The most obvious answer is that for some reason or another, biology makes women less interested in the subject. This answer is unpopular, because most people today practice the religion of egalitarianism, so they will call you a bigot for saying so (their word for heretic), but it is the truth.

The evidence shows that sociological reasons are false. For example, I studied physics at university and it was almost all men. There were scholarships available allowing women in physics to basically go for free, but they still didn't want to. There was also ubiquitous pro-female propaganda, and that still wasn't enough. The sociological explanations (not enough female role models, etc) show a lack of understanding of male motivation. When men want to do something, they go do it, with or without role models. The fact that they were pushing for role models, scholarships, and other support is an admission that women as a group are not intrinsically motivated to study physics, because if they were, then these other things would not have mattered.

An explanation for this from evolutionary psychology is that men by nature have to work harder to provide for themselves and to get sex. Men are bigger and stronger (more able to put their will into practice) and women are picker with regards to sex (men have to work hard to impress them). So, men are by nature more interested in understanding how things work and they are competitive and want to prove themselves. The survival of women, in contrast is more dependent on their relationships, since they are less able to get their material needs met by their own hands. This also makes women more malleable under social pressure, since they are more materially dependent. Feminists project the degree to which they are socially malleable onto men, which is why they think that social pressure (like shaming) can turn men into women. When the men don't change much because they aren't wired to respond to this kind of propaganda, the feminists call them sexist and propagandize even harder. But close to 100% of the media has been feminist for decades, which is good evidence that it is not possible to say anything to make men and women behave the same.

I'm used to thinking of God as being holy. So, if the universe is God, then it would follow that the universe is holy. I guess if he died to create the universe, then nothing would be holy. This is the first time I've tried to think about this idea, so pardon me if I didn't get all the details right on my first try.

I have thought about this before. Assuming that we are talking about an omnipotent creator God, then if he DID have the power to kill himself, he must have chosen not to, or else nothing would exist. If he chose not to, then he must have decided that he likes/loves himself. So, if this kind of God exists and if it's possible for him to kill himself, then God's self-love is a necessary prerequisite to existence.

This then provides a motive for creation. If God contains the potential for all else, and if he loves himself, then it makes sense that he'd want to create everything that could possibly exist out of his self-love. If every existing thing is a partial manifestation of the infinite God trying to manifest himself, then you would predict a very big and very old universe (or possibly infinite multiverses).

If it were possible for God to add to himself, I would think he would probably do that. But if he's infinite, that might not be possible. It might be the case that infinity + 1 = infinity. According to Christian theology, there is no difference at all between the Father and the Son except that the Son is "begotten". If it's possible for God to "beget" a son, then it might not be possible for God to "beget" two sons, because they would actually be identical (the same being). And then they also teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds", but I'm not sure what the difference is. Anyway, if God loved himself, and if it were possible for him to make more Gods like himself, then you'd expect something like the Trinity. Then all the rest of creation is necessarily finite and imperfect, because otherwise it would be literally impossible for God to create it.

"Before the beginning" is not actually an arbitrary phrase. The matter we are familiar with only acts after it's first acted upon. So, it follows that if there was a first cause, it can't be anything at all like the matter we are familiar with. So, that leads to the idea that the first cause does not exist within time and space like matter does. It is a very traditional Christian idea that God exists outside of time. The Nicene Creed even says that the Son was begotten from the Father before all ages. So, the idea of God existing before time is an old one that has made sense to people in the past. Also, math appears to be true regardless of what time it is, so, it sounds reasonable to say that math might still have been true before the Big Bang. So, there is at least one thing we are already familiar with that has its existence independently of time.

I read the essay from Gnomon about a deistic God. I guess I don't have much to say, because most of it sounds plausible. The main thing I noticed that I might disagree with is the analogy of creation being like an egg or a fetus. Based on what I discussed immediately above, we have good reason to think that a creator god must be utterly unlike anything that we've ever experienced. So, it makes more sense as an analogy to think of existence as a creation than as a birth, because if it were a birth, that would seem to imply that we were the same type of thing as God. So, I like the traditional Jewish/Christian analogy for existence as creation better.

I haven't spent much time thinking about pandeism before. Here's what I thought of in a couple minutes. Part of the point of this post was to imbed a moral foundation within the creation myth. Your creation myth (180 Proof) was very short, so I don't think it did that much. I suppose if everything is God, then that means that everything is holy. I suppose that's pointing in a similar direction to what I was trying to point at in my story, that everything is good for its own sake. I think the main difference would be that in the deist world-view, God is eternal and still exists separately from his creation after it has been created, whereas in the pandeist view, there is nothing outside of "creation". It seems to me that since math is eternal and abstract and seems to exist independently of matter, that the deist creator god fits together more nicely with mathematics than the pandeist god. The creator god also points more towards the existence of a supernatural or otherworldliness, whereas pandeism would not seem to do this. Since it's all speculative, I suppose the most that could be said of one conception rather than another is that it's more or less plausible or has different moral implications.

Again, it makes more sense – cogently, parsimoniously, naturalistically – to substitute existence (or laws of nature (à la Laozi or Epicurus, Spinoza or Einstein)) for "God". — 180 Proof

I briefly discussed in one of my earlier replies that I can't imagine a difference between an unconscious creator god and the laws of physics. They would seem to me to basically be the same thing. So, I wonder if you're taking more offense at the word, "god" than with the idea itself.

I think that is a better version of Christianity, where human beings are able to exist without any repercussions regarding the choices they make in their life and being able to choose whether to acknowledge such a God or not as you say he does not require any covenants.

Your view of God in this respect is similar to mine, but with the added bonus of immortality granted to beings who express his will the best and who are as morally good as it is possible.

However I do not subscribe to the creation myth or garden idea because I cannot infer purpose from god nor any motivation behind his reason for creating this world. It could be that initially god rolled the dice and created the universe where life may emerge due to intrinsic inevitability of the properties of physics, maths and matter such that life’s emergence was inevitable not just on this planet.

This leads to many questions such as his relationship to his creation and creatures within it, as god himself is immortal does is this property also inherited by human beings who wish to attain immortality as well or is it just an exclusive property belonging to god only? If so then we are but the flicker of a candle in the wind compared to god’s eternal existence. If we have no intrinsic purpose to our existence but to enjoy it (and some don’t) then if we die never to be reborn then our creation was meaningless. — kindred

I didn't imagine that people become immortal in the Christian sense. The particulars of our minds and bodies do not become immortal (so far as I know). My idea was that abstract ideas (such as perhaps the virtues of patience, perseverance, or temperance) are immortal, so that in-so-far as we practice these virtues, we are participating in the life of immortal virtues. So, it is not that individual humans actually live forever, but that while they are alive, they become like things that are immortal. I think of this less like hope in some unverifiable paradise, than as another way of seeing the world as it actually exists right now. I think in the case of virtues, one man's charity does not interfere with another man's charity, and one man's temperance does not interfere with another man's temperance. But one man's greed would interfere with another man's greed. So it seems to me that the virtues are virtually the same for everyone, but the vices are all individual. So, the virtue I practice is in principle the same as the virtues that were practices thousands of years ago, and are also the same as the virtues that might be practiced thousands of years in the future. That is the sense in which I participate in the life of the immortal. I think in a definitional sense, I define virtues as any positive habit that builds one's life up (the easiest to think of could be diet and exercise), whereas a vice is something that tears your life down (like smoking, because it hurts your health and your wallet).

