I think that in the sense that practical logic is the foundation of more complex forms of reasoning, including mathematics, you could argue that numbers begin with self-identity, which is unity, or one.

At what point does an advance become inherently good? For example, It has been shown that AI systems propagate the inherent biases of the developers who select the data used to train the neural networks. Most recently the example of the AI system designed to evaluate human emotion from faces that identified an inordinate number of black people as angry. So, for all intents and purposes, AI systems are mechanisms for perpetuating biases in the guise of science. How is that inherently good?

The proliferation of digital technologies has fundamentally altered the way that people assimilate and utilize data. There is an apparent correlation between the rise of technology and the decline of IQ. Digital communication is quickly replacing personal communication. But digital communication is a poor substitute. People act differently behind a veil of full or partial anonymity. They are more aggressive, more critical. I'm trained as a coder, worked twenty-five years as a systems administrator and a systems engineer. I use my phone less than five minutes a week and plan to keep it that way.

No, technology is not inherently good. Nothing is inherently good. The use that people make of something, that is what is good or bad.

I think it has to be acknowledged that esoteric ideas just as religious faith and adherence to metaphysical views can change one's worldview and consequently experience. — Janus

Yes. Even if it were only this, that would be enough. But the fact is, if you radically alter the nature of your being, the way that you live, you can begin to see patterns of feedback from people, society, and the universe, that you did not before. To that extent, it can be 'scientific'. As I have said and will continue to say, the human mind is very limited, so to presuppose that there are not further dimensions to understanding is just poor reasoning. Evolution documents their emergence.

I play devil's advocate for the esoteric because I believe that the goal of seeking to expand the understanding beyond the mundane can be a valid one. I don't seek to defend all esoterica, but certainly the goal and motivation of studying them. I wouldn't want to try to persuade someone who hadn't arrived at the conclusion based on his own experiences. Not everyone is suited to every kind of activity. However I do have beliefs concerning the nature of consciousness qua intersubjective and collective, for example, and concerning the relationship between pure mind and pure matter, including the nature of each, that tend to overflow the limitations of current scientific understanding, which might fit in the esoteric category.

With all due respect: prove it. Respond to the historical examples I just gave. — Bob Ross

With all due respect, I wouldn't know what to prove. What are you trying to do, establish an objective foundation for morality in order to eventually link it back to human actions? The moral law within is a moral law because it is prescriptive. Do your thing. It makes no sense to me, I am willing to leave it at that. As far as proving it, I did repeatedly. So clearly you and I are not on the same page.

Your definitions aren't bad as a general, practical notion; but will never stand up to scrutinous refinement in ethics. — Bob Ross

I've studied ethics extensively and I think you are well off-base. I'll leave you to your musings.

Cool. I like to read contrasting theories, promotes a healthy mental dialectical balance. :cool:

Morality is not conventionally nor historically only about human actions. The vast majority of human beings have been, historically speaking, moral realists; and they believed in The Good (i.e., an objective goodness) which is independent of any stance a subject may have on the matter. To think that these moral facts are only about human actions is an incredibly narrow interpretation of morality. — Bob Ross

It isn't a "narrow" view of morality Bob, it is the definition of morality.

"a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society."

"the extent to which an action is right or wrong"

"certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or"

"a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people"

"a set of personal or social standards for good or bad behaviour and character"

It strains credulity that you would argue this. Whatever it is you're trying to get at, it isn't morality. And trying to categorize it as morality only confuses your presentation.

If the standard of conduct whereby actions are evaluated is not morality, then what is it that you call the standard of conduct whereby actions are evaluated?

I really admire his process philosophy, I think it meshes perfectly with systems philosophy. But PR has been in my library for over a decade, I got really intimidated when I first tried it and haven't touched it since. I think I'll put it on the list for later this year though. Tough read!

Still working through this. A Doozy if ever there was one. — AmadeusD

Are you enjoying?

