Look to yourself
We are each a product of our own experiences.
Are we 'empty' at birth?
We each have a story to tell to explain/justify who we are now and why we do what we do now,
Very few of us are happy with the current record of our stewardship of the Earth so far.
I often hear people using well-known phrases like:
What can you do?
You need to be part of the solution, not part of the problem
It's not my fault!
I do what I can, when I can etc.
I watch the news sometimes and hear about volunteers who drop everything and go off to a war zone or disaster area to 'do what they can to help.'
Is it that kind of example that we should measure ourselves against?
I find, Identifying (a) label(s) that is/are most acceptable/accurate for a description of me, quite difficult.
It's very hard to describe who and what you are without labels.
Atheist, Armchair warrior, Activist, Honourable Intentions, Fighter, Lost, Scared, Determined to make a difference etc.
I suppose such labels can never be fully accurate but will the Universe be a better/worse place for me having been in it? Do such thoughts give the Universe meaning?
Do sites like TPF give individuals the opportunity to justify why they have not done more to help others? Are we testing ourselves against each other, with the hidden goal of assessing personal validation?
I know posing such a question, leaves me open to answers like:
'Well, perhaps that's what you are doing, but not me.' Fair enough, but that just avoids the question.
A difficult scenario I have always struggled with is this:
A situation arises such that, If I sacrifice my life then I would significantly improve the lives of a great many others. But no-one would ever know. I would never be credited. In fact, due to the lies of others, I would forever be known as one of the main villains of the scenario. Would I do it? Would you?
I like to think I would but I have never been tested in this type of situation.
Does the real responsibility for the way things are, lie more with the fact that good people don't do enough to combat those who are only interested in their own advancement?
I am not posting this for people to list 'what they do,' or reveal any details about your individual life and circumstances.
To me, for philosophy to be more than just rhetoric, it has to speak towards everyday life and how we choose to live.
Where does the 'responsibility for the way things are lie' and what personal responsibility (if any) do each of us have as a consequence?
Are we 'empty' at birth?
We each have a story to tell to explain/justify who we are now and why we do what we do now,
Very few of us are happy with the current record of our stewardship of the Earth so far.
I often hear people using well-known phrases like:
What can you do?
You need to be part of the solution, not part of the problem
It's not my fault!
I do what I can, when I can etc.
I watch the news sometimes and hear about volunteers who drop everything and go off to a war zone or disaster area to 'do what they can to help.'
Is it that kind of example that we should measure ourselves against?
I find, Identifying (a) label(s) that is/are most acceptable/accurate for a description of me, quite difficult.
It's very hard to describe who and what you are without labels.
Atheist, Armchair warrior, Activist, Honourable Intentions, Fighter, Lost, Scared, Determined to make a difference etc.
I suppose such labels can never be fully accurate but will the Universe be a better/worse place for me having been in it? Do such thoughts give the Universe meaning?
Do sites like TPF give individuals the opportunity to justify why they have not done more to help others? Are we testing ourselves against each other, with the hidden goal of assessing personal validation?
I know posing such a question, leaves me open to answers like:
'Well, perhaps that's what you are doing, but not me.' Fair enough, but that just avoids the question.
A difficult scenario I have always struggled with is this:
A situation arises such that, If I sacrifice my life then I would significantly improve the lives of a great many others. But no-one would ever know. I would never be credited. In fact, due to the lies of others, I would forever be known as one of the main villains of the scenario. Would I do it? Would you?
I like to think I would but I have never been tested in this type of situation.
Does the real responsibility for the way things are, lie more with the fact that good people don't do enough to combat those who are only interested in their own advancement?
I am not posting this for people to list 'what they do,' or reveal any details about your individual life and circumstances.
To me, for philosophy to be more than just rhetoric, it has to speak towards everyday life and how we choose to live.
Where does the 'responsibility for the way things are lie' and what personal responsibility (if any) do each of us have as a consequence?