The idea in this creation myth is that since we can't infer a utilitarian purpose for things, perhaps those things exist for their own sake. That is the story behind this creation myth. And in the story, the laws of physics are set up precisely so that stars, life, and the rest, will spontaneously arise. The whole point of the story is to let you interpret meaning in the world as it actually exists right now.


Now to address your last paragraph. I don't think humans are immortal, because it appears that our existence is dependent on the arrangement of matter in our bodies, so that there is no reason to believe that we continue to exist after the matter takes a different form. So then, yes, I think it is likely that we are a flicker of a candle in the wind compared to God's existence. It is normal, I think, to imagine that our lives are meaningless if they are temporary, since we come from a culturally Christian background that teaches an afterlife. As I discussed after the creation myth, however, whatever you are genuinely able to believe with respect to values becomes true, at least to you. I have often thought in my life before whether it's possible for me to do anything that's not in vain, and eventually I came up with the answer, "If there's a moment in which I wouldn't wish anything to be different, or even for the moment to last longer, then it is worth it, at least to me in that moment" That seems to be true, by definition, isn't it? Whatever I find to be worth it and meaningful, IS worth it and meaningful to me. If I imagine that simply existing as I am for a time is meaningful, then I am content. And the point of this creation myth is not that we exist for our own pleasure, but that we exist for God's pleasure (I suppose this retains that element of Christian mythology that meaning is derived from God). As it said, we are like flowers. "It is not necessary that the flower understands its purpose." I do think there is an argument to be made that a creator God's opinion about the purpose of existence is more valid than anyone else's. If some random Joe makes a widget, that Joe has more authority than anyone else to say what he made it for, even if somebody uses it for a different purpose. That doesn't mean that we have to respect God's wishes for the purpose of creation, but I can't think of anyone else who can more convincingly come up with a different purpose. This God is truly omnipotent and immovable in the sense that his purpose is for things to exist for their own sake, so that it's literally impossible for humans to thwart his purpose no matter what they do. His will IS done. There is no conflict to God.

My idea of the creator God comes from cosmological arguments. That means by definition, whatever exists without being caused is God. So, if the laws of physics are eternal and simply exist without cause, then they are God. Even if that were the case, that still leaves the unanswered question of how all the matter got instantiated (because Mathematical laws can exist without material instantiation). I heard Carl Jung talk once about the likelihood that God is unconscious. I didn't like that idea, but if it were true, I can see no difference between an unconscious creator God and the laws of physics.

I've heard arguments that I think are convincing that the scientific method was developed in the first place because people believed there was an intelligent creator God, and that therefore nature was rational. Math is a kind of language, and Genesis says that God created by speaking, so at the highest abstract level, Genesis appears to be true in this sense. Even if none of the rest of it is true, this points towards the idea of a creator God as being the best model of reality that people had yet come up with, because it bore fruit.

I realize that this is speculative, but I'm not aware that anyone could prove that this story did not happen. It is a convenient scaffold for a philosophical viewpoint.

One of these is false:

1. Particles cannot influence one another faster than the speed of light (locality)
2. Particles have well defined properties before being measured (realism)

As examples, the Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations reject realism, and the de Broglie–Bohm theory rejects locality. — Michael

I only skimmed the first page of replies, and this seems to be the only answer that succinctly answers the question.

I studied physics at university, but only ever really felt fully comfortable with classical physics. I got the top score in the class on the last quantum mechanics test I took, but it just felt so weird and I never really felt like I mastered it (I never worked past a bachelor's degree).

My understanding of some of the weirdness in quantum mechanics is that quantum particles do not appear to have defined momentum or position prior to being measured. This is not a limitation of our measurements, but a property of the particles themselves.

So, when I hear, "anti-realism", I think of some kind of interpretation like the particle has no real defined traits until observed by a consciousness(or possibly, until interacting with any macroscopic object). At the macroscopic scale, things only appear to be determined because the average behavior of a huge number of random objects is fairly well determined.

I don't really have a dog in the fight, because as I said, I don't feel like an expert. The only thing I can think of is that maybe position and momentum aren't really the fundamental building blocks of existence, but maybe the wave function itself (which describes a probability distribution of position or momentum) is the true existence of the particle. As I understand it, the wave function ought to be well defined at all times.

I have had a similar thought about relativity. It seems so bizarre to me that lengths and mass change due to velocity, and that velocities cannot be added by simple arithmetic (if you throw a ball with V1 on a train at V2, the final velocity is NOT V1 + V2 according to relativity). I would think that if a thing were truly "real", then it would be observed to be the same for all observers. It made me wonder if things like mass, and position are not truly the fundamental building blocks of existence, but are only derived phenomena from something even more fundamental. I couldn't begin to tell you what that is though.

My background in biology has me taking the side that says all is random. In nature, there is no such thing as a closed system. There are always random events that impinge upon and influence the outcome of any "cause" in producing its "effect." — Questioner

In this case, it is effectively random because we don't know the information. But if we knew all the information 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.

I am not going to address any of your lies

I googled for "Four Degrees of Love Bernard of Clairvaux", and I agree that it is remarkably similar to what Kohlberg said. It is interesting to me that they came to such similar conclusions when they lived so far apart in time and had such different perspectives on the world.

I personally have a hard time with believing that Jesus/The Holy Spirit is actively guiding the church, largely due to the confusion in the church. If the same voice is talking to everyone, why doesn't everyone agree? But I can test the psychological or moral wisdom of Jesus, proverbs, or other Christian doctrines in my own life, and I find very consistently that they are good. I believe at the very minimum, that the Bible is phenomenologically true, meaning that it is true about what it feels like to be a human and to struggle with making the right choices.

I read your post on my lunch break. Your reply was interesting and referenced a lot of sources that I am unfamiliar with. I think I might order that book on Genesis. I think I would have to do research on more of your sources in order to be able to make an intelligent reply.

I believe that you wrote a sincere reply, but it's very long and I'm at work right now, so I won't read it right now. I might read it later.

You can also find statistics that say the exact opposite. I googled for, "most domestic violence initiated by women" and found several sources corroborating this. You can do the google search yourself. You can also find lots of statistics showing that most serial killers are raised by single mothers, and that children raised without a father in general are poorer and have more behavioral issues. I am not going to get into it here because I know that you will just argue and deny that anything that doesn't support feminism is biased. I also just did a search for, "life expectancy of married vs unmarried women", and Google's AI says that on average, married women live longer. This is not consistent with the view that men are a net negative for women. As I understand it, when a woman is murdered, the murderer is statistically most-likely to be the husband, but this is for the same reason that murderers of children are most likely to be the mother; these are just the people that you spend the most time with. But I suspect that this nuance might be lost on you. Also, you did not even accurately represent my argument, so I'm not going to argue with you anymore.

The issue addressed at the top of the OP is that if we are composed of entirely naturalistic particles, then we are a product of the laws that govern those particles. This is relevant to the discussion of free will.

