entirely. The infinite nature of choice means we could at any point just choose perfection. But our delusions feed over-expression of fear, anger, or desire; even all three; and we fail.But I submit this concept--that we need freedom and blame for morality (to function; or, for a morally functional humsn existence. If its not that you're worried about, then what? Morality for morality's sake?)--is the actual root of the problem. — ENOAH
Incorrect. It did not evolve.Which brings me back to what is "choice." If choice--and thus concomitantly freedom of choice/free will--by its function, evolved — ENOAH
No, there could not be such a system. It would have no basis. The model I describe explains EVERYTHING. The existence of the stability and the limit conditions on each emotion combine to make all other models or ideas, including the one you just offered, impossible.(because it was fit for the vitality of the system in which it evolved) to appear to involve a single ontologically real and essential being freely making it (those latter shoes filled by the Subject I); but if both choice and the Subject seeming to freely make it, were just mechanisms in a process with the ultimate effect of provoking bodies to act and or feel; and if (that which we rightly cling to because it is functional and call) morality, is not a universal pre-existing Reality, but also an evolved, because it is ffunctionalmechanism (or set thereof) in that process; and if every seemingly free choice, and their moral status were determined not predestination-wise, not pre determined, but by the movement of causes and effects operating within that system and following evolved laws of that system (evolved due to function), then within that process there could be morality-the appearance of choice-but not free choice in the sense of some individual being. — ENOAH
I agree, but you are wrong. You are wrong because that is NOT the contrary of what I stated and you loaded your submission with that assertion.Both the left and the right have a vested interest in pretending that people's choices are not their own fault. It's all comforting lies,
— Chet Hawkins
I submit the contrary. Choices are "everyone's" fault because we are ineluctably interdependant. — ENOAH
I disagree. I think many of mine are.Not a single idea on these pages is original. — ENOAH
And yet that is the moral task: to rise above our state and aim at perfection, REGARDLESS of the difficulty. The infinite power of choice and the PERFECT balance of free will make this possible all underpinned by objective morality. ANY OTHER state would collapse into ruin immediately.I am responsible for contributing to the crimes of anyone who has crossed my path or heard my speech. How's that for burden and not comfort? We want to impose freedom on the individual to avoid the reality that History is one mind, a process interacting. — ENOAH
The rejection is immoral. It is caused by each of the three emotions in specific ways, fear-cowardice, anger-laziness, and desire-self-indulgence. That is all.The complexity of getting around the logic that I am not free but yet an actor in a system with a "burden," should not have to be (but because of the progression of western thought to date, is) a reason to reject that. — ENOAH
I mean, it sounds like you believe that subjective nonsense?! Do you?But in spite of the restrictions superimposed by logic, I'll try to state it in simple words. How do we fulfill our duty to the system if we have no freedom to choose? — ENOAH
I very much detest the type 4 delusion of the need to be special. I have a super strong type 4 vector. It is my second highest personality trait in the Enneagram. So I can say that with some understanding and impunity. But that type is the source of the immoral feeling that 'you can't know this because only I experienced it' bovine poo. That is incorrect. We are all one. We are connected despite immoral denial. We DO experience that SAME thing. Even rape victims are wrong to separate themselves or attach only to other such victims as a 'precious' thing. They make their suffering like the One Ring is to Gollum. The thing he should discard, he keeps as precious. OK, do it! It will rankle your happiness until you make the right choice and discard it willingly, never seeking it again, that feeling of being so special that you are separate from all as well. You are damaged goods, born bad, a cursed entity. It's so tiresome. Drama ... The tragic-romantic type is aptly nicknamed.Tragic answer is the system is making that happen. For e.g. when ideas like these are shared. Ignore that. It cannot be expressed. It's like knowing the ego is not what you think it is, yet you are that ego thinking it isn't or is. It's impossible to discuss. And I anticipate your rebuttal but I won't sacrifice honesty and what you might help me bring to light, so have at it. — ENOAH
So, then, human law as a written/customatic version of natural law. What a poor substitute. I understand that some people claim to lack a moral sense, hence the need for law. But my emphasis on this need would be more sinister these days, as in, laws to pretend morality is not a natural law, AS IF they had to written by us in a conceited way to make any showing. It's a tacit artifact of DISBELIEF, not belief. But I suppose clarity is also ... useful.↪Chet Hawkins
My understanding of McCarthy's words, 'historical law' is referring to the laws which were developed in various forms of civilisation. — Jack Cummins
So, I disagree that 'it' comes down to that. Define 'it'? The 'situation'? That 'situation' causes miscommunication and disagreement, or, let's say more than there should be. We improperly reserve the right to declare our selfish interpretation of natural moral law and then we get it wrong in all the right ways to 'sin' unimpeded by our own legal works. And each society is different about how they 'sin', spawning conflicts unending.In connection with your idea of , 'Real morality is the law of the universe', which is very Kantian, it does come down to whether there are specific ideas or laws independently of the consequences of an action or the way in which morals develop in any given society. — Jack Cummins
I disagree with those principles. They are not precisely correct. 'Treating others well' is too vague by far. The probably rather bizarre statement I would counter with is: 'Treat all beings with a proper decorum/demeanor including the respect for the intrinsic value of all life and all concepts of waste and greed included. Disturb things only to challenge them to better themselves morally. That means increasing suffering is almost guaranteed to be morally correct.There are some underlying universals, such as the treating others as well as a general principle of murder being wrong. These develop in relation to human life, as opposed to apart from it, so they could be seen as intersubjective principles rather than objective. — Jack Cummins
Objective moral truth, of course. But I get your unstated objection. One of the first goals of a new wisdom based society would be to state (I suppose in law) what wisdom is for all to debate and complain about. This is a regurgitation of the old Greek forum, or this forum, ... a place where we test and debate the ideals of the new human path.As for the idea of political correctness as a 'horror show', I am wondering who determines what the horror is exactly? — Jack Cummins
Although I agree that sensitivity is always better, enervation, when that reaction or input is the wrong narrative, not moral, but one-sided, as it is now, and fairly well always has been one way or another, then we fail in the name of the good. It's definitively little-g good, not GOOD.I am not saying that I am in favour of the rigidity of political correctness in language, but I do think that language sensitivity matters in day to day life. — Jack Cummins
No doubt that Capitalism has to go. As long as it remains, the One Ring is still in Middle Earth and Sauron may rise again too easily. Of course removing Capitalism does not remove greed. If a Communist society were begun, some men would harem all the women due to their skills, presentations. That would also be immoral greed, even if the women were willing. A precarious balance would be deeply disturbed. Humanity itself would shift in every way to accommodate. If we really want the GOOD we have to understand the brutal nature of nature, of weakness and its relationship to immorality. At least the foolish money factor would be gone. But we might let in a thug factor that would also have to be countered.I am sure that 'greed' and 'power' is a problem as a human weakness, and as enshrined in capitalism. — Jack Cummins
Well, yes, the GOOD is the answer, to everything. Answers that seem to offer solace that are not aligned with the GOOD are effectively immoral. Those are the temptations of ease that we must be aware of. In short almost everything we now seek is immoral in many ways. A new way, a new awareness, is sorely needed. And wisdom is a very hard sell if it is improperly understood, and it will be.These are problems and may be connected with loss of meaning in general, as may be the source of children and adults committing suicide. It may point to a 'broken' system, and the question may be about who and how can it be put together again, especially in relation to philosophy. — Jack Cummins
Um, what the heck is 'historical law'? I have no idea. I am guessing based on your context that you really mean something like 'Pragmatic efficiency'.I am raising the topic as being about the interaction between ethics and politics, based on the following quote from Cormac McCarthy, in his novel, 'Blood Meridian':
'Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the weak. Historical law subverts it at every turn. A moral view can never be proven right or wrong by any ultimate test'. — Jack Cummins
I view morality as objective and a law of the universe. The fact that power abuses it DOES NOT reflect on morality in any way. It only reflects on them, the choosers. I think Cormac is a terrible cynic as presented and cynical projection is a lamely immoral way to be. As in if everything is bad that excuses your badness. That is a deeply tedious and wrong world view.What is demonstrated in the quote above is the way in which any moral law is based on values and interconnected with power structures. It leads to the idea of the way in which moral views are connected to power structures and interests, even to the point of being ideologies. — Jack Cummins
Real morality is a law of the universe, yes.This may be relevant for thinking about cultural clashes and about ideas of 'political correctness'. In such ideas it may be that values are being upheld to an extreme as though they are 'laws'. — Jack Cummins
You really cannot track absurdity. It knows no bounds. Best policy is to pull off site and nuke the planet from orbit. It the only way to be sure. Even then the cockroaches that think this way will survive and evolve as any good vault dweller will tell you.For example, I was in a discussion with someone who worked in a charity shop (and I won't name the charity', who told me why the charity won't stock music CDs any longer. She said that as it is a charity supporting children, they will not stock CDs, in case there has been any exploitation of children in the making of the music'. I was stunned because it seemed to be such a sweeping generalisation about music. I would understand if the charity did not wish to stock Gary Glitter's music, or other questionable artists but to outlaw music entirely seemed like political correctness going to the point of absurdity. — Jack Cummins
One must be aware of darkness, almost familiar with it, in order to fight it. Exposure to its various shadows is wise. Those who seek to bury their heads in the cleanest of sands are without hope of being truly virtuous. All they can do is pretend. Don't worry, if they hide their eyes, they cannot see you, and they will in general.It made me think of the previous movement of the 'moral right', as represented by Mary Whitehouse, which argued against pornography and art forms which showed forms of violence. It is based on forms of moral absolutism and what is acceptable being enshrined as 'moral law'. — Jack Cummins
I agree with Kant and Plato both in that sense. Choosers must interpret moral truth because it is esoteric and distant from most people's awareness. It takes invested philosophers to dig it out and frame it back to the general population. That happens the same way any discipline makes itself useful.Kant and others argued for moral law on the basis of a priori principles. Plato argued for ideas of justice and goodness based on forms, however, he saw the elite philosophers as being the influence that mattered, which was a form of authoritarianism. What do you think about the relationship between ethics and politics? Also, what is 'right' or 'wrong' about political correctness, and how far should such correctness go in outlawing what may some may regard as being 'offensive'? — Jack Cummins
So, yes and no. In your case, the way you ask this question, it's mostly no.Some empirical logics can only be understood by first understanding everything there is to know, because you would need to be able to sense these logics in the universe, thus allowing you to see all the empirical logic. This seems like the process of philosophy to me. Would you agree that philosophy is largely down to registering and thinking in line with empirical logics? — Barkon
So, I am within reason, hesitant to post here as you seem to be a more dyed-in-the-wool academic or academic adjacent type of intellectual. But everyone deserves a chance ...Many sources talk about the science of morality, but I find no agreement on how to define what it studies. Not finding anything succinct in more authoritative sources (suggestions are welcome) I turned to Wikipedia. Wikipedia describes the science of morality as a mixture of descriptive science and moral philosophy:
“The science of morality may refer to various forms of ethical naturalism grounding morality in rational, empirical consideration of the natural world. It is sometimes framed as using the scientific approach to determine what is right and wrong” (Their main reference is Lenman’s 2008 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article Moral Naturalism.)