I think I agree, but I would add that it is not the expression of anger which is the biggest problem today in our polarized world, but the failure to see the world from the perspective of others such that what appears as malevant intent can be seen instead as the other’s best effort to live ethically based on their vantage. Anger is blame, and blame impugns intent, delegitimizing the other’s motives. Whether we express our anger or not , as long as we cling to blame, we delegitimize the other, as seen in today’s political discourse. — Joshs

I think I agree too.

The litany of aggravating events that pile up over the course of the day are not stored in some internal ‘anger pot’ as the accumulation of a random collection of negative energy, — Joshs

Are they not indeed? People who are the subject of systemic environmental and social disadvantage might disagree.

Anger is a manifestation of our own failure to find a more productive expression, one which solves the problem. The problem is, the proximate cause is not always the only - or the real - problem.

So the way I would construe anger is as a rapid , multi-step construal of a situation that begins with loss and disappoint, and is immediately followed by assessment of blame. — Joshs

I wake up late and have to skip my breakfast and coffee. So I am edgy and aggravated. While running for my bus, someone beats me to it and takes the last possible free spot, so I have to wait for the next one. I enter the morning meeting late only to find that my boss has given a choice assignment to someone else. I am angry at my boss, and at the person given the assignment.

The point is, you can't reduce anger to a logically valid behaviouristic framework. Human interactions are "overdetermined" to use psychiatric jargon. Anger perhaps most of all. At the end of the day, as I said, it isn't wrong or even mysterious that we become angry, but it is usually unproductive to allow anger to determine our responses.

'Philosophies of life' usually propose exercises (e.g. meditating, caretaking, suspending judgment, flowing, being indifferent to whatever cannot be controlled, etc) for cultivating habits of equanimity, which IMO grounds courage (i.e. the skill-set for adaptively, or proactively, using – thriving from – loss, failure or uncertainty). — 180 Proof

:up:

Stoicism should be taught to elementary school students.

As said, it is really just an example of the problem with "reacting" versus "acting." Anger can be one factor in your response, as you say Jack, if it is motivated by injustice, but it should always be tempered with other influences, reason, compassion, sociability. It is a lesson that took me decades to learn intellectually, and a few years more to adopt habitually.

But this description seems to separate anger from the perceived meaning of a situation. In your paragraph above, what would happen if we removed the word anger and attributed legitimacy, strength , courage and motivation to the nature of the situation as it is construed , rather than to some separate device we call anger adding these qualities as some special spice? It is the world that is angering, not our physiology. — Joshs

One can become angry, yet not allow anger to dictate or motivate one's responses. Becoming angry does not entail displaying anger. I guess anger could be viewed as a "motivational challenge".

Anger can often be frustration at our own ability to come up with something better than anger.

Bitch — Joshs

:kiss:

Anger can be legitimate and yet still unhelpful. It can be a source of strength, courage, and motivation, but only if effectively sublimated.

Discussions on the philosophy forum often deteriorate into angry exchanges. In those cases, anger is counter-productive to philosophy.

In the real life conundrums of life, including the nature of anger, the differences in the emotions and ideas of anger may be profound — Jack Cummins

It just seems all extremely general and of almost unlimited scope. You may become angry because I argued for the legitimation of the concept of pathology, a term which you associate with a specific form of prejudice but which has a neutral-functional definition. In that case, is your anger with me, with pathology, or with something else? People can and do become angry for no apparent reason, because they are under various forms of stress. I'd suggest trying to focus the discussion more.

My distinction between anger and hatred comes from Sartre's Transcendence of the Ego.

edit: Actually I do have one additional general concept to add to the burgeoning mass of generalities. I think that "frustration" may be a not insignificant factor in the dynamics of anger and hatred.

You may be right about common sense of ideas about what constitutes anger. However, pathology in itself is a construct. Here, I am not trying to suggest a necessary going 'beyond good and evil', but more a way in which ideas taken to an extreme can mask so much. For example, in war the idea of an enemy, may evoke so much about ideas of justice, or injustice. A person who Is different, or has different beliefs may be perceived as an oppositional force.