Since then, I've come to realize that causality, materialism, and objective reality are metaphysical concepts, by which I mean they are neither true nor false. They have no truth value — T Clark

It sounds absurd to me that those things have no truth value at all. If that were the case, then why does science work? Either the efficacy of science and technology are one big coincidence and we are all deceived, or causality, materialism, and objective reality are accurate descriptions of how most things work.

Proofs of freewill and proofs of determinism are as reliable as proofs for and against the existence of God. One may be sure that that they are unreliable without even reading them, because of unenlightened's famous principle: "No arrangement of words, howsoever cunning, can oblige the world to be thus and not so."
Thought experiments can only be useful when one already knows precisely what one is talking about. They are therefore of little value to philosophers, who are only called in when folk discover that they don't quite know what they are talking about after all.
To reject unenlightened's principle is to believe in the efficacy of magic spells. — unenlightened

Based on the argument you made, math and science are magic spells, because they predict how things work by the use of logic symbols. I would be angry that you have written such ignorant nonsense without even bothering to read the OP, but I am used to it by now.

The view on sex and marriage expressed in the OP is pretty patriarchal. — Banno

"Patriarchy" literally means rule by the father. I think patriarchy is a good thing, because there's usually no one who will love his family more than the father. However, I don't think I said anything in my original post relating to who should be in charge. So, it seems to me that if you think what I said is patriarchal, even though I said nothing about rule by the father in the post, then it probably means that what I said sounds like what a loving father would tell his children.

According to my own understanding, Paul's justification for marriage is that it's the only healthy outlet for lust. "...for it is better to marry than to burn with passion"

Jesus talked about how love of God and neighbor are the principles behind the 10 commandments. Not committing adultery and not coveting are two of the 10 commandments. It seems reasonable for me to conclude then that at least part of the reason for these commandments is love of neighbor. I think if I can discover by my own experience and reason good justifications for why premarital sex is harmful, then I have understood (at least in part) the purpose behind these commandments.

I don't really see a contradiction between Paul and Jesus here. If marriage is the only healthy outlet for lust, then marriage is also the only way to have sex while loving yourself and your neighbor.

I believe that marriage is healthy because lust is a savage desire in that it treats another person as an object. The sexual desire itself treats another person as an object to use for pleasure (similar to how one might treat ice cream or a hamburger). Women also typically use male lust as a means of getting other things that they want, such as money, vacations, or power. So, in the absence of commitment, men tell whatever lies they have to in order to get as much sex for as little as possible (thus using women as sex objects), and the women tell whatever lies they have to to get the men to fork over as much as possible in exchange for sex (thus using men like ATMs). It seems to me that the only respectful way to treat another human as an object like this (which seems to be innate in lust itself) is to offer your whole self as compensation. So, I see a healthy marriage as two selfish people freely giving the other what he/she can't help but selfishly desire.

Note the passive voice: everything in nature is determined. Determined by what? If human behavior is determined then it needs to be determined by something other than ourselves, or else it is determined by us, which entails free will. — NOS4A2

Speaking as someone who has studied physics, when I first saw the argument, I thought it was obvious that nature was "determined" by the laws of physics. All natural laws described by physics prior to the discovery of quantum mechanics are deterministic laws. You can take the equations of parabolic motion taught in high school as an example. If you know the initial conditions of the ball, then you know when and where it will end up.

You have claimed that Item 1 is true without justification. Perhaps you think it is self evident, but I disagree. — T Clark

If you spent a lot of time studying natural sciences, you would probably realize that all the models we use are either deterministic (almost all of them) or random (quantum mechanics, or statistics when the underlying fundamentals are too complicated to calculate).


Also, the "free" in free will means that it's not forced by anything (or that's what I imagine it means)

I always just imagined that everything we experience is a model. For example, I can't experience the true essence of water directly (otherwise I'd know that it's composed of H2O molecules upon visual inspection); I only experience its coolness and wetness and the way it distorts light.

Likewise, I cannot experience the true essence of myself, but only have a model for myself. I think of consciousness as my model for myself. Or perhaps, the model of my model.

Thus, I conceive of consciousness not as existing or not existing in a binary, but as a continuum of less or more sophisticated self-models. So, a bird grooming itself must have at least a very rudimentary model of self, and anyone practicing psychology must have a very advanced model of the self.

I do not see why having self-models has to be more mysterious than models of external objects. I suppose a necessary component of self-models is that they are recursive/reflexive, whereas models of external things point in only one direction (outwards).

Thanks for your replies, guys.

It is true that from a purely naturalistic perspective, objective morals cannot be proven. In this vein, I was more interested in describing how religions came to be and how they work, than I was interested in trying to morally justify their existence.

It is true that I look at things from the perspective of Abrahamic religions, but I don't think the main idea that religions can evolve is wrong if there are some religions that don't originate in the idea of sky father.

It sounds like that Dunbar Number is consistent with my guess about the role of religion in forming larger societies. I don't think I had heard of him before, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised that other smart people thought of ideas before I did.

I guess the social cost of cannibalism is less if it takes place in very specific circumstances. I don't think the sacrifice of Jesus is like regular cannibalism in social cost because it is a unique circumstance that is not at all transferable to other people. Although, I have heard that the ancient Romans were grossed out by the practice.

As for human sacrifice, we don't have it anymore, do we? One might consider this circumstantial evidence that the practice is not as adaptive as more modern cultural practices.

I meant "beneficial" in the evolutionary sense, in that it aids with survival and reproduction. That's why I followed up with, " ...or else people would either quit believing in it, or the believers would die out." It was not a moral argument.

(re: "common" therefore "beneficial"? like e.g. poor hygiene, bigotry, sex/child abuse, theft/fraud, bullshit/lies, ignorance, superstitions, scapegoating, conspiracy theories, war, poverty, etc) — 180 Proof

I have opinions about why all those things happen, but fully addressing all of them would take a very long time. I will mention a couple things, however. "Ignorance" is the default state, so, it isn't something that needs to be actively maintained. Same for "poverty". "Bigotry" could be beneficial in the evolutionary sense if it harms rival groups more than the in-group. Theft and lies are beneficial for the individual for short-term material benefit, but these behaviors are contrary to the health of the social body, which is why we see the behavior in individuals, but the behaviors tends to be discouraged publicly. In short, one way or another, all these behaviors are good at existing, which is why we see them. Or, in the case of sexual or child abuse, perhaps these behaviors are unhealthy expressions of desires that can at other times be healthy (such as the desire to reproduce, or for social dominance).

The general consensus among Christians is that the resurrection is the good news. If that's not it, then most Christians are mistaken.

If you want to use words the way that other people use them, then I think you have to believe that Jesus rose from the dead to be a Christian, because that's what other Christians believe.

I personally love the teachings of Jesus and find them to be applicable in life, and this does not directly depend on what happened 2000 years ago. So, I could say that I try to follow Jesus, even if I don't have strong faith about the supernatural aspects.

"Christ" has a specific religious meaning. I think it means something like "savior". So, if you don't believe that Jesus saved you from something, then it makes no sense to call one's self a "Christian".