Consistent with Wikipedia’s definition, two well-known investigators, Oliver Curry (2019) and Sam Harris (2010), propose what people morally ought to do as a legitimate part of science. They are outliers. I will argue this Wikipedia definition is inaccurate and confusing regarding mainstream science of morality.
Contrary to Wikipedia’s definition, the state of the science of morality (see Note) is that almost all mainstream investigators limit their claims to what morality descriptively ‘is’. Their agreement is that morality regarding interactions with other people ‘is’ cooperation strategies. (Note that the larger ethical questions such as “What is good?”, ‘How should I live?”, and “What are my obligations?” are generally avoided.) — Mark S
This avoidance of truth is exactly correct. You are RIGHT to point it out. But now and later you seem to then side with the idea of avoidance. Avoidance is lazy, the 'sin' of anger. If it doesn't fit, heck, just toss it aside and discard it.Some investigators avoid even the mention of “moral” or “morality” and describe their subjects only as, for example, The Complexities of Cooperation (Axelrod 1997), “the evolution of altruism” (Fletcher 2009), or “cross-cultural norms that solve cooperation problems”(Ostrum 2000). They pointedly avoid stating the obvious, that they are talking about aspects of our moral sense and cultural moral norms. Perhaps they take this approach to avoid nuisance misunderstandings based on definitions such as Wikipedia’s. — Mark S
To me that is more like moral history or the history of morality. Even saying the words, 'the science of morality' is TRYING and bound to fail at a fear-side only approach to truth, dangerous in both its aims and its means.Perplexity (https://www.perplexity.ai/) is a new, user-friendly AI program. I was curious how it would define the science of morality. In its reply, it said:
“The science of morality studies the psychological, neurological, and cultural foundations of moral judgment and behavior”. — Mark S
Yes, although, again, it's more like 'a history of morality amid humanity'.As with the rest of science, claims about what people imperatively ought to do were not included. This definition is consistent with the mainstream science of morality. This consistency is what we should expect since the science of morality literature, plus relevant philosophical literature, is the basis of this AI’s answer. Of course, any output of AI programs must be viewed with skepticism, but this example appears sensible. — Mark S
I like your definition, but, I am not sure you really mean that. It seems unlikely that you do. I will explain later.However, I prefer to define the science of morality as:
“The study of why our moral sense and cultural moral norms exist". — Mark S
So, no, not at all. In fact, what you say here NEGATES your definition. The study of WHY our moral sense exists is indeed the study of morality itself that implies ALL OUGHTS. There is nothing about it BUT oughts.I see my definition as encompassing, but more fundamental than, Perplexity’s while similarly avoiding any awkward implications about what people imperatively ought to do or value. — Mark S
I like yours, but, that is because your definition DOES include the OUGHTS as stated, even if you maybe believe it does not. I believe you wanted to focus on the observable cultural constructs as all there is, rather than morality being an objective law of the universe predating mankind's hubris. Is that correct? That would be wrong.Again, other suggestions for defining the science of morality studies are welcome. — Mark S
Sleazy easy approaches to truth ARE NOT advantages, but cowardice encourages Nihilism and conceit both. Fear causes delusional worthiness, just like desire causes delusional worthlessness. Then anger must come in and balance them and they it.What are the advantages of excluding philosophical moral ought claims from the science of morality? — Mark S
Philosophy can describe science and the reverse is not true, so far.First, combining claims about objective scientific truth (the normal provisional kind) and claims about what we morally ought to do (which may forever be subjective) can be confusing for both scientists and philosophers. Where does objective science end and philosophizing begin? — Mark S
Yes, this is the ultimately cowardly Pragmatism. 'Get er done!'Second, excluding moral ought arguments from science can help make the same science useful for a wide variety of moral systems. — Mark S
Real wisdom, like morality which it describes and supports, shows us that suffering must increase for wise action to be in progress. That is to say, a moral act is the single hardest act one can do or even believe in. Perfection is the goal. That is not easy. Ease of all kinds is immorality. So, Pragmatism is immoral. It stresses that which is 'useful' or 'efficient' only, and thus fails to account for anger and desire.For example, consequentialist philosophers might propose moral system goals of “living according to nature” or maximizing happiness and flourishing (however those might be defined) for one’s group, for everyone, or for all conscious creatures. But by what moral ‘means’ regarding interactions with other people ought these hypothetical moral ‘ends’ be achieved? — Mark S
I know what you mean, but mind-independent is actually impossible. As a concept mind, e.g. fear predates and suffuses the entire multiverse. It is order itself, all of it. So there is NOTHING in reality and never has been, that is truly mind-independent.The science of morality, by both my and Perplexity AI’s definitions, provides an attractive, mind-independent option for moral means: achieving those ends by solving cooperation problems. — Mark S
How predictable is this? You leave out the desire side truth of competition as moral, and perhaps the balancing requirements of conflict between the two, which anger is fine with. I'm ok with it. 'Let truth and falsehood grapple, truth is strong.' - Milton was right!As mentioned above, solving cooperation problems is the generally recognized function (the reason they exist) of our moral sense and cultural moral norms. — Mark S
Anger is aware that harmony is overrated. Peace is delusional. Conflict is ubiquitous and eternal. We do need or OUGHT to require that suffering is restricted to what is necessary, but that is the real debate. What suffering is necessary and what is not? The wise suffer exquisitely more than others by definition. Greater awareness is greater suffering. Greater sets of fear side restrictions is greater suffering. Greater confidence in the face of mystery is greater suffering. And greater wishing for the ideals to be realized, for the GOOD, is greater suffering.Choosing to advocate and enforce moral ‘means’ as strategies for solving cooperation problems can be attractive because 1) these means can be innately harmonious with our moral intuitions since they are what shaped them, 2) they are the well-tested primary means by which humans became the incredibly successful social species we are, and 3) the subset of those cooperation strategies that do not exploit others can be shown to be universal (the subject of past and perhaps future posts). — Mark S
No, as mentioned, the fear-side only path is not finally wise. More balance is needed and that means redirecting the understanding to include chaos (desire) and anger (balance) as moral forces equal to fear in importance.In summary, solving cooperation problems as moral means for groups is an attractive choice because, among available options, it is arguably the means most likely to help us achieve our ultimate moral goals. — Mark S
More useful as in short-cut fiat. No, that is not moral.Excluding moral ought claims from the science of morality enables a more useful definition of what the science of morality studies with a clear demarcation of science’s and philosophy’s domains. — Mark S
OK, so right off the bat, the brain DOES NOT create thought. It supports the thought process. When you are going to dig into the details on something philosophically, you need to be clear.Chapter I:
Definition of Life
For as long as we have lived, we have thought. Thought; a concept created by a brain so powerful it can bring rational thought and emotional feeling together. The downside, it can also destroy the bond between those two ways of perception. — Elnathan
These are wildly blanket statements that are also not true of all people and in fact not true in general. There is NOTHING BUT emotional feeling. So all people act on emotions. What you call thought and reason is only fear, an emotion. Yes, fear-side people are usually considered 'smarter' by default. That is because order which is the source of fear, shows us probability and is therefore supposedly more 'useful'. It is a dangerous lie because desire points to the ideals, perfection, and is every single bit as moral as fear side Pragmatism is, despite its lower probability.People who act more on emotional feeling are deemed overreactional beings. People who act more on rational thoughts are praised as intellect and smart people. — Captain Homicide
OK, nice. Now, you are starting to make more sense. I gave you the reasons WHY this sentiment is true, above.I believe I am a dualist, but I do believe one way is vital for the existence of the other. For there to be rationality, there must be emotionality and the other way around. When asked for a rational opinion, the question is actually: give me an opinion without emotion. But for opinions to be, there must be emotion involved. — Captain Homicide
No, incorrect. You were right with the FIRST statement. All thought is ONLY emotion, fear. And facts are only beliefs. You must have some desire for or against the fact. It's super rare that someone can maintain perfect balance.We simply can’t exchange thoughts without emotion involved. If you do, it isn’t your opinion, but a given fact. — Captain Homicide
Yes, fear, Pragmatism, empiricism; all the same things. Limit oneself to what we can trap inside a construct of awareness and repeat as observable. But all fear is a trap. It is a cowardly retreat. It humorous that you consider the other emotions reactionary. You are PRECISELY wrong there.Where we see the separation of the two ways the most: science. Science is the most rational based way of perception of the world around us. — Captain Homicide