This may be where values come into play, and insistence on one's own set may even lead to a self-righteous sense of anger, to the extent of an argument for the 'common good'. This makes ideas of anger, justice and injustice a controversial area of social ethics. — Jack Cummins

Hmm. I don't think pathology is entirely a construct Jack. Organic systems have a baseline state of operation known as health. Broadly speaking, this can be extended to the psyche. If any function within a system begins to operate in a way that impairs the function of other functions or of the system as a whole, then that is pathological. However I do know what you mean and agree that it can become or be used as a construct that can itself be harmful.

It sounds to me like you want to focus on "justified" anger, anger towards socially endemic problems. Presumably the role of anger is to motivate action?

I don't know what you mean by "objective perspective", perspective is something subjective. — Lionino

Well, a perspective can be objective. It can also take an object (intentionality) which is what I meant. An object of a perspective can be material or it can be mental.

I wonder to what extent anger is a response or something more. — Jack Cummins

I think the normal - non-pathological - sense of anger is that it is provoked or evoked by something specific. If anger develops into a personality trait then that is something much more complex, probably pathological.

Anger is a negative response, hatred is the intentional cultivation and perpetuation of a negative response or characterization. That's the usual trajectory this takes I think.

You cannot say that something is objective because it "refers to a body."
— Pantagruel

Well, that is quite literally the meaning of objective.

Unicorn refers to a body in that sense too, but it is not objective, it is a construct of the imagination
— Pantagruel

If you mean that 'unicorn' is subjective insofar as it only exists as a thought inside the mind, yes.

Moreover, the perfection of what you are describing explicitly precludes its material instantiation.
— Pantagruel

Not always. — Lionino

You are equivocating between the sense of an objective perspective and an objective thing. An objective is something intended and can be either a material thing or an idea. An objective thing has a real, independent existence, ie. is an object. All you are doing is declaring that realism (or maybe Platonism) is true, nominalism false.

t is not instantiated, sure, but it is objective, as it refers to a body. — Lionino

You cannot say that something is objective because it "refers to a body." Unicorn refers to a body in that sense too, but it is not objective, it is a construct of the imagination. Moreover, the perfection of what you are describing explicitly precludes its material instantiation.

:up:

This is what makes paradigm shifts revolutionary rather than evolutionary. — Joshs

Can you elaborate on this evaluation? Why could a paradigm shift not be both?

Unlike others, I don’t see anything wrong with the wording of the question. It’s out of Hume. — Jamal

:up:

Yes, I was going to say the same, but I feel like I'm always rocking the boat. The nuances and ambiguities only give scope for discussion. That's exactly what a good philosophical question should do.

Moral goodness, as described in the OP, is actual perfection; which is not contingent on agency itself — Bob Ross

Bob, morality is by definition, historical convention, and common sense related to human actions. Do you not see that by redefining morality in this way you are completely altering its fundamental meaning?

No one, because it requires 0 friction, 0 heat leakage, among other things. — Lionino

Ah. So this is that sense of perfection that precludes objective existence. Like a perfect vacuum. Or a perfect circle. Really more of a Platonic ideal.

The machine does a perfect Carnot cycle, here replacing perfect with efficient would turn a fine sentence into a nonsensical one. — Lionino

I didn't think it was nonsensical, but wow, ok. So who has built one of these perfect Carnot machines in actuality?

The machine does a Carnot cycle, which makes it the most efficient machine possible under the current laws of physics. That falls just fine under the definition of perfection. — Lionino

Yes, as I said, if efficiency is your criterion of perfection. That is still a value judgement. You could replace the word "perfect" with efficient and your description of the machine would lose nothing. In fact, I would argue that describing it as efficient is more accurate and less misleading. Perfect implies there is some overarching objective standard, which there is not (barring your declaration that this is it of course).

edit: I'm actually a huge fan of the concept of efficiency, and I favour it over perfection because it is more descriptive.

↪Gregory

But as Lionino explained in his Carnot cycle example there are certain operations that are produced which are perfect with little room for dispute so how do you account for that ? — kindred

The machine is accurate. Which means it does what it is designed to do with a very small margin of error. In what sense does this imply that the machine is perfect? Efficient maybe.