That is an interesting post. I've never thought about it that way before. But is there necessarily a contradiction in existence being evil? I usually think of "is" and "ought" as being separate, so there wouldn't seem to be a contradiction in this case for existence to be evil. However, if "objective" as you're talking about it means that there is an "ought" which is necessarily also an "is", then I suppose there can be an inherent contradiction. If I'm understanding it right, then maybe you have to more clearly define what "objective" means for the proof to hold.

Like if there were a mathematical proof "A" that proof "A" does not exist, then I agree that would be a contradiction. But if there isn't necessarily any correlation between existence and goodness, then I don't think it follows that if a mathematical proof of goodness could exist, that that proof would necessarily be good.

I have a hard time understanding what you mean because you throw out all these terms and I don't know what the terms mean. I had to look up, "Res ipsa loquitur", for instance. And throwing out those terms isn't really an argument unless the person you're speaking to already understands exactly what you mean by those terms, and they understand how you mean to apply them.

wow it sounds like you had almost the exact same idea as me years ago

You asked me to reply to comments that you had previously made.

I don't think I entirely understood the comment about pandeism. It looks like you were arguing that we are all a dream in the mind of God, and it was somehow connected to physics. I suppose I already liked to imagine that God was something like a programmer and that we are the programmed world. I suppose that's very similar to being in the mind of God.

If you define God as the unmoved mover, however, then it does not make sense to say that "everything" is God, in the same way that it would be wrong to say that the world of Minecraft "is" the developer(s) who made it.

I've looked into Spinoza briefly before and it seemed to me that his ideas on God were similar to mine. But it made more sense to me to think using my own brain than to copy what someone else thought.

It's very rare that I meet someone who seems to understand everything I say and mostly agree on everything. When you mostly agree, it's hard to find things to talk about though.

I think in principle, it's probably impossible for us to find a theory of everything. This is because of Geodel's theorem, which if I understand correctly, says that a mathematical system cannot be both complete and consistent. That means for any consistent theory, there will be things that are true but can't be proven. Anything based on logic or math (including science) ought to also be affected by Geodel's theorem.

I think in the case of science, we probably err on the side of inconsistency. This is because for any given phenomena, we can come up for an explanation for it. But we might not have worked out all the implications of our explanations. An example of a historical inconsistency was that in Maxwell's equations, you can derive the speed of light irrespective of reference frame, but according to the physics of the time, the speed of anything ought to depend on reference frame. A current possible contradiction could be relativity and quantum mechanics (relativity is smooth and deterministic, and quantum mechanics is not). I'm not saying that science is all wrong and I'm smarter than all the physicists in the world. I can't point at exactly where the contradiction is, but based off Goedel's theorem, it's probably there somewhere.

Going back to God, if there is such a thing as a necessary premise or a first premise which is complete in itself and from which we can derive everything else, then it breaks Geodel's theorem (or is altogether outside the bounds of human logic). But if there is no such thing, and Geodel's theorem holds for all things whatsoever, then does that indicate that reality itself is incomplete or inconsistent? It is rather unsettling. It is another indication that it is beyond our power to know the ultimate truths.

I was imagining that Flannel Jesus was going to keep attacking my premises, and realized that my reasons for coming up with this philosophy were very subjective.

At one time I was really trying to be a Christian, but was frustrated by a couple things. One frustration was that there didn't seem to be any evidence to me that I was actually in a relationship with God. Another was that adhering to one tradition or another opened one's self up to having literal interpretations of Bible passages being disproven by science. And a general life frustration was that many things did not seem to be going my way. So, this philosophy answers these problems by not requiring for there to be any covenant with God, not being offensive to my intellect (such as by asking me to believe something that seemed contrary to scientific evidence), and by helping me find meaning even when my personal goals were failing.

Since we cannot observe values with our eyes, in a certain sense, all of our moral systems are just made-up. This is probably why it can be nigh impossible to bring another person around to your way of thinking in the religious/moral sphere. A person with different experiences or temperament could not be influenced by my philosophy the same way I am. I think it is a good thing to explicitly spell our one's moral assumptions as I have done, because at least this is honest. It think the new atheist types that just attack everything are unaware of what the foundation of their values is. They can poke holes in other people's beliefs, but they are not self-aware enough to even know that they have moral beliefs of their own which others could theoretically poke holes in, if they were to formulate their beliefs.

I haven't read all the replies yet, so I don't know if somebody else has said the same thing. The idea that you could replace any principle with an anti-principle was new to me, and it seems true. Although, I have for a long time thought that the principles in moral systems were arbitrarily asserted, I thought that was just unavoidable. I don't know if it can really work to build a moral system off experience, since we only have experience of particulars. We can say, "I liked this particular event and I didn't like this other particular event," but as soon as we say, "I like events that are similar to this event," then we have entered into an abstraction and thus a principle.

I am not sure I understood everything. Maybe you should have given examples to illustrate your points.

I don't know if this is relevant here, but your post reminded me of a difference between people theorized by the MBTI. It says that some people see the past as a series of concrete events, and the present as an abstraction of what could happen right now (Si + Ne). Other people see the past as an abstraction of the general trend of what happened, and the present as the concrete of what is right here right now (Ni + Se). Your discussion of how we experience a chain of events reminded me of Si (introverted sensing), which although true, is not my default conception of the world (being an INTJ with lead Ni). I have a general sense of what I like and don't like, sometimes without remembering most of the specific instances that led me to those preferences. I don't know if this is true, but imagining a moral system built off experience makes me imagine my wife, who is an ISTJ. She, for instance, had the experience that her dad's car was from 2005 and it broke down a lot, so she is convinced that we can never own a car as old as 2005 (rather than abstracting out the general rule that old cars require more maintenance). As another example, many of the men she met in her life who had beards were dirty hobos, and thus she hates beards and expects me to shave. This seems silly to me, but shaving my beard seems like a small compromise to make for an otherwise easy-going wife.

Thanks for your kind words.

There are other possible choices.
4. Causation is not a valid, or at least not the only valid, way of thinking about how the universe works. This is mainstream philosophical position.
5. The universe is eternal. It's always been here and always will be. It never began and was never caused. — T Clark

4 is a valid alternative, although it does mean that logic/science would not work to describe uncausal things.

5 seems to me to be the same as 2. If the universe is infinitely old and one thing causes another, then that is an infinite regression of causes. Although an infinite regression of causes isn't necessarily limited by time. For instance, if there were an infinitely old universe with fixed laws of physics, you could still ask, "Where did the laws of physics come from?" If the laws of physics don't come from anything, then I guess they would be God (the uncaused cause).

What you say may be true for deductive logic, but not for inductive. Inductive logics job, if you want to look at it that way, is to generate premises for deductive logic to work on. — T Clark

I think inductive logic can argue for plausibility, but it can't prove unique truth.

I love the world. I can't believe how wonderful it is. Seems like you feel something similar. There are many people here on the forum and in the world who have a much sourer take. They are unlikely to find your approach useful. — T Clark

Actually, I developed this philosophy to counter my natural sourness. I think it has helped. Changing one's thoughts really can change one's emotional state. I can tell myself (and believe it) that even if I don't feel grateful right now, there is cause to be grateful, so that not feeling it is a problem with me and not with the world .