You really need to explain that jumbled statement. It is not a good idea to get all 'la la' giddy happy about what the brain is and can do. It is only a single part of the body and that only a single part of the universe. Humility is advised as a moral path. The old school partitioners had it BETTER. Mind, body, and heart(soul). The three way split between fear, anger, and desire is MORE correct. To glorify reason and the mind is order-apology, fear-side thinking, only.The fact that we could get so separated of our own emotion and feeling to understand the world around us, shows us how powerful our brain actually is. It is so strong that it can dismiss its own nature, just to get a physically perceivable way of the world and existence itself. — Captain Homicide
There is NO segue here. We are left at this point wondering how this will connect.The urge to find and understand the origin of our existence has driven us through many ways of living. We have seen many different religions in our history, from Greek gods with various characteristics to a monotheistic god like Jaweh who symbolises love and justice. — Captain Homicide
Religion at least tried to embrace wisdom, philosophy, to better mankind's plight. The brutal Pragmatism of fear-side logic is cold and dead by itself. It might be able to pick out more probable paths for us, but, to eschew the desire and anger contributions of a moral life is just immoral. You are glorifying immoral failure in a way.That has always been the way of our understanding of the world and we let it be, it was a way of life. Till there were those who were curious, weren’t satisfied with obeying and non-critical thinking about the world around us. They started to dismiss the reality of that time and made it religionless. From praying to be healed, to doctors of our time who tackled almost all of the diseases at the hand of science. — Captain Homicide
And now you come back to a position I can agree with.In a way science became its own atheistic religion. People believe in science just like people believed in gods. There is one thing these two have in common. The search for life; how we are alive, why we are and what made us be. — Captain Homicide
This is wildly over simplified. Each of these faiths is about wisdom and control or ordering the populace towards practical function. And you are wrong, the emotions are the same. If you are trying oddly to say that the emphasis is slightly different, ok, ... who cares?One thing they don’t have in common is the emotion. In religion we find ourselves with norms and values. Whatever religion you are a part of, you must have encountered the norms and values of that religion. From charity in Christianity to Buddhist values like wisdom, kindness, patience, generosity and compassion. — Captain Homicide
No, that is a trivially incorrect answer. I know people, myself included that think patience is overrated and often just self-indulgent cowardice or laziness in disguise.An interesting thing about all the norms and values is that they are universally accepted. If you ask a person if he thinks that patience is a good value, then he will most definitely say yes. — Captain Homicide
Well, you're wrong again. What passes for scientific proof does prove we are alive and connected. These values can be measured and actions weighed against them and they have been in countless studies. Science (and religion really) are not DONE. They are not OVER. They are ongoing processes. So, to say something is beyond them MIGHT be true only right now. So your statements are vague and undefendable. Keep in mind I do not really believe in 100% awareness of anything, but the standards for valid beliefs require more justification in depth than I see here. It does NOT have to be academic, but well covered, at least.The fact that everyone experiences these universally accepted norms and values, wherever you go in the world, means that we’re somehow connected in a way that isn’t perceivable or provable by science. The fact that that is present, proves that there is a meaning of life beyond one religion or science. — Captain Homicide
Well, that is yet another 'la de da' statement. And it is yet another non-segue.For some, science represents life, for others, religion does. I think that we have been looking in the wrong place to find the meaning to life. We have been looking outside to the world around us, but what if we have to look inside? The universal norms and values suggest that we have a part of life inside of us. — Captain Homicide
Lol! The SOLE purpose? No, not at all. Rejected.Take for example the urge to reproduce. Of course not everyone feels this that intense, but the urge is definitely there. The sole biological purpose of a human or animal to reproduce is to pass on genes so that they can keep living on. Why is that? What makes us so urgent to keep living on? We can’t put it in a formula or see it happen in our brains. It must be something greater. Is life a god? Is science the formula to life? Is life a good thing? — Captain Homicide
Moral good brings clarity, not cloudiness. You are all over the place.Is life a good thing? We think about that when we see nature going on without any looking back to the loss it endured. Is life good if something alive can stop an alive being from being alive? These questions get clouded by our feeling of moral good. — Captain Homicide
Life is us. Life has every personality. To say it doesn't is again JUST WRONG.Life doesn’t have a personality as it can be everything alive, means life can’t be a form of thinking like us. — Captain Homicide
Morality is not a social construct. It is an objective fundamental law of nature. Attempts to name it a social construct are blithe immoral acts made in order to excuse self-indulgence, cowardice, and laziness.Which means it is not a person in our way of perception. This brings us to if life itself has morals, or if that our brain has made that concept to stay alive. — Captain Homicide
Life is only morals. Your confused points are not able to be united in any way.Take for example a lion which kills a gazelle. A life form stops another from living. Isn’t that cruel? Just so that the lion can keep on living, another creature has to be sacrificed? At least we know life doesn’t have the morals we have. Therefore morals must be a concept that our brain has created to stay alive more easily. — Captain Homicide
Wow! So that is a very improperly loaded question there.Whenever the hard determinist view is brought up in online discussions there is almost always someone that says no free will or genuine moral responsibility logically entails fatalism and nihilism. — Captain Homicide
Effectively, that would be true. If choice is predetermined there is no way to be immoral. It's a a laughable position, despite what some very well educated cowards like to propose. Both the left and the right have a vested interest in pretending that people's choices are not their own fault. It's all comforting lies, so everyone is in line to get spoon fed the Kool Aid.If everything that happens couldn’t help but happen and people’s choices aren’t truly free then somehow life is meaningless and morality doesn’t exist. — Captain Homicide
I agree that it would be true if determinism were real and accurate, but, it is not.What is your opinion on this common claim in response to hard determinism? — Captain Homicide
You mention here desire (chaos) and practical (fear) side interests and ways of thought. The truth is though that the balance between these two emotions and also a third emotion, anger, CAUSES the balance that supports free will. This precarious balance denies any possibility of determinism.My opinion is that it’s completely wrong and a fundamental misunderstanding of the matter. In reference to fatalism people still have desires to do and experience things and your choices still matter in a practical sense. — Captain Homicide
I agree with your final statement, but, ALLOWING the idea of determinism to stand as 'fact' or 'knowledge' is immoral/irresponsible.People still have to do things for things to happen. Very few people would be content or able to lay in bed and stare at a ceiling their entire life because their choices are technically predetermined going back to the beginning of the universe. Choosing not to do anything out of fatalism is still a choice and a very miserable one. — Captain Homicide
Yes they are. If you have no free will it robs your actions of meaning. The only and all meanings are predetermined. You do not matter at all. Your choices do not matter.In reference to nihilism I think meaning and morality aren’t dependent on hard determinism being true or false. — Captain Homicide
This misses the real point, the heavy point. That is that unless choices matter, there is no reason to make the right one. You can murder with impunity, because you were clearly predestined to do so. It opens up a STRATEGY for devious minds to do whatever the hell they want and expect no punishment because you can't punish someone if their choice is not there, if free will is not there; or you SHOULD NOT punish them for that.Things still have meaning and value to people if only in a practical sense even if there was no other way for things to happen and you couldn’t possibly make choices other than the choices you made. — Captain Homicide
Yeah that is deeply immoral thinking, subjectivist nonsense.Depending on your philosophical views this is likely the most contentious part but I think people would and can still have value and rights that shouldn’t be violated with or without determinism being true. — Captain Homicide
I agree, but, that statement undoes your whole argument.Objective rights and value may not exist in a tangible, scientifically provable sense but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist at all. — Captain Homicide
Yet your arguments negate one another, logically and idealistically. So they are just horrid, all the way except that you still seem to pine away for morality while denying it, effectively. Determinism is a cheap fear-based failure of awareness. Robert Sopolsky needs to go back to school!Pain and pleasure are still very much real things whether they’re determined to happen or not. Whether or not someone like Hitler, Osama, El Chapo Bundy had ultimate control over their choices doesn’t make them any less morally abhorrent or their actions any less evil or harmful. As hotly contested as the topic is I can’t recall a philosopher ever using the deterministic nature of the universe as evidence that good and evil don’t exist and the lives of sentient beings have no actual value. — Captain Homicide
When you simply say the word 'equality' you leave the audience with no idea what you mean. We can all read into what you mean, but why do that? You SHOULD have started with a very specific definition of what equality means to you for this question.Without trying to describe or justify a whole politcal or philosophical system, I'd like to ask a question. If we could improve equality, is the question below what needs to happen?