Comments (76)
Quoting universeness
"The way things are", both the good and the bad, are a consequence of mostly insignificant individuals acting within very large, deterministic systems.
You and I can can choose to ride bikes to work and the grocery store instead of buying big gas-guzzling SUVs, but neither of us are in a position to do anything about the 1 billion cars on the world's roads, or the giant auto, oil, steel, and rubber businesses committed to continuing business as usual, or even changing gears and replacing 1 billion gas guzzling vehicles with 1 billion electricity guzzling vehicles.
You and I can bicycle across the country to help out in the next big disaster, but fortunately there are large organizations like the Red Cross, FEMA, Catholic Charities, Lutheran World Relief, and so on that are prepared to get there first and to start major relief efforts.
You and I can try to replace the major system behind a lot of the world's problems, like global capitalism, but we are 2 sardines up against a big herd of sharks.
What options are left? The same options that have always been open:
A) Behave generously, fairly, and kindly to those in your immediate community, for whom your behavior makes a difference.
B) Find a larger system and make a contribution of time and talent.
C) Read widely and gain knowledge about how the world works.
This kind of hypothetical moral quandary puts people in untenable situations. If you accept the machine-like logical computation of Utilitarianism, or the god-like Categorical Imperative, then the moral solution would be obvious -- if you could instantly calculate all possible consequences of your decision. But very few humans (academic philosophers aside) don't think that way.
Instead, we do quick back-of-the-envelope subconscious calculations, based on personal emotional values. That's usually good enough for small-group ethics. But when faced with global ethical repercussions, such as the Holocaust, ordinary people tend to do mundane acts (followed orders), and hope for the best. That's what Arendt called "the banality of evil".
You've never been tested in such a situation, because it is an extreme case, seldom met in real life. The Hitlers and Stalins of the world, were idealists, working toward Utopian dreams. Hence, there is no price too high to pay for Heaven-on-Earth. So their "final solutions" were not realistic, and were not calculated logically or mathematically. :sad:
“a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic”
___Joseph Stalin
People act, so my take is that if a person has to ask the question, it's unlikely they are going to do anything about it. So I figure they can just get on with whatever it is they do. :wink: Scenarios and conundrums are diversion strategies.
Quoting Gnomon
A single death is a statistic, a million deaths are a tragedy.
These inner turmoils come from the fact that what has been informing your morality, the world's morailty, the ethical standards by which your idea of moral actions manifest, is not ethically consistent, and never has been. Why would a situation arise where the clear moral action would be to sacrifice your life? And why is such a sacrifice a moral action? Who is it good for? How did you conclude it is, or would be good? A bit confusing it has to be when a part of you knows it wouldn't be worth it if you were villified, in lieu of being remembered in honor. Why would being remembered in honor for dying for other people be preferable? Good questions to really ask oneself.
As for me, no. No, I would not do this, and it doesn't strike me as ethical to think of myself as a sacrificial beast before the feet of other men, or that making myself such a scape-goat would mean that I lived an ethical life, or that my dying to save other people could end in me knowing I was successful, or that I should be responsible for actions I didn't commit that placed those people in that situation, or that I could be sure any of them weren't mass murderers, or rapists, or thieves, or liars, or child abusers, Or that they would ever do the same for me if need be, or any standard of rational assessment associated with a decision of this kind.
Quoting universeness
No, it's specifically that people AREN'T interested in their own advancement, but are instead glad to do the bare minimum of biological maintenance needed to survive, rather than inject the necessary mental energy needed for self-realization, and education, and rational engagement with the world, and valuing life as the source of value, and contributing in productive acheivement, and regarding oneself as their own responsibility, and refining their skills, and developing virtues, and abstaining from personally harmful behavior, and not abusing their children, and not blaming people for their own failures, and not violating the individual sovereign boundaries of their fellow humans, and the list goes on. They aren't busy with personal advancement, they're busy dying. It is very, very rare that I ever meet someone who is good; there normally busy living, you see?