I forgive you. I may have been overly emotional to criticism because this idea is important to me.

I think this is where I got the idea of mocking from, "I don't give a shit if you wipe your ass with it"

I am aware that I can't prove that it is the way I spelled out here. I did mention that I can't prove that there is a creator God (although that's a plausible possibility), and that finding utility in creation being personal might come merely from the fact that humans are hardwired to be social. So, pointing out that things might not be as I suppose doesn't seem to really be proving anything, it's just rejecting the premises. I suppose I have to concede that even if there is a creator God, then there is the possibility that the purpose of creation is utterly unknown to us.

I suppose the only thing that is strictly implied by God creating the world is that God thought it was good (or else why would he create it?) I suppose it's technically a possibility that God thinking something is good has no bearing on whether we think it's good, but in this case, it's hard to imagine what possible basis for morality could exist at all. I don't even think that this idea of a possible conflict between God's desires and ours runs entirely counter to the train of thought in the original post, because I was talking near the end about how God sees beauty in things that are far outside the scope of my own personal desires. I suppose a moral presupposition here is that it is good to submit ourselves to God's way of valuing things, but the alternative would mean hating existence, which does not seem very pleasant.

I suppose I think the utility of this worldview is that it is a minimalistic explanation for existence which is consistent with our experience that simultaneously provides a metaphysical framework for valuing existence for its own sake.

All morality depends on arbitrary assertions, since we cannot directly observe values. I do not think you could come up with a moral system which did not take SOMETHING for granted. So, I did not find it very useful to point out that my assumptions might not be true. The only constructive thing that could come from that is forcing me to more concretely spell out my assumptions. I suppose I thought that the original assumptions were that there is a creator God and that we can learn how he values existence by observing existence, and you pointed out that this only makes sense if we care about what God thinks.

The fact that you are arguing about this makes me think that you didn't read past the paragraph that you quoted. The idea is that everything exists for it's own sake, which is the impression you get from nature, since it seems to exist without a known greater purpose. I suppose it's possible that it exists with a purpose utterly unknown to us, but in that case, the philosophy is pointless. The point of deism here is a foil for finding beauty and meaning in life. I suppose you could simply assert that every existing thing is beautiful without reference to God, but a creator God provides a plausible metaphysical explanation for why everything is intrinsically beautiful. I am wondering whether I'm wasting my time though, since it seems like you're just looking for the first thing you can mock without even trying to understand the whole idea. Yes, it's entirely true that the idea has unjustifiable premises, and if you reject the premises, then the whole idea makes no sense. But every idea is like that. I do think this idea has some merit though, in that it is at least consistent with observation, and it provides a metaphysical framework for a moral system.

Well, you can interpret the moral implications however you want. However, it seems intuitive that just as an engineer has a special right to say what his widget is for, or an artist has a special right to say what is painting represents, so likewise would a creator God have a special right to say what his creation is for. But I suppose if you want to say that you'll use the widget for whatever you like, or interpret the painting however you like, even quite contrary to the creator's intentions, then there is nothing stopping you.

If you want just a yes/no answer, then I'll say, "No"

I don't really disagree strongly with anything you said. it's hard for me to say much when I agree because there is really nothing to argue about.

I would argue that we are already halfway to communism. Having a central bank and public schooling are communist tenants. Private property rights are also being eroded by things like the eviction moratorium during covid. It could get worse in the future.

I think libertarians are closest to the original idea of the USA. But I think the USA was de facto Christian when it was built. The separation of church and state was made when the choices were basically Catholic and different kinds of Protestantism, and was made to avoid bickering between Christian denominations (I think they didn't want anything like the 30 years war happening in the USA). However, the people at the time had broadly Christian values, even if they didn't explicitly write them into law. So, I don't see the the Christian fundamentalists as being entirely contrary to the original spirit of the USA, even if they are contrary to the letter of the law.

As for abolishing political parties, I think it sounds good in theory, but it's not going to happen practically. I suppose my original discussion was also entirely theoretical.

Western civilization is founded on INDIVIDUAL freedom and responsibility. The idea of reparations makes no sense unless you view justice on a racial rather than an individual level. Entertaining this idea means that you totally disbelieve in western values.

I would argue that a civilization is founded upon common moral ideas. Since your moral ideas are outside the western view, that would make you a barbarian from the point of view of westerners like myself.

Reparations also could not be implemented without theft. So, you are advocating for theft. And you are advocating for theft from me, because I am a white person. It is extremely ugly to try to convince the potential victim of a robbery that you are morally justified in robbing him.

Welfare is bad for its recipients. It makes them dependent. Black families were doing better back in the 1970s before the welfare programs started to really take off. More of them were married in stable families and had jobs. There was less gang sh*t and looting. A common thing that happens in poor communities is that the mothers realize they can get more money from the government if they're single, so they kick the dad out of the home to get the money. Then the children grow up messed up because there was no father in the home.

Blacks are already receiving welfare. If I understand correctly, because of the welfare state, only White men and Asian men as groups pay net taxes. All other groups are net drains on the tax base because of welfare. So, they have ALREADY been receiving reparations (and I'm not happy about it).

Now suppose I were forced to see people in terms of their race rather than as individuals, because the rest of my society forced it on me. Why should I fight for the enemy team? I might sooner be in favor of reintroducing segregation/slavery than of reparations.

This idea also shows a complete lack of historical knowledge. Most slaves in history were white. Or more specifically, a lot of them were slavs. I might be wrong on this, but I think the word "slav" and "slave" might be related, because of how common it was for slavs to be taken as slaves by muslims. Vikings sometimes sailed down the Volga river to kidnap slavs and sell them to muslims in Baghdad. Do the Scandinavians and Muslims owe Russia reparations?

The muslims on the Barbary coast also sometimes kidnapped whites all across the Mediterranean. I suppose most of the descendants of these slaves are still mixed into the muslim population. Do the muslims owe themselves reparations?

In the black slave trade, African kings kidnapped their own people to sell them to Jewish traders, who then sold them again to white American plantation owners. Do the Jews and Africans still living in Africa owe black Americans reparations?

Probably some of the lighter-skinned blacks in America got that way because one of their distant ancestors was r*ped by their white owner. So, they are descended both from slaves and slave owners. Do they owe themselves reparations?

The population gets thoroughly mixed over a long period of time, so that probably everybody had slave and slave-owning ancestors if you go back to the Bronze Age. Does everybody owe themselves reparations?

There are also some whites who never owned slaves or had colonial empires (at least not since the Bronze Age). Finland never had a colonial empire. And so far as I'm aware, my ancestors were Americans who settled in Kansas (a free state), and some of the more recent immigrants came from England and the Czech Republic. So, it's likely that none of them owned a black slave. Even if a person is guilty for the sins of his ancestors, I don't think my ancestors committed this particular sin. And none of the Fins did.

I believe when the idea of reparations comes from black people, it is grab for power and money. When it comes from a white person, it probably means that he still feels guilty about original sin, but isn't a Christian anymore, so that he finds some other BS to feel guilty about other than Adam eating that apple.