Would you be willing to accept a set of principles that increases the prospects of others, even if it means having fewer opportunities yourself? — Rob J Kennedy
I agree. But in case you are asking, let's say for an example, life and reality are aligned and balanced properly amid morality by a radical polarization to spur action and flux. This dichotomy is seen throughout life and in every way at every level. From the balance of charges to include the neutral in atoms themselves all the way up to such 'enlightened' beings as humans, and AT NO LEVEL in this advance is the balance or morality ever abandoned (or can be).↪Chet Hawkins
People use aphorisms incorrectly.
— Chet Hawkins
"That begs the question..." That is a phrase that has gained some currency, and it has been incorrectly lifted from the philosopher's lexicon. — isomorph
Agreed and yet ... not relevant. Do opinions matter to truth? No, they do not. So, amid the effort to uncover and understand truth, like in any other discipline, experts are advisable to lead the way. But I see expertise as compromised too much these days (as before). Money corrupts the issue largely and its pressure is unforgivable. Capitalism was indeed a better way once. But its use has passed, and we are all too unwise to see it now as the One Ring of Sauron that it always was.people cloak themselves in that which they believe is wisdom, and all unknowingly, thus subvert wisdom.
— Chet Hawkins
Xenophanes - "But opinion is allotted to all." — isomorph
Well, I think the limit to human is a problem, because it subsumes often enough a conceit that is part and parcel of the problem in question. Still, I am just making sure the scope of delusion of whoever I have dialogue with. People demonstrate to me all the time that they are incapable of entertaining other points of view for real. I suppose one might rightly accuse me of a shock-jock style of dialogue. So be it! Gadfly status is a hard cross to bear. 'Men of Athens! ...'Don't you mean the LACK of 'human' thinking? Thinking is just thinking. There is no reason to say 'human'. My border collie of years past could give many humans a run for their money.
— Chet Hawkins
I say human because I want to limit the subject of this conversation to humans. I love my dog, too. — isomorph
Aware of it? I lived it many times. I designed, wrote, installed, sold, and maintained many many software works (of art). In some cases my work has been sold to 500+ large businesses within one year and I got a pittance bonus at best. Investment money should not make such a share. Investment in people is when you support them making THEIR way in the world, not yourself, or not yourself alone or mostly.It is thus extremely accurate to say that inasmuch as most people were deeply unwise before, they have extended the capacity for a lack of wisdom to new and greater depths as time passes.
— Chet Hawkins
My idea is that there was more wisdom and invention in our prehistoric ancestors, otherwise we would not be able to talk about this on this contraption I am using right now. I have to think that they were smarter and more capable than we are. I will not name a recent example, but you must be aware of some 'geniuses' whose fortunes are built upon someone else's work. — isomorph
So, refrain, restraint, ... these are fear words, order-centric. And the avoidance of discussion of morality or sins or good and evil, is just that, avoiding the truth. I am NOT religious, but was raised Methodist Christian. My model of reality, which I am writing a book on, is for 'generic' wisdom, free from any organized religion and focusing only on objective moral truth (wisdom).Humans are worth mentioning as greater sinners than animals (or rocks). What evolves past humanity will have even more negative or sinful potential. It is a law of the universe.
— Chet Hawkins
From your speech, I see you take that as axiomatic. I refrain from words like 'sinner' and 'evil', because try as I might, I am not much of a poet. We make choices that can be beneficial, or detrimental, or both at the same time. I am not persuaded that it is a law that whatever comes next will have exceedingly 'sinful potential'. Is that entropy? — isomorph
I agree, it's always been RELATIVELY the same. That means because it is better now, it's also worse now, but the same relatively. Empowerment of leaders and speed of human civil awareness growth BUT NOT WISDOM, in fact one-sided or RELATIVELY less wisdom, we are in more trouble.I agree that language and most poignantly, its use by the common man, is becoming a problem, rather than a solution.
— Chet Hawkins
I do not think the situation is worse than it has been. I am constantly echoing Confucius' 2600 year old cry, "We need a rectification of names!" Heraclitus moved up to the mountains because he did not want to listen to crowd anymore, if I am reading it correctly. — isomorph
These ARE NOT opposed to one another as you suggest. They are the same. Denigration of idealism as an aim is an immoral Pragmatic failure. This is nothing so much as order short-cutting truth via fear to be efficient and 'get er done'. It IS NOT a wise way to proceed and it never will be. The ideals lead the way. They steer the ship. The Pragmatists, like it or not, ONLY get to decide HOW to do what the idealists know WHY to do. I think it's important as well to say that the speed of change is relevant. In general the idealists are far too impatient. Change must be at a pace slow enough for the fear types not to panic.Utopia is REQUIRED to be moral. That is not extant Utopia, as in realized by humanity or other 'thinkers', but Utopia as a dream, as a goal
— Chet Hawkins
Utopia is not required to be moral. Living together successfully requires ethics for living together successfully. I am not a German Idealist, however I think Kant had some understanding of things required for 'us to just all get along.' And the US Constitution is aspirational, but no utopia. Utopia is an idealist concept, as opposed to aspirations towards getting along with one another and not killing ourselves and others. — isomorph
Ha ha! I figured. But it's less aggrandizing than is realized. We all have the responsibility of God as well.It also means 'You are God and I am God and We are God together'. Maybe there was a song ...
— Chet Hawkins
Way to idealistic for me. Sorry! — isomorph
I disagree that they were any more capable. In fact, in general, the opposite. But I agree entirely that today's people use less well what is readily available to them. They simply follow their random pleasure seeking far too much and get locked into various patterns of addiction much more easily. It is the rot of ease that is costing us now. We do not understand that ease is effectively immoral.Umqua and Hoo were just putting ochre in their hair man for the Wa-da festival, to impress the dudes. Then they smacked it on the wall. And life was boring so they had some drawing contests. Intellectual masters might be a stretch.
— Chet Hawkins
I would like to persuade you that your opinion of our predecessors is not true. Our cultural cloud has given us the stereotypical caveman, which I do not think is accurate. McLuhan in Understanding Media talk about 'primitive' people encountering technology and they assimilate it into their lives just as 'modern' people. From what I can ascertain in news reports, terrorists living in remote areas are more technically sophisticated than I am. They have used the internet, Facebook, etc. more than I have, and before I have used them. I have no test to show the intelligence of our predecessors. The experimentation and invention that were required to give their progeny a foundation required much luck and much genius. Mathew Arnold talked about "the power of the man and the power of the moment." I think that applies to our ancient ancestors. — isomorph
But it is no mirage. The same difficulty arises in math with limits and with the repeating value of constructs like Pi. These are NOT mirages. They are actual and demonstrable within reality. So much of reality answers to the limit functions that their utility and probable inclusion as meaningful and dependable is a great practice. If you wish to dismiss them, I must report that you'd need some fairly compelling, next to miraculous new ways of looking at the entire universe in order to approach success.You wish to speak and reason in the realm of actual infinities when you cannot do such a thing. Reasoning fails there. So your tool of reasoning is the wrong tool. Well done.