Everyday life and how we choose to live are mutually exclusive concepts for the busy-dying, friend. Most people don't "choose to live," they merely let themselves, while telling others how to first chance they get, or taking a backseat approach at life all together. It's why everyone is obese, dying of overdose, seeking therapy for major depression, wasting all of their hours on youtube, listening to shit music and calling it art, reading shit books and callling it literature, watching the news and taking it seriously, smoking their heart into arrest, drinking their gut in ulcers, blaming their kids for their misery, shooting eachother in the streets, shooting eachother in schools, living off of wic welfare and SSRI, giving the government more power, giving their lives to jesus, swearing fealty to Mohammad, and all other manner of nonsense, unjustified, brain-rotting, time-wasting, bullshit that has no place in the 21st century when knowledge has never been closer to our fingertips. Choosing to live is not a part of the zeitgeist of the busy-dying, bud.
Who is to blame for the state of the world? Why, all of the people are. Don't you see? The busy-dying got what they wanted, and it had nothing to do with ethics or philosophy, damn sure not philosophy. Just mention the word philosophy in "good" company and take a gander at the looks you receive. They got what they wanted, and they sold out the reasonable, rational, and ethical people to get it; they out number us after all, 100 to 1. The only thing you can do, my dear fellow, is to continue holding that torch you got. That little fire in your mind that compelled you to write this forum, and on this forum, no less, and you take it with you every god damn place you go. Every seafood buffet, every classroom, every zoom meeting, every hotel party, every single god dman place you step. And with it, shine a light on that which is worth shining a light on; stimulate someones curiosity, get better at something you've been neglecting, fix an isssue you notice that is essential to fix, defend someone being attacked who did nothing wrong ferociously, familiarize yourself with your enemy's epistemology, test your assertions against the might of an intellect that dwarfs your own, write a song or a poem, get a typewriter and make it your best friend, let a kid know he/she fucking awesome, hold bad parenting accountable, get rid of beer, find a job you love, stop voting for fucking creeps, get a partner that's not a walking dumpster fire multi-colored personality disorders, regard yourself as the locus value, don't get angry with people their idiots and don't know what they're doing, find other torch bearers we're here I promise you, and above all else, place your own well-being above that of anyone who is not you, as is demanded of you by your biology and your capacity to be happy while on this planet.
Hope that helps, stay well!
-G
An intriguing choice of words. Are you referring to those in history whose actions had a direct affect on where we are now? In what way are they insignificant?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Well, this is the 'what can I do and its not my fault,' stance I typed about in the OP.
I am not disrespecting such stances. I am trying to dissect them a little more.
Your 'riding bikes,' is I agree, only an individual gesture against the problem you mention. But if more people decided to take a Greta Thunberg type stance then the result could be more effective. This may not be possible for you personally but you might be able to assist causes against the situation you describe more than you do at the moment, me to! To what extent is the statement 'Bad things happen because good people don't do enough to stop or combat them,' really true, and is it really acceptable to excuse ourselves by merely recognising the validity of the statement I just typed or saying things like 'the problem is just too big' etc.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yep and all good but the current state of the planet would suggest, it's just not enough! This all needs to keep happening but we need more prevention as well as many more hands on cure.
From those who are willing to spend a day helping out in a local foodbank to those who decide to start a local youth initiative of just get together with others in a local community to sit down and talk about other locals who are having real difficulties and trying to help them. To what level could such be effective if we were taught this 'altruistic' approach to others from primary school.
I love your ABC but how many are actually learning your ABC's and practicing them every day and how much responsibility do each of us have to push your ABC forward against those who see an educated, informed, organised, altruistic majority as a serious threat?
If you have the great good fortune to be already a kind and decent human being, then whether you are a protestor or a politician, a doctor or a plumber, a big cheese or a glass of fresh milk, whatever you naturally wish to do will spread joy and comfort around the world. No worries, and no measurement required.