I read your post. It sounds like you are offering your own political model rather than addressing much of anything I wrote. I might read the wiki page on systems science. I'd never heard of it before your post.

Then the model is fatally flawed. Consider any real-life human being. Does he or she really only need or want one singular function from their society? Or in their life? — Vera Mont

If having axes make a model flawed, then all models are flawed. It sounds like you're describing 3 disconnected points rather than a triangle with an area.

I don't really disagree with anything you said, so I don't have much to say in reply. I do think that most political opinions are cultural. I do not think my distaste for communism comes from being an American. I know from history that communist states are tyrannical, I think I understand conceptually why that is, and history shows that communism and food are bitter enemies. I am not for sure why those who are similar seem to fight more.

I believe the state's primary purpose is to use force to limit freedom of action in zero sum games. "Zero sum games" here mean stuff like murder and theft. If someone steals from me, I lose and he wins, so it's a zero sum game. If I go to work and help my boss make money and he gives some of it to me, then we both win, so that's not a zero-sum game, and the state doesn't need to be involved. I would much rather have a state that is zealous in punishing criminals than not have one, because otherwise I'd have to protect myself and my property against every other person by my own violence.

For most things, I think the free market does a better job than the state, because the people involved know what they are doing and they care about it. The state, on the other hand, does not know the details of people's lives and doesn't care. However, when it comes to crime, the person I'm dealing with actively wishes me harm. In that case, I'd prefer the indifference and incompetence of the state over deliberate malice any day.

So, I believe that the survival of a half-decent state is much better for the people than anarchy. Anarchy means that murder and theft go unpunished. I suppose from the point of view of "rights", taxation is questionable, even if it goes towards good ends, because it's involuntary. But it is hard to imagine a system of justice that would work with voluntary donations.

It makes sense to me that anything which imperfectly replicates itself will be subject to Darwinian evolution. In that case, cultures and governments do evolve. They are just imperfectly replicated generation after generation through tradition rather than through genes. From a Darwinian perspective, you'd expect that if the state were entirely useless and stupid, that any people who lived without a state would prosper and their way of life would spread, so that states would not be common anymore. States are ubiquitous, however, so from the evolutionary perspective, you'd expect that they serve some necessary function, even if you didn't know what it was.

It makes sense to me that the smallest self sustaining unit of humanity is the tribe. I'd define "tribe" here as a group of people who work and breed together. An individual is not self-sustaining because all men are mortal (making all of your own food/clothes/shelter/tools would also be very difficult). So you might see the "state" (or any governing body down to a local tribal chief) as the organizational body of the tribe. Without a government, the tribe would behave randomly because it is a sum of loose individuals. If there is ever a situation where it would be beneficial for the group to work together for a common goal, then a government would be useful. I am aware that sometimes governments are very bad and are worse than individuals behaving randomly without guidance.

From your post, it seems like you are firmly in the "freedom" camp.

"TFM" means "Turd Flinging Monkey". That's what he calls himself. He has been banished from most platforms because he says sexist things. I like to listen to him because I think he is smart and he makes me think about things. I thought the political trichotomy model he presented (I don't think he invented it) was better than the more common one, but I couldn't find anyone else who talked about.

I like the 2nd amendment too. I think it's not useful though if people don't have discernment about when to use it. IMO, the first red line that was crossed that was worth rebelling over was the creation of the federal reserve in 1913, and there have been many more red lines crossed since then. So, I tend to think of the US Republic as being in the past tense.

Yea maybe my word choice wasn't the best. I guess I think emotions provide the motivation for thinking, but I suppose a thinking process can work just fine once it gets going without further emotional input.

I happen to believe that the functionally unified, normative, goal-oriented organization of living systems is what consciousness is in its most primordial sense, so what distinguishes humans and higher animals from simpler ones isn’t an all-or-nothing capacity of consciousness, but a matter of degree. Neuroscientists like Antonio Damasio assert that there can be no consciousness without emotion. It has also been suggested that there can be no emotion without consciousness, that unconscious affect is a non-sequitor. — Joshs

I agree with this. I thought of consciousness as just being, "having a model of the self," and this can clearly occur in degrees. And as I said before, it seems to me that reason and emotion are inseparable in their operation.

Consciously thinking about what things we ought to consider good and bad is the point of this discussion. Because of the arbitrariness of value-assertion, using an external guide as a rule (such as a religious tradition) can be very helpful.
— Brendan Golledge

Are you particularly concerned by what we use as an external guide? Isn't this itself arbitrary too? We can pick secular humanism, a political ideology or fundamentalist Islam. How do we know which oughts and ought nots within a system are useful or 'correct'. Seems we have to step outside of the external guide to make an assessment.

Where we obtain our oughts from is itself a curious thing - it appears to be contingent and may have nothing to do with right or wrong (in a more transcendent sense), just perceptions of right or wrong. Isn't it the case that oughts and ought nots are located in the contingent system of values we gain through culture and experience? Some of these might coalesce into a system of sorts. Isn't morality essentially an intersubjective agreement, with many outliers and willing transgressors? — Tom Storm

I am very happy to talk about this. But based on the reception to my previous posts, I thought I'd wait for someone to bring it up rather than write a book in my original post.

I like Christian morality a lot. I think the early Christians and Jews were maybe the most interested in righteous living of any people ever. The primary area where I would disagree with them is that I don't believe in an afterlife, so that I do not like the suicidal altruism prescribed in Christianity.

I thought a lot about how I could create a moral system. It is hard when you don't have faith in the literal truth of religious stories because you can't prove your morals to another person. However, I think I have found a semi-objective basis for morality.

One observation is that it appears that only living beings have the experience of "good" and "bad". So, we can conclude that the only moral judgments that can have any effect on the material world are behavioral prescriptions for living beings. For instance, asserting that elliptical orbits are good/bad would be useless. But telling people that murder is bad is likely to have an effect on the murder rate.

Also, it is a logical truism that a moral system (or any other thing) which would destroy itself will not survive very long. So, if we want our moral system to not be in vain, then our moral system must be good at multiplying and preserving itself. This likely includes multiplying and preserving the people who believe in it, since moral systems cannot exist outside of believers.

It also seems true that, all else being equal, feeling good is better than feeling bad. Feeling good about doing good also encourages you to do more of it.

So, if we want our morals to have an effect on the world and be long-lasting, then we should have a moral system that prescribes behavior for living beings that is effective at perpetuating the morals that they believe in, and which they enjoy doing.

Purely individualistic morals are not sustainable in human societies (however appealing they may be emotionally), because all men are mortal. The individualistic morality that a person holds will die with him. The only morals that can be passed down from generation to generation are those that perpetuate the survival of the tribe that believes in them.

I like to think of these as, "God's morals," because whatever we think morality ought to be, these are probably the morals that WILL BE.

Of course, this is not a complete morality. I think it is a good basis for a morality though. It is objective whether a thing (such as yourself) exists or does not exist. So, that is a good foundation. On many particular moral issues, I try to work through what I think makes sense, and often find that I come to similar conclusions as traditional moralities. One would expect that traditional moralities are good at surviving if you think that the history of moral development in culture is an evolutionary process.

I have come up with several parallel moral rules which seem to be consistent.