Same for you chair argument. If anything, the design and construction of the chair are effective. The chair qua product may be durable, comfortable, attractive. Whether or not it is more durable, comfortable, attractive than any other chair is purely subjective. A "perfect" chair would have to perfectly fit every human being, and this is a manifest impossibility.

A little bit about my personal philosophy of understanding. My studies in cognitive science led me to believe that we don't steer our minds the way that we steer a car, more like how you would steer a battleship. However your mind is programmed to think right now (the dominant set of cognitive habits) largely determines the nature both of what you will perceive (based on perceptual-conceptual filtering) and how you will react or respond. It is possible, of course, to alter our cognitive habits, but this usually requires prolonged focus and effort, akin to the process of acquiring a new skill.

When it comes to reading and understanding complex material, therefore, I believe that something like digestion and gestation is needed. New understandings need time to be assimilated into the complex adaptive system that is our practical conceptual framework in order to produce what I conceive of as deep understanding.

The whole point of new knowledge, however, is not merely its assimilation. I assume that what we mean by the growth of understanding is the accommodation of our conceptual framework to the new knowledge. Since this conceptual framework determines what we think and how, the accommodation to new knowledge should ultimately result in constructive changes to our conceptual framework, and thus to constructive changes in the way we perceive and interact with other minds and with reality in general.

One aspect of this change should relate to the steering-delay phenomenon itself. That is, as my awareness of my dependence on my self-constructed conceptual framework for decisions and actions grows, appropriate focus and effort should engender the skill of identifying, acquiring, assimilating, and accommodating to new constructive knowledge. That is, we should be capable of learning to more directly control our interactions with reality by more rapidly developing new cognitive habits; essentially becoming more free, which is to say, having a more immediate-constructive discretion over our choices. This conforms with Platos'/Socrates' contention that wrong choices are made out of ignorance and are to that extent not free.

Yes, but pragmatic goodness applies to everything: it is just goodness in the sense of utility. — Bob Ross

Yeah, I don't get this at all. Anything human made is human value-laden. What you are saying makes less than no sense to me.

The usage of 'esoteric' relevant to this thread is in connection to religious or spiritual teachings and metaphysical claims, not to disciplines like quantum mechanics and relativity; the latter are disciplines that yeild predictions whose obtaining or failure to obtain are observable. — Janus

Actually, it is in relation to philosophy specifically, which covers a lot of ground. Including I think the general meaning of esotericity and esoterica. The OP and I had no problem establishing a fruitful dialog in the context of my observations. Perhaps it is you who misunderstands.

To sum it up, Kant is a metaphysician without knowing it (and therefore is an incomplete metaphysician). — LFranc

Collingwood concurs with this. In Kant's identification of a reality we can "think but not know" he sees "the very essence of scientific dogmatism" - which is to say, in his terms, an un-self-critical metaphysics.

:up:

PoS is on my to-reread list. Unfortunately my already much re-read copy is falling apart. I'm thinking about duplicating my entire collection of German Idealism on the Kindle. Electronic textual notes are really starting to grow on me.

The art of philosophy is important but it involves all of these facets of life. The 'esoteric ' may involve the 'rejected', especially ideas of subversity. It is such an area for thinking, and may involve many aspects of critical thinking about religion, politics and so many assumptions which may exist in the nature of human social life. — Jack Cummins

Yes, this sounds reminiscent of Derrida and Foucault.

A mathematician surely believes in the laws of probability more than he believes in physics (being fallible and all) or most other things, and yet, it may be that in a Quiz show for one million euros, nervousness may take over and he may answer to the Monty Hall problem that he does not want to switch based on common sense and instinct, but probabilistic analysis will give us that you should switch each time: — Lionino

I don't consider making a selection in a game to be reflective of acting in meaningful sense, more like playing a game. Life, by and large, isn't about "game-show moments." However it is often about committing to a course of action that may be inherently uncertain or risky.