— Chet Hawkins
I don't think you understand my position. I'm playing in the "paradise" which Cantor created (involving infinite sets) not because I believe in it but because I want to convince others that it's a mirage (at least in my view). — keystone
So YES, it is intriguing and also impossible. As for your second sentence, no, not at all. Unless you misstated what you were trying to say, all regular shapes of equal sides are easily of finite volume at any n where n = length of a side. {picks up D&D dice to prove it. Yup, finite volume. }The sides should be of the same length.
— Chet Hawkins
Isn't the concept of an infinite-sided die that could fit in your hand intriguing? It’s impossible to construct a die with finite volume if you insist that all sides must be of equal length. — keystone
Belief in such a concept has no relationship to stating that the concept is not useful in the example given. In REALITY the infinity goes, BOTH, MULTIPLE, OR ALL; ways at the same time. So, offering examples that do not match reality is ... a mirage ... which I thought was what you were trying to avoid or point out.And since infinity extends in both directions, or all directions, and not just one direction your arbitrary single bound of natural numbers is yet another nonsensical limit that does not help in any way.
— Chet Hawkins
Do you not believe in natural numbers being bounded by 0 (or 1) on one end? And regarding time, isn't it widely believed that time had a beginning (meaning one boundary of time is t=0)? — keystone
So this is ad hominem. I clearly state that I do not know things in many posts, so you're accusation is not only ad hominem, but also just wrong.The issue from the start is that Chet Hawkins claims we do not know anything, and yet provides no argument for that claim, while speaking dogmatically in a way that suggests he think he knows a whole lot. — Janus
I am taking the word 'undecidable' to mean what it should mean, and does in some ways, even colloquially. That is that which cannot be decided upon. We are able to decide. So you're wrong. This does not mean that decisions cannot be wrong, as you just showed. The matter IS NOT confusing to me.The way you express this is jumbled. I DO NOT state ever that things are 'undecidable'. That is your word and very wrong. Everything is decidable, just always partly wrong. That is the nature of belief.
— Chet Hawkins
This is confused, If something is undecidable then we cannot know the truth about it. — Janus
No, it does not. That certainty is not possible. That is my point.We can know the truth about many things, and these are therefore decidable. It doesn't follow that people cannot decide to believe they know the truth about those things which are undecidable—this happens all the time. — Janus
No, as mentioned many times I do not know anything. I believe I was aware of your incorrect turn of phrase there, yes. But my confidence IS NOT certainty, so you're wrong again.I do not refuse to use the word 'know' as I have shown in many cases in this thread. I bet I wrote it more than anyone else did.
— Chet Hawkins
You know perfectly well that I meant that you do not use the word to apply to yourself. — Janus
If you'd really like to compare thinking between us, a simple review of this thread only will reveal the true quality of Farmir of Gondor (me). You're much more akin to the likes of Boromir who thinks he can know things. It's ok! I have a few decades on you in all probability. There is till time for you to visit the snack bar and come away enriched!Of course, you must use the word in order to refer to the idea so that you can reject it. Your thinking seems quite shallow, but I don't doubt that it is clouded by some dogma or other. — Janus
Yes, they are. And I can agree with you that the Enneagram intelligentsia itself is often not quite ready to stand up properly for their system. They are loathe to put the system in moral terms because they want a new secular faith to take the place of religion and also they want to make money at it. Mixing moral and immoral concerns muddies all waters.I'm familiar with the teachings of both Naranjo and Gurdjieff, I have participated in the Gurdjieff Foundation in Sydney and completed two of Naranjo's 'SAT' workshops. The enneagram typology has some interesting insights, but life and people are not so configured as to fit neatly into such systems. — Janus
The way you express this is jumbled. I DO NOT state ever that things are 'undecidable'. That is your word and very wrong. Everything is decidable, just always partly wrong. That is the nature of belief.How will we in Philosophy Forum notice the differences between you, in dialogue with us, and someone who uses know?
— Bylaw
The irony is that Chet Hawkins constantly talks about things which are undecidable, and hence mere matters of opinion, as though he knows the truth concerning them, while refusing to use the word "know". — Janus
No, you actually do not know. And every time you claim to, you prove that point.Others addressing like questions will acknowledge they are just expressing their opinions and will reserve the word "know" only for those (countless) mundane cases where we actually do know. — Janus
If the word 'intellectual' means deceiver and or delusional, sure. But I have met quite a large class of people that are what I call 'intellectual' and they are more dedicated to truth, you know, wisdom, ACTUAL philosophy, instead of the stuffy academic version, a deluded stiff interpretation of what is and is not intellectual. If you believe you are on the honest side of that debate, it will be very hard to help you.I think the intellectual honesty belongs to the latter group. — Janus
Love it! I look forward to the stimulants that come from percolation!↪Chet Hawkins Thank you! I chose isoporph because I was tired of choosing a name and the machine said that name is already taken. I've put my own name in sometimes and I'm told , "That is taken!" So isomorph it is. I will have to take some time to let your post percolate before I can comment on you wonderful observations. As far as quoting religious texts, my belief system is I like reading old literature. I can't say I ascribe to any one. None would have me after getting to know me, and the feeling would end up being mutual. Years ago, Wilt Chamberlain was being interviewed and the Olympic committee had bad things to say about him. His response "Their opinion of me is probably higher than my opinion of them." — isomorph
Within the standard cultural lexicon, it might be impolite to assume people know what a Chaldean is.Our Idols Have Feet of Clay
King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had a dream. “The king ordered the magicians, exorcists, sorcerers, and Chaldeans to be summoned in order to tell the king what he had dreamed.” Nebuchadnezzar was a true sceptic and required the interpreter to tell what the dream was before he made an interpretation. The Chaldeans engaged in obfuscation in an attempt to garner enough information to do a cold reading, but the king was having none of it. — isomorph
When quoting religious text or translations it is a good idea to state your belief set overview.Daniel had a vision before he was summoned to the king, and when he was brought to the king, Daniel related the dream and the interpretation: — isomorph
I have been aware of this for a long time in my life. People use aphorisms incorrectly. There is a whole chapter in my soon to come book about this very issue, near and dear to my heart.The head of the statue was of fine gold; its breasts and arms were
of silver; its belly and thighs, of bronze; its legs were of iron, and its
feet part iron and part clay. As you looked on, a stone was hewn out,
not by hands, and struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and
crushed them. All at once, the iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold
were crushed, and became like chaff on the threshing floors of
summer; a wind carried them off until no trace of them was left.
I do not want to consider Daniel’s interpretation, rather I want to consider the common phrase used today, ‘feet of clay’, how it is used and suggest it is an erroneous gloss. People often say, “All of our idols have feet of clay”, meaning we all have flaws, we should not get too disappointed when our heroes fail us, etc. However, in Daniel’s story, it was not only the feet of clay that were destroyed, but the entire idol, gold, silver, bronze, iron, and clay all became “like chaff” carried off by the wind “until no trace of them was left.” — isomorph
Don't you mean the LACK of 'human' thinking? Thinking is just thinking. There is no reason to say 'human'. My border collie of years past could give many humans a run for their money.According to Daniel’s telling, the idol was destroyed entirely without any trace left. People today do not usually want their idols destroyed completely, but want to assuage their disappointment in a person with a phrase, but this meaning has drifted from the original story. This illustration of semantic drift shows something about the development of human thinking. — isomorph
I agree that language and most poignantly, its use by the common man, is becoming a problem, rather than a solution. As mentioned in other threads and again underscored in my last comment on this post, cultural agency has increased, but that means the number of misuses and ... immoral ... interpretations has also increased. The artifacts of that increase and then the number of choosers of immoral paths will begin to pile up.Along with semantic drift, there is also misprision through linguistic interpretation as Macintyre points out, “there is no precise English equivalent for the Greek word dikaiosune, usually translated justice.” Hall and Ames deal with the problem in translating Confucius: “the most accurate picture of Confucius can be obtained if we reject the possibility of such a reconstruction and instead attempt to change lenses and sharpen our focus in such a manner that we enhance our vision of Confucius from the perspective of the present.”As languages drift and develop, not considering the Tower of Babel, humans are able to add technical sophistication to their communication, e.g., Hegel’s thesis/antithesis/synthesis as a technical development of Heraclitus 46, — isomorph
Lol! Nope! Some such theories are now 'proven'. But I have no desire to derail and your main point is still greatly worthy. So on-on!and, also, convoluted errors are added to our thinking, e.g., pick any conspiracy theory. — isomorph
Well, yes, think better is probably a stretch. Still aware of more and thus able to use the same mechanisms of thought and thinking to arrive at better AND WORSE conclusions, yes.Technical sophistication, misprision and convoluted errors characterize the development of civilized language and thinking, but it might be hubris to believe that modern humans can think better than our prehistoric ancestors. — isomorph
This is wildly incorrect.We should reconsider this metaphor of the idol and consider that our idols are provoking us to think, not telling us what to think, since our language and perspective are different, even from contemporaries using our native language. Our idols, in whatever genre, should provoke us to thought without dogma and erroneous semantic drift, or fetishes, or dreams of Arcadia or Utopia. — isomorph
I agree that this tendency is out there, mostly on the left, chaos-apology territory, where everything is a fungible orgy of rot and self-indulgence. Great ...I think humans evolved to see existence as a surd and all of our idols are attempts to square the irrational , but, like Nebuchadnezzar’s dream idol, they will all end like chaff on the threshing floor and be dispersed by the wind as idol replaces idol and our knowledge moves asymptotically toward the nature of reality. Humans depend on intersubjectivity as confirmation of our perception of reality. — isomorph
"No matter where you go, there you are!" - K'ung-fu-tzuIn a private conversation, Roger Ames tried to dissuade me of the notion of finding parallels between western thinking and the “classical Chinese mind.” I fully understand his point, but, as Confucius said, “By nature we are alike, by practice we have become far apart.” I think there is an atavism in our nature as modern humans that ties us to all cultures and time periods. — isomorph
'Well, watery tarts throwing around scimitars is no basis for a system of government!'Our prehistorical ancestors had thinking capacity equal to ours, maybe greater than ours, and this can be seen in prehistoric cave art created by intellectual masters. — isomorph
I like all of these 'maxims'. The flux of progress requires fear (status quo and conservative nature) as well as discovery and following of desire to a point. The trick amid the truth of the word WISDOM, is balance. In other words, balance order and chaos.Propositions:
1. As we progress, our idols are destroyed and replaced, e.g., Ptolemy/Copernicus.
2. Improved instrumentation allows us to verify our perceptions and correct our thinking. Aristarchus saw a heliocentric universe before Ptolemaic geocentric universe was replaced by Copernicus’ heliocentric universe.
3. History can be an idol to be destroyed as in the case of Pythagoras and his theorem, which was known in other cultures long before Pythagoras. Also the victor usually wipes out the history of the vanquished.
4. Our historical idols did not spring up by the prowess of their own genius, but stood on the shoulders of giants as Newton said.
4. We should be conservative in accepting changes, but remember the priests have always had a vested interest in maintaining status quo. — isomorph
Well, yes. VERY indirectly we are indeed responsible for everything, each of us, as in we are all each other really, when the objective truth is uncovered. That does not mean of course that subjectively some of us are not more responsible than others, especially in the case of their own personally scoped immoral choices.It sets up a pattern of continuous 'acceptable' incorrectness that is participated in by almost everyone.
— Chet Hawkins
You're making me responsible for everything. — Bylaw
Well! When I see formulations like this sentence, I know (ha ha) that we are in for a real treat. Let's see where this goes.That is tucked into the word 'it' above. — Bylaw
Yes, that is what imagining a better future is about. It's important not to dip into Consequentialism in either way amid this endeavor. I admit that this is only my belief at present and I have stated my case as to why. This has advantages. That is, until society tries IT (<--- the terrifying it) my way, I can kind of stand on ceremony and keep appealing for sense and wisdom. If - all of society (a bit more terrifying for real) - were to adopt this idea theory and try it, they would either become enamored of it in short order as the right way mostly, or they would all be like, we prefer being foolishly certain, ... please bring back 'porch monkey' as a thing. No monkeys nor porches were harmed forming this paragraph.You are hallucinating a future where you and like-minded have managed to change everyone's mind about the use of those words AND you believe the consequences of them doing this, should you succeed, will be the ones in your mental images. — Bylaw
I get it. Most of history is the blind leading the blind. Why should now be the exception?You are then comparing this image with the image of what happens if this particular change does not take place and putting that on my table. k You have approaches to improving things. I have approaches to improving things. I haven't set of a pattern of continuous acceptable incorrectness. — Bylaw
Our 'values' are mostly horridly polarized foolishness. One has but to take a casual cursory glance at todays court proceedings (if the term proceed means anything other than 'get er done') to witness the rather pointless chicanery that passes as 'leadership' in the United States.We find ourselves in the middle of a situation, with an incredible array of causes and systems. We can choose to reform or revolutionize or adjust or....and so on......different parts of the whole, putting our energy in those parts and in those ways that match our values and where we can have the most effect, in the direction we want things to move. — Bylaw
I know (ha ha). I am aware of that (better). Please forgive my fit of whataboutism because I think it's clear neither one of us is convinced by the arguments of the other. We have both stated our case in many ways. Whataboutism is all thats left. I'm looking into the well dressed strawman closet at this point. Nod's as good as a wink to a blind man, eh?We disagree here. Morality is objective and people's and culture's opinions DO NOT MATTER to that distinction. Such differences only serve as arguing points where there should be none
— Chet Hawkins
I haven't weight in on cultural differences. — Bylaw
Amen brother Bylaw! Preach! Rules are for order-apologists. Real beings take responsibility for all their actions and beliefs and therefore are free to break poorly conceived or situationally inaccurate rules. Isn't having a spine wonderful? Has mass, occupies space. Yep! I guess it matters. Even a chihuahua can stand its ground with a mean loud attitude. And that IS real.Your example is horrendous and not relevant.
— Chet Hawkins
It's extreme. I often use extreme examples to get a foot in the door. In the realm of epistemology, of self-awareness, or introspection, of intuition and so on, there is an incredibly vast range of skills sets and approaches. I am not going to follow rules, unless the consequences of breaking them are so negative, that are put in place for people who are far away from me on the spectrum in the relevant skill set. — Bylaw
Yes, they allude to a strawman with a strawman analogy. Great ... delusional presentation of other delusions. Where does it end. Just give a machete! It's getting to be too thick up in this jungle.I'm not going to stop using metaphors or analogies because many people misuse them. As a kind of parallel example. — Bylaw
It is though. Despite protestations to the contrary, the idiots WILL GO where various pipers lead them. The smart and wise among us ARE INDEED capable of steering them wisely or not. The trouble is now meta though.I get what you are saying and yes the moral action is harder and that is fine and partly the point. What some idiots are still going to do is not really the debate here.
— Chet Hawkins
What some idiots do is part of the real world where I live. This is not a side issue. — Bylaw
We need more harshness, not less. The delusions of pleasure and peace are costing us dearly right now, and will continue to be a increasingly difficult problem. See the enlightened visionary future of Wall-E as a footnote of likely dystopian scenarios. Idiocracy was a little too street/stupid.And to be less harsh... — Bylaw
I am skeptical as well because we have not really tried all that hard, ever. This is new paradigm territory. I admit it. As OneMug mentioned, the problems of today will take better, as in meta level better solutions. Muzzling sheer forms of stupidity is probably required. That is not a full on muzzle. We love the puppies. But if they keep biting themselves or others, they get the cone of shame.the real world includes what happens when people are given cosmetic language based changes but don't really change. I live in that world. I am skeptical about these kinds of language-based reformations, for reasons given in previous posts on this specific language reform you are proposing. — Bylaw
Yes it is (one source). You just do not want to admit that. It's ok. It remains a big source of the problems. Fear's need for certainty in so many ways is a/the fear problem. Its manifestation across all behaviors is similar in pattern to JUST THAT.Yes-ish and not really relevant. The point is being made here in the rare air for people of a quality that say they are for that sort of thing to discuss. My guess is, if such people are not ready for it, then maybe the general public is not either, and that is really sad. Still, the general idea of the point is important enough for everyone to be at least exposed to.
— Chet Hawkins
My point was that I think it is misleading to propose this kind of reformation since it is not the source of the problems. — Bylaw
I agree there. We are talking about intent and intent led by over-expressed fear. Naivete is best discussed as an innocence of sorts. That is balanced as a default. So, I am NOT talking about naivete when I speak of order-apology or fear over-expressions. I am talking about living in fear such that you need to know and prefer to speak as if knowing is a good idea, as opposed to accepting the risks of life and living it that are required to be wise. In humility, we assert that we cannot know, so we proceed then carefully. Those wanting to say they 'know' are those wanting really NOT TO KNOW, finally, so that they can effectively pretend to know and mess things up without ... care. It's a baked in short-cut aim. Fear does not want to admit this.Even the epistemological naivete is not. — Bylaw
Pre-1900 citizen(idiot): 'Has an airplane ever flown?'It's precisely not cosmetic. Cosmetic is a change on the surface that means little. This is not that. It's the reverse of that. Its addressing the problem of words that poison deeper understanding, specifically NOT cosmetic. Way to get that completely wrong.
— Chet Hawkins
Are there language-based reformations that have eliminated evils? — Bylaw
We cannot KNOW. Therefore a statement or assertion is only a belief. If we agree on that point the thread is mostly concluded (and not to be a stickler for reality checks but, in my favor).And we should never say 'know' about a bet. You're proving my point for me.