One is that the above discussion seems to lead to enlightened self-interest.
I am a body -- so taking care of my health is good
I am a mind -- so learning things and otherwise using my mind is good
I am a "heart" -- so seeking after the good is good
I am a cell in a social body -- so trying to do good to my social unit (in-so-far as they are not pursuing useless and self-destructive things) is good
I am a "child of god"/"part of the universe" -- so if I think I've found some other objective meaning to my life, then it's good to do that too

Here are some rules for life that I think are the best I've come up with so far:
1. Think continually on what is good.
2. Test your ideas. Try to prove yourself wrong.
3. Do your best, and try to be content with this.

I could write a whole other post on why I like these rules. One feature of these 3 rules is that they don't posit final answers, but only ask you to seek them. It is not a coincidence that I chose these 3, because the metaphysics I came up with a few years ago says that all human experience can be decomposed into values, reason, and sensory experience. So the 3 rules engage these 3 areas.

Recently I came up with these a hierarchy of values:
1. Love truth
2. Try to survive (also help your social unit).
Later (3?) All else being equal, try to feel good

Trying to survive seems like an objective first value, because it's not possible for you to do anything else if you are dead. But I think it is hard to survive if you don't know the truth, so truth can come even earlier because it is a prerequisite. And feeling good comes last, because it's obviously good to feel good, but I don't like tricking one's self in deceitful ways into feeling good. One could argue that maybe feeling good is the 3rd value, because apart from surviving, what values you choose are kind of arbitrary (like whether you'd rather go to the movies or play a game). So, I'm not certain, but maybe nothing is in between surviving and feeling good.


A thought experiment I had a few years ago which I like is, "What's the worst that can possibly happen, and how does that compare to real life?" The worst thing I could think of at the time was that a meteor hit the Earth and killed all life. I thought, "Would Earth then be evil?" I thought that Mars has no life (so far as we know), and we don't consider it to be evil, so Earth would probably not be evil either. I thought that if the worst I can think of is not evil, then real life must be net good.

It seems to be possible to say that any positively existing thing is good, and bad is only the loss of good. For instance, we usually feel pain when our health is deteriorating. But we have to have health before we can lose it. And we typically consider murder to be bad because it takes away from the positive goodness of the life of a man. So, life is good, because God can't take anything from you that he didn't give you first.

I suppose if there were an everlasting hell where people were tortured horribly and arbitrarily forever, then that would be bad. But this is not possible in a naturalistic mindset.

I'm not aware that these ideas have a name. One name I considered giving it was, "existence philosophy".

One fun thing about the arbitrariness of value assertion is that you can assert almost anything and it will become true. For instance, I could assert, "The sky is beautiful, and seeing it is already enough to make the day worth it," and if I believe it, it will be true (at least to me). This only works though for value assertions which make no false claims about material reality. Something which I think is common in modern morality is that people tell themselves, "It is good that people are equal." I do not believe that material equality between people actually exists. So people who take this as a moral precept get offended by people who try to tell them how the world really works. I could assert to myself now, "It is very good that I have shared these ideas. If other people read them and think about them, then they are also doing good." I already feel a bit better.

Sometimes value assertion doesn't work. Like if I really wanted to do something else that I wasn't able to do (like maybe if I was single and didn't want to be), then telling yourself stuff which you don't really believe (like that I'm happy with my current life circumstances) won't work. In this case, you need to either work to improve your life circumstances (which is never 100% within your control), or do some serious introspection about what I really want out of life and why (which is always at least a little bit within your control). But if something really seems to be good, it seems to me that it's better to at least try, even if it doesn't work. Effort towards doing the good always seems praiseworthy.

Emotions developed early in our species evolutionary history and parts of the brain involved in emotions are located in more "primitive" areas, i.e. in the pre-cortex. In that context, what does "values are the root of our emotional experience" even mean? To over-simplify, the emotions were there first. They are part of the foundation of our thinking and were there long before consciousness. — T Clark

(Value) + (Perceived event related to that value) -> emotion

I will try to give a new example from recent experience. My wife hates it when I have holes in my clothes, and I don't care. She values how I appear to other people, and I don't. Offense is the feeling of hating facts. So, when she sees that I have holes in my clothes, she becomes offended. I see the holes, but I have no emotional response because I don't care how other people perceive me. Likewise, if my wife did not see the holes, then she would not be offended (she doesn't perceive the relevant event).

To use an old example, if you thought that somebody had stolen your money, then you'd probably be angry. This is because you (probably) care about money, and anger is the feeling that comes when you are aware that somebody is attacking something you care about. If you realized that instead you had just lost the money (change of perceived event), then you'd probably be sad rather than angry. Likewise, if you decided that you didn't care about the money (change of value), then you would not have an emotional reaction to losing it.

I think in lower animals, good = pleasure and bad = pain. However, humans, as I said in the original post, can invent all manner of good and bad separate from our immediate material needs. Love of money is an example. A wild man who grew up without the concept of money would probably have no emotional reaction (other than maybe curiosity) at being given paper bills or having them taken away.

Edit: So, to more directly answer the quote. I agree that emotions have been there for a long time, but I am arguing that values are how they operate. The most typical value assertion is that pleasure = good and pain = bad, but that humans can choose other values (although they often don't do this consciously).

There is so much to reply to, I don't know if I can get to all of it.

It all comes down to "why do anything?". Once you go through the dialectic, it leads to questioning procreation and survival. And rightfully, it questions modern secular philosophies like hedonism, "economics as religion", and existentialism. This doesn't mean to then turn to the warm embrace of religion. That is a falsehood as well.

However, the universality of some religious ideas (the One, Nirvana, etc.) can counteract the absurdity of minutia-mongering. If you JUST figured out how that transmission works, you would be a better person, more useful. If you JUST figured out how to start an innovative X, more useful. If you JUST figured out how to solve the meaning and essence of words (philosophy of language debates), or the best physics model (theoretical physics debates), or know the intricate details of any subject, you will be edified with your knowledge. You will be BETTER, you will be USEFUL. QUESTION ALL OF THIS THINKING, whether you think minutia-mongering is more USEFUL, makes you BETTER, or you think MEANING comes from delving deeper into the minutia of a topic at hand you think is important.

As for the "religious experience", people generally seem to mean "flow states" or "meditative psychological states". These are ways to preoccupy the chatter of the restless mind. — schopenhauer1

As for the first paragraph, it seems to me that all values are arbitrarily asserted. So you have to arbitrarily decide whether life is worth living, and then go from there. I have decided that it is worth living.

It seems like the second paragraph is how we often get stuck looking for the "next thing".

I'm aware that religious experience often is associated with alternative states of mind, which I think are still important. I am more concerned with changing the general/usual state of mind.

Sounds like a fairly conservative take on good. I am uncertain what 'good' means and how it can be identified. The only thing I can say is that to cause suffering deliberately would appear to be bad. Does it follow that to prevent suffering is good?

Aren't all human choices motivated by wanting to feel satisfied in some way, regardless of whether it involves pleasure or pain? Isn't that why we have the idea of psychological egoism? Even when people act in ways that appear to be self-sacrificing or aimed at benefiting others, they are actually motivated by the pursuit of personal satisfaction, whether it be through direct pleasure, the avoidance of guilt, or the fulfilment of a sense of duty.