Alas, it is the mean spirited that spend their lives waiting for the best deal in the accumulation of virtue, and calculating how their act will influence the world. For damaged people like me, full of fear and greed and anger, it would be futile to try and heal the world; we must look for healing ourselves.
I agree that such hypotheticals are very difficult. We struggle every day to gain the merest insight into, why me? why here and now? What is the meaning of life the universe and everything? (which is not 42!)
We can never escape complexity in this existence.
But very few humans (academic philosophers aside) don't think that way
I assume you didn't intend the word 'don't' here. Why is this sentence true?
Lack of education? Due to the deliberate historical actions of others? Why do you think its true?
Quoting Gnomon
So, is this good enough? Could we do better? are we capable of doing better?
Quoting Gnomon
Yes, I agree but I am tested, every day almost and in ways that are not so disconnected to the scenario you mentioned from my OP. I see problems all around me, every time I leave the house or watch TV (especially the news). Mostly I use one of the excuses I outlined in the OP and I do some painting, listen to some music, eat some comfort food, watch a comedy show, etc.
At some point my mind will drift back to 'the real world' and at some point I inevitably feel ashamed that I don't do more. I do some stuff but I could do more but should it be the main cause in my life?
I am an atheist, I'm 57, There is no judgment day. When I am dead I will simply permanently, disassemble but until that happens, I will always feel guilty that I could have done more. Do we all deserve such a self-judgment? Is it possible to be too harsh on ourselves on this issue? I don't feel I am being too harsh, it feels correct.
Stalin was a horrible person, no doubt, and another example of why adequate checks and balances are vital to apply to any person or group in power or rising towards such.
But that phrase is misleading. 'A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic.' It does not reflect the truth of Stalin's dictatorship. Why was he not brave enough to say;
"When I had one or two people executed, I may have raised an eyebrow or two at first but when I had a million people executed, everyone else became too scared to challenge me."
This would be much more accurate.
Even after such historical lessons, we see Trump elected in the USA. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Arent 'WE THE PEOPLE,' where the responsibility has to ultimately lie? Surely we cant satisfy ourselves with forlorn hopes and ridiculous scapegoating such as, 'God works in mysterious ways, it's all part of its plan, don't worry yourself!'
Would you describe yourself as cynical?
If 'yes' then why have you become so?
If 'no' then by what other means do you take action if it's not based on self-reflective questioning?
I agree that ethical consistency is desirable. If you are saying that my personal morality/set of ethics is a 'subset' of all the examples I have been exposed to within all information I have accessed in my life so far, then it's a very reasonable assessment, although I like to think there are tweaks which are all mine.
Would you not surrender your life to save your loved ones for example?
Have such situations not happened quite often globally, historically? So there are plenty of precedents.
If such an action is not a question of morality, then how would you choose to categorise it?
You ask "Who is it good for?". There are many possible answers. The people you save or as an example to others of 'ethical consistency,' or to fulfill your own desire to be 'ethically consistent.'
I have always struggled with the 'hero' concept. Most who have been given the label by others during war, personally reject it. I have always been suspicious of my dilemma's/day dreaming of tough situations and how I might respond. Was it about the people I could potentially save or was it about my own memorialisation as 'a good guy.' Which was more important to me? So I wanted to remove the 'credited' aspect and ask would I still be 'ethically consistent.'
Quoting Garrett Travers
It's interesting to me that there is a tendency to 'gravitate' to such religious imagery as 'sacrificial beast' and 'at the feet of.'
I don't see it like that although I have also stumbled into such imagery myself. I suppose my view is akin to utilitarianism. Perhaps it's even Darwinian practicality, save the one or save the many. I like the runaway train dilemma, often cited, with you holding the lever which switches the train to another track.
Again these dilemmas are played out in dramas like 'spock's death' in the Star Trek movies.
I understand all the valid points you make, regarding possible nuances of making the decision to risk your/my own life for others but I think you also value ethical consistency, as do I.