— Chet Hawkins
The point we agree on. — Bylaw
You're only comical at this point. 'Bound to ...' is certainty? Not at all. It's like saying 'highly probable' or 'I believe'. So, no, again, I am not proving your point, but you are proving mine, again and again.Nonetheless, I stand behind my belief as stated. It's bound to come up and soon, in everyone's life reading this thread.
— Chet Hawkins
And here you are making my point for me.
'It's bound to come up.' This is an expression of certainty. — Bylaw
I've aready taken great pains to explain the difference between anger-confidence and fear-need-for-certainty. Either you get it or you don't, but, no, you're again wrong, it is a casual thing for me to admit as I have in so very many posts that I KNOW nothing. I have only belief. I speak confidently, yes. Do not confuse confidence with certainty.'everyone's life'. You can tell me that 'really' you never mean 'know' but I experience you are exactly as certain as the people who do. — Bylaw
Only time will tell. Assuming I hold true to patterns of the past and place emphasis on and participation within a community of people that at least pretend to understand my arguments, we can revisit the question in 5 years and that would indeed be interesting.In response to my saying the mind reading is unnecessary you use bound and everyone.
Will my interaction with you have any effects?
Will my interaction with someone who uses 'know' have any effects? — Bylaw
Almost (<--- pay attention to that word) certainly! Attention to detail (fear side value) is something I do have, despite it being perhaps less formalized than some classical philosophy academics here. That is in fact endearing and proper for a more balanced approach that allows said supposed philosophy to reach the general public. So, by all means, continue with the fear-side separation and be separated thereby. That is at cross purposes to the aim of wisdom.How often? Has the likelihood increased because of your attitudinal change and no longer using 'know'? — Bylaw
You have but to re-read this thread and even this post in it to discover, if you really look, at how carefully my words are chosen. I am adept at this and post extremely detailed (elongated lol) posts that actually explain my arguments but in plain English so everyone can understand. I am no ivory tower academic or Pragmatic sell-out.Has the attitude actually changed and in what way do we see this change in you? — Bylaw
I venture to say frankly that most people who have interacted with me here consider me in some way different than almost anyone else they have ever had dialogue with. If not, well, that still speaks volumes about ... them, and their observational powers.How will we in Philosophy Forum notice the differences between you, in dialogue with us, and someone who uses know? — Bylaw
And missing the point or trying to label my admitted guesses as to your future as 'bad', just cuz is not an argument either. What is qualification to you? What level of acumen must be shown that can transcend some external third party certification or credentialing? I have made an extensive career out of beating the many Phds I work with, not by intent, but by blunt force trauma, as in they could not solve the problems, so I was called in to do so. As few of them were worth their papers. Most by far were not even close.I can certainly find people who use 'know' who mind read
and stand by their mind reading and present their positions without qualification and who in response to my criticism or questioning start to tell me about my emotions and how these lead to my not accepting the truth of their beliefs. And I can find people who don't do this who use 'know'. — Bylaw
Well, again, time will decide. Risk is acceptable. Opinion does not really matter. Truth does.To boil that down. I can't even tell if it's cosmetic in you. — Bylaw
I have been fairly clear throughout this dialogue. Many would call my clarity blunt even. It has been fun.1) No one really knows things so just say 'I believe that ...' instead of know.
2) Just because no one knows anything does not mean that one person's ideas are not better than the other ones.
— Chet Hawkins
I thought you believed this but it's good to have it clearly written. — Bylaw
My great intuitive leap on this issue would be that the military mandates much of its chatter. The reason is that lives depend on the second by second efficiency of what they say in the field. If you watch Star Trek Discovery its so comically bad in that way. The original series had military adjacent speech and was therefore far more accurate and sensible. The foolishness of blather seen even on the last few shows would have them all dead in nanoseconds in that future world. But luckily for those bozos the writers are infinitely powerful and on their side, as a pandering group of sycophants. In roleplaying games I had to put segment limits on the syllables of soliloquies for the carebear drama lovers of today's roleplaying world, because if they said one tenth of what they say in combat situations they would lose initiative, suffer several surprise attacks and be dead and bleeding on the floor or gassed out on the ethereal plane before anyone understood their ridiculous self-indulgent nuances.You'd be surprised. Language effects great change. So changing language can do that as well.
— Chet Hawkins
There may well be an example in the past, but if you have a specific one, share it. And, of course, even if there isn't one in the past, I'm not ruling it out, but it's not my main objection. — Bylaw
A matter of debate for sure. And here we are.Greater wisdom, greater balance, is actually more of each emotion.
— Chet Hawkins
I agree with this. But what this actually looks like and if someone is, as a specific individual evaluating themselves correctly...that's a different issue. — Bylaw
I must agree. Thank you for stating that. Yes.So, to focus on what we seem to agree on, we both seem to see positive things about fear, desire and anger. We wish to have these in balance. We also value intuition and my sense is we both see intuition where others think they are going on some intuitionless immaculate logic unsoiled by intuition - and likely have poor intuition about what they actually are doing in their minds.
These are not small agreements, so I think it's good to emphasize them. — Bylaw
I would say the culture in such lofty forums is decidedly order-apology, foolish in the extant need for certainty, devoted to rather pointless qualifications, and entrenched in esoteric language that is a balzing impediment to their de-facto goals as 'bringers of wisdom'. But, ... yeah!Intuition and emotions are often denigrated in philosophy forums, directly or implicitly. — Bylaw
Exactly, and the HUGE, world-shattering truth is that logic and thought are all fear-based. Fear, last time I checked was not only an emotion, but it is properly and very improperly denigrated. If thought were properly understood as a manifestation of fear, their bulwark of delusional certainty would properly collapse.And there can often be this implicit or explicit post-Enlightenment judgment that really it's best if these things are weeded out of everything from epistemology, science, politics, interpersonal interactions, discussions and so on - and with some real-world horrible trends where actually modifications through social pressure and even technology are trying to be put in place to eliminate emotions and intuition. — Bylaw
So, yes, you are saying that, as I define it. That means anything in the same pattern as 'but saying know or knowing is useful and understood by most' is effectively throwing your hands up and taking a short cut for efficiency and fait.I simply agree and in fact, one is well advised that wisdom, being far trickier than knowledge alone, is something handled in far worse ways than only knowledge is. I admit that up front. This is the first such accusation leveled and I simply acquiesce.
But we cannot immorally throw our hands up and start just cutting bait. Fishing is the real task. The 'throw your hands up' and cut bait approach is only fear side Pragmatism. "get er done' usefulness IS NOT the way.
— Chet Hawkins
And you haven't said I am throwing up my hands or suggesting we should. But just to be clear, I am not saying that and. — Bylaw
I mean, of course. I am the one advocating for intuition and desire as EQUAL to logic and reason.If any of my emotions is not ringing a low hanging bell of alert, but instead is ringing a highly hung bell, then I must attend that ringing.
— Chet Hawkins
I think we may be close in approach when you say something like this. You are using intuition, perhaps even, for example, Interoception to do an ongoing monitoring. Fine. I appreciate when people can be up front about this. I think it is a problem when people think there is no intuition involved in their reaching of conclusions. That somehow they manage to do deduction, only, for example. Some kind of clean bird's eye view logic alone. — Bylaw
We disagree here. Morality is objective and people's and culture's opinions DO NOT MATTER to that distinction. Such differences only serve as arguing points where there should be none.I don't find it useful to follow rules that might good for most people to follow.
— Bylaw
That is a horridly immoral position to take.
— Chet Hawkins
No, it would be immoral to pretend that guidelines and rules must be universal. No one should drive because some have Parkinson's (metaphorically speaking). — Bylaw
I get what you are saying and yes the moral action is harder and that is fine and partly the point. What some idiots are still going to do is not really the debate here. I am trying to get non-idiots to agree to a better truth approach.Do you understand how that hierarchy is wrong? It is only really desire, fear, anger; as additive. That is the behind the scenes wrongness of that model. That is a fear-centric model.
— Chet Hawkins
Right or wrong it is present. So, you come out with your prescription. Some follow it. Now other people hear wisdom regularly instead of knowledge and the same problems arise. Or the problem is driven underground: correct words are used and the exact same interpersonal, intra-personal dynamics continue. You can wag dogs in the short term, but you're not really changing anything but the surface. And wagging parts of the body is actually more intimate than wagging the choice of words. — Bylaw
Yes-ish and not really relevant. The point is being made here in the rare air for people of a quality that say they are for that sort of thing to discuss. My guess is, if such people are not ready for it, then maybe the general public is not either, and that is really sad. Still, the general idea of the point is important enough for everyone to be at least exposed to.The same problems seep out of the undealt with unconscious patterns and imprinting. — Bylaw
It's precisely not cosmetic. Cosmetic is a change on the surface that means little. This is not that. It's the reverse of that. Its addressing the problem of words that poison deeper understanding, specifically NOT cosmetic. Way to get that completely wrong.Perhaps you have a program to deal with these also, but so far I see a focus and to me fear of certain words. They can certainly be problematic, but changing them is consmetic. — Bylaw
And we should never say 'know' about a bet. You're proving my point for me.Again, and for the thousandth time in this thread it seems, I will say that the usefulness of the distinction is the problem. It IS an expression of probability and not truth.