Doing good to satisfy a philosophy or please a god would ultimately seem to be a pursuit of personal pleasure. Do you think one can transcend self-interest? — Tom Storm

First paragraph. I think values are arbitrarily asserted. Although in a state of nature, before a person has developed much, it seems like good is associated with pleasure and bad is associated with pain. However, humans can learn to associate good and bad with almost anything as adults. Consciously thinking about what things we ought to consider good and bad is the point of this discussion. Because of the arbitrariness of value-assertion, using an external guide as a rule (such as a religious tradition) can be very helpful.

Second paragraph: I know subjectively speaking, I might think to myself, "I'd rather be playing video games, but it would be better for me to do the dishes," and then I will do the dishes. So my subjective experience is that I don't always do what I want. I suppose it could be argued that I get some satisfaction from doing the right thing, or that I really just don't want to feel guilty, or that I don't want to have to eat off a dirty plate later. Or maybe I choose to do the dishes because I know that otherwise my wife would do them, and I want to make things easier on her. It seems to me that if it is possible to think that I am good and therefore I do good things for myself, then it ought to be possible to think that another person is good for their own sake, and to want to do good things for that person (although this kind of thought probably requires some degree of training). It might be possible that if I didn't get some kind of personal satisfaction somewhere deep inside from helping another person, that I wouldn't do it. But my subjective experience is that I can value another person for his/her own sake.

Perhaps this is a problem with considering a monastic life to be conducive to developing psychological insight? Considered from a neuroscientific perspective, a monastic life could be considered to be starving one's brain of the input that comes with interacting with diverse people in diverse situations. It doesn't seem to me like a monastic life would be very conducive to developing robust intuitons regarding human psychology.

To take it back to Christianity, do you think the diversity of people who Jesus is purported to have associated with might have been relevant to Jesus being particularly psychologically insightful? — wonderer1

I actually lived at a monastery once, and it was very useful for learning about myself. I would not have gotten the psychological insight that I have without having been at the monastery. I suppose if I lived my whole life at the monastery, however, without having had experience of the broader world, then I probably would not be as psychologically developed.

If I understand the story of Jesus correctly, he was basically a mature person and ready to do his mission by the time he was 30. Maybe he developed more after that, but it seems like he was mostly already who he was by the time he started ministering.

Well, obviously all of our instincts, desires, and emotions are wired to keep us alive. But it seems to me that the way emotions do that is that they make us try to make ourselves happy. It seems like a common-sense thing that we prefer to be happy rather than sad.
— Brendan Golledge

You make two unrelated statements. First you say the way emotions help keep us alive is to try to make ourselves happy. This is mostly wrong. Then you say that we prefer to be happy than sad, which is generally true, but irrelevant. — T Clark

I don't understand what the problem is. I would assume that most of the stuff that makes us happy would have been useful for our ancestors for staying alive, and that therefore aiming towards happiness is generally useful for our survival. This seems to me to be the same as that we prefer to be happy than sad. Where is the confusion?

Next you argue about instincts/desires/emotions. It seems to me that you are arguing about the definition of words. I realize that if you're talking about how those words are commonly used, then what I said was not right. But when I was talking about instincts/desires/emotions, I was giving definitions that I find useful for the purpose of discussion. They seem to me to be a complete description of the sensations that we feel that encourage us to do one thing or another.

This seems like a very simplistic analysis. More than that - it's presumptuous unless you are a student of religion, which you indicate you are not. — T Clark

I have not studied every single religion in the world in-depth (although I do have a cursory knowledge of Taoism, which you mentioned before). I have studied Christianity a great deal. I even lived at a monastery for a few months.

I disagree with just about everything in this paragraph. — T Clark

Lots of people have told me things like, "What you said is contradictory", or "I disagree", but if they don't provide an argument, then I have no reason to change my mind.

Re Kafka - I suspect that if you don't discover him in your 20's, he may be less affecting. I like The Metamorphosis and The Trial best. — Tom Storm

I think I was made to read, "The Metamorphosis" in high school. I only understood it at the surface level that some dude turned into a bug, and that it was meant to be a horror story. If there was some kind of psychological lesson to be learned from the story, then I missed it.

Considering that psychology is a science
— wonderer1

Hardly. Surely not in the sense he is meaning there: giving explanation to natural events (Zeus and lightning). — Lionino

I don't think there is much knowledge of physical sciences in religion. But I do think that religion is how people understood their psychology. The morals of the people were embedded in their religious stories.

Even though I don't believe in the literal truth of these stories, I am still inspired by them sometimes. The first example that comes to mind is that in Norse mythology, all the gods know ahead of time who they are going to fight in ragnarok, and that they will all die. But they all choose to go fight anyway. This seems inspiring to me. It seems to me to be a good thing that even if things are bad and you know you can't win, it is good to fight anyway. But in real life, we don't have prophecy, so we never really know with certainty that something is hopeless, like the Norse god do.

People are born without instruction manuals. The only instruction manuals are written by other players. So, I think it's no wonder that people got everything mixed up. Ancient people likely didn't have the concepts of "objective" (existing independently of the self) and "subjective" (occurring from within the self), or the idea of the unconscious, so it's no wonder that they got everything all mixed up. Google says that the first occurrence of the word unconscious was only a few hundred years ago. It seems to me that if people didn't even have a word for a thing, then they likely didn't have the concept either. But we have the experience that thoughts and feelings come to us from we know not where. So where did people think that they came from? They thought their spontaneous inner experiences came from gods (like Aphrodite = lust and Ares = anger), or from angels and demons. So, in a certain sense, people really did experience their gods. Modern people just don't believe in their interpretations of their experiences. So, although most religious people don't know this, their religious beliefs are actually how they model their psychology.

The paragraph does seem to be consonant with recent thinking on the relation between affectivity, cognition and values. For instance, enactivist approaches to cognitive psychology insist that cognitive and affective processes are closely interdependent, with affect, emotion and sensation functioning in multiple ways and at multiple levels to situate or attune the context of our conceptual dealings with the world , and that affective tonality is never absent from cognition. As Matthew Ratcliffe puts it, — Joshs

I don't really disagree with anything you said there. What I said was a simplification. I realize that emotions don't occur without a thinking process, or without knowledge of events. I also think that we wouldn't think much without emotions. Without some kind of stimulant like an emotion, our brains would probably just sit there doing nothing like a computer that is not receiving instruction. So in a very simplified sense, our values determine our emotional responses, our emotions determine what we think about, and we select our behavior from our thoughts.

Positivist approaches in psychology were based on the same assumptions concerning human behavior, which is why they excluded ‘unobservable and untestable’ concepts like emotion and cognition from their models. Fortunately, things have changed significantly with respect to what is considered empirically testable for both humans and other animals. — Joshs

Part of the point of my original post was that psychology cannot be studied like a hard science because it is difficult/impossible to observe inner psychological states. I was arguing that people ought to be interested in their own psychology as a real subject of study, even if they have to go it alone. And people like myself who make general claims about psychology have a hard time because we can't easily demonstrate that things are the way we say they are.