— Chet Hawkins
Sure. Probability of what, however?
We all have to place our bets on the actions and beliefs of others, as well as ourselves. — Bylaw
I know we agree on that point.It is no violation of trust to suggest that each of us is not perfect.
— Chet Hawkins
Sure, that's a given in my outlook. — Bylaw
Nonetheless, I stand behind my belief as stated. It's bound to come up and soon, in everyone's life reading this thread.Correct. And suffering becomes greater with awareness. Now that I have warned you and that situation exists in the world, you will begin to see and understand more where it comes into play. It will rankle and tease you as an idea from the sidelines, until you make a better choice on its veracity.
— Chet Hawkins
I think predicting my internal states - so, not even mindreading me in the present, but telling me what I will be thinking and feeling - is unnecessary and, in specific often confused. — Bylaw
Granted, I, like everyone, makes assumptions. The difference is that I call that awareness and belief and not knowledge. You should to.You seem to have met certain kind of resistance to your ideas and then assume you understand what anyone is like when you encounter them. — Bylaw
And I encounter almost nothing but that. Meaning the word know is no more useful in reality, and actually less useful in almost all cases than them saying they believe. I mean, really, you are proving my point over and over again. Don't you KNOW that?There are people out there who use the word know, but also rapidly realize that what they thought they knew they didn't.
So, when I encounter then, sure, they come at me with assumptions, but then they have feedback loops which lead them to rapidly get off their positions. — Bylaw
Some do and some do not. But neither one of them actually knows.You can have people who religiously avoid 'know' for example. But end up continuing the pattern of assumptions. They don't recognize anomalies very quickly, despite their epistemological position and use of language. — Bylaw
Just like the word know does for me whenever I hear it. It becomes a lesson in humility for the speaker in almost every case. Nope, you didn't know did you?This is sets off warning bells in me. — Bylaw
It's much less 'parts of the brain' and much more intent.I appreciate the situation's effects: online, words on a screen, philosophy forum - the last entailing tendencies to have positions on logic, reason supposedly versus intuition, what parts of the brain are honored and so on. — Bylaw
I just want them to understand two points really:Your need for certainty comes out clearly in this suggestion that allowing for certainty in others that are equally deluded in its existence harmonizes with. You like those that are like you, all fear. The comfort of similar beliefs is dangerous.
— Chet Hawkins
Completely missing the point.
They do not have the same beliefs and this is reflected in their language.
To me it's like you want to teach used car salesmen (taking that metaphorically) NLP and more cognitive science.
And given that those people already exist, I get my warning bells despite whatever cosmetic dress up they are wearing.
To me focus on the dress up is fear based because it assumes we need people to use certain words. I get it: raising the issue around words may help some people begin to notice a pattern you and I notice. It can be a starting point to question not just practice but what is going on in them. — Bylaw
You'd be surprised. Language effects great change. So changing language can do that as well.But the project is not actually noticing what is going on. It presumes this kind of reformative dialogue could EVER get at the roots of the problem. — Bylaw
I believe that you are right in that. But that is not the point. The point is that my point is better, even if it will not be useful enough to work (and it still would slowly).I don't think you understand the fear not being noticed in your assessment of the situation. This approach is not going to get at the roots of the problems. — Bylaw
Yes, but progress is incremental and we need to start taking steps.In part because they are not going to listen. But also the why, the what is going on ontologically that keeps them from listening AND why if they listened we just get a new layer over the problem. We get slightly more sophisticated problem makers. — Bylaw
I have no idea what you are referring to now. I embrace fear and since I have great anger, I can balance a lot of fear so it does not get over-expressed. Over-expressed fear is what I am arguing against. That is a fear approach with not enough balancing anger or desire.I hear a lot of 'this is your fear'. But I experience someone who has not even faced certain fears, lecturing about fear. Fear denial is a problem. — Bylaw
You are entirely incorrect about what I am denying.And yes, I see that you are confident in you system of feedback. You'll hear those warning bells from fear also. But the denial is built into the model your presenting. And then the moment you are denying fear you are also denying anger and desire. For example. I am not saying that is the only direction these denials flow. — Bylaw
If you give in to 'how things are', human delusions, as opposed to truth, that is exactly what that means.None of this means that I think nothing can be done or hands have to go up in despair or a sense of futility or that mine do. — Bylaw
Yes indeed. And I understand why you think/believe that is a relevant response to my statement.If it is not the certainty part of knowing that you are advocating for, and instead only that this 'knowledge' thing is 'special' in some way, then what way is it special? To me the idea that we (anyone) should credit anyone's knowing with something more impressive than only any other belief is dangerous and so prone to error that I almost can't believe I am having to defend the notion.
— Chet Hawkins
But you are prioritizing assertions. You choose a set of assertions that you send to me. You even called some of it wisdom. You may not label that group, but you have a group. You consider that group of assertions more likely than others that you or someone else might assert. — Bylaw
I simply agree and in fact, one is well advised that wisdom, being far trickier than knowledge alone, is something handled in far worse ways than only knowledge is. I admit that up front. This is the first such accusation levelled and I simply acquiesce.It has served me so well in terms of efficient tracking of problems in almost all cases that I had decided and maintain that it is useful for others to adopt that strategy as a part of general wisdom.
— Chet Hawkins
In my world 'wisdom' is at least as loaded a term as 'knowledge'. — Bylaw
Do you understand how that hierarchy is wrong? It is only really desire, fear, anger; as additive. That is the behind the scenes wrongness of that model. That is a fear-centric model. That fear admits to desire and places it lowly. Then it sees itself in the middle. It does not even acknowledge that anger is what finally causes wisdom in that progression. And keep in mind the error structure of that progression is still including all the elements in my model, just incorrectly juxtaposed.I use that one also, but I notice a lot of people have a hierarchy belief, knowledge, wisdom. With the last term being the best. — Bylaw
I agree.Of course this is not necessarily a spectum of certainty and an indicate type. But It seems to me allowing oneself to categorize 'my beliefs X and Y are wisdom' is as easily misused as doing that with the category knowledge. — Bylaw
Again, and for the thousandth time in this thread it seems, I will say that the usefulness of the distinction is the problem. It IS an expression of probability and not truth.The trouble is that when most people say 'know' most others that have not already come to doubt their knowledge incorrectly assume that matter is settled.
I'm not close to anyone who does this. Assume it is settled, period, shall not be questioned. There are many situations where I just move forward with what they've said as the case. And I like having, for example, my wife using think and know - or some other similar categories. I don't assume when she says know that she cannot be wrong, but I work with it in a different way from 'think'. I think I shut off the stove. I know I shut off the stove. Yes, she might have hallucinated or shut off something else and been confused. But she's got a great record when sure and I find the distinction useful. I certainly don't want her walking around saying I believe regardless of her certainty. If she says she knows, but I am aware of things that put this in doubt, well, I may well go back up and check. She just got terrible news. She's had a couple of shots - she doesn't drink, but just showing some obvious examples of things that might affect me - and also might keep her from saying she knows also, given her self-awareness. — Bylaw
That is a horridly immoral position to take.The trouble is that most people stop caring or thinking when that word is used and they forgo the other 30-15% that is where the real value is - Chet Hawkins
I don't find it useful to follow rules that might good for most people to follow. — Bylaw
I agree. More errors on THEIR part.Also I think if most people stopped using those words, they wouldn't stop thinking they knew, nor would they stop conveying that they are right and you go against their belief at your own danger. — Bylaw
Indeed, an idea and assertion that I maintain. I have defended that position in the words of this post.I mean, you responded to me by saying that in the future I will suffer if I don't do as you believe we all should here, advice you categorize as wisdom. — Bylaw
Correct. And suffering becomes greater with awareness. Now that I have warned you and that situation exists in the world, you will begin to see and understand more where it comes into play. It will rankle and tease you as an idea from the sidelines, until you make a better choice on its veracity.So, while adhering to your own guideline you spoke without qualification what you classify as wisdom and predicted that I would suffer in the future. — Bylaw
Your need for certainty comes out clearly in this suggestion that allowing for certainty in others that are equally deluded in its existence harmonizes with. You like those that are like you, all fear. The comfort of similar beliefs is dangerous.I mean, honestly. I'd rather someone said 'I know.' I don't assume either one of you is correct, but in a sense of I feel like the other person is being more honest even if they are incorrect about being right and infallible. — Bylaw