Quoting Garrett Travers
:lol: :lol: I would love to see the above text put into a more poetic form and read by a Mr Angry character on YouTube. I think it would be a hit! I think it clearly frames the frustration of many and the exasperation people have for their species. Do you have any suggestions on how this situation might be improved?
Quoting Garrett Travers
I do see and I agree, it is my main reason for the OP. We just need 'all of the people' or at least a global majority to agree also. It is only the members of our species that can change what we do. No god will do it for us. It is our job! Each and every one of us! WE ARE RESPONSIBLE!
Wow! I love the passion which is palpable in your last paragraph. Gives me hope. For me, that's where the solution lies. Somewhere in such incendiary beginnings is the big meeting that 'the people' have to attend. An internet meeting probably. I think there are rumblings amongst global youth. I remain hopeful.
I do have some issue with Quoting Garrett Travers and
Quoting Garrett Travers
I'm sure we could come to some compromise on the first one and the second is giving me that annoying imagery again. Y'know, "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do."
It's possible that amongst the human writers of the gospel fables, was an annoyed antecedent of Garret Travers
Thanks, you are obviously 'enlightened,' in my opinion.
Quoting unenlightened
You get It! totally! Please know you get it! Heal yourself and you start to help everyone else.
That's my fight as well, everyday! The negative feelings used to assault me night after night.
I have battled with them for at least the past 30 years. They still come at me and they come from me.
They are stimulated by daily inputs from the local and global stage.
I think its "I" (cortex based) fighting "me," (part cortex part limbic) and "myself," (part cortex part R-complex.)
I am not comparing my fight with those up against conditions such as clinical depression or schizophrenia etc but perhaps my, by comparison, small success could encourage.
I have "me" and "myself" on the ropes or I have convinced many of their team to join the "I" team.
I now challenge them most nights to 'give me their best shot, I am ready!'
Sometimes I don't get a lot of sleep but I win the f******* battles.......more often than not!
I have a great deal more undisturbed sleep than I used to and I maintain faith that we can be a better species and we will leave the nest of planet Earth and move into the vastness of space.
I hope many of the atoms which make up "I" at the moment, through the possibilities offered by random chance, after I disassemble and dissipate at a quantum level, all over the place. That some of my old quanta will be part of new sentient life in the future and can witness those events. I am content with my disassembly when my time comes, unless science can extend my longevity.
No, and I would never expect them to do as much for me. Now, if I had children of my own, then perhaps, if it genuinely meant that they lived. Children are different, though. They weren't consulted with before they got here, and it is the parents who hold every ounce of responsibility for them until they've been reared. There's a case to be made for one's children.
Quoting universeness
Right, it's a good question. I don't think it is actually good along any other lines than a simple utilitarian asstimation. The reason for that is, you're never going to be in that hypothetical situation, and that hypothetical situtation has zero contextual details associated with with which to inform your decision, so you only have you as a sacrificial element to go on. That's not a case for an ethical decision. Ethics a rational practice, based on rational, logical, empirical principles. If it is feelings of heroism that are informing the desire to be sacrificed for the "greater good," a term describing nothing, then there's a good chance that you are actually sacrificing the ethical practice in favor of something more superstitious. It's a bit likt the supposed "trolley problem," which isn't a problem. Most people like to think they'd choose the lever that lifst the most people, and that you're a sociopath if you choose to kick the fat guy in front of the train. There's a problem here: there is no train, there are no people tied to it, there is no fat guy. There isn't a single element to this dilemma, clearly fabricated by some gaslighting weirdo, that isn't entire outrageous from the perspective of actual reality. It provides no details upon which to enact one's moral code, why they're their? Who's the fat guy and why is he just standing by the guard rail? Who is responsible for this? Are the people on the tracks murderers? I reject it altogether.
Quoting universeness
More than any other thing known to man.
Quoting universeness
Yes, and until Man realizes that he is the standard and source of value, that his own happiness is his duty, that ethics is the greatest acheivement of the human race, that each fellow human is to be viewed in the same light, that the universe isn't providing saviors, that the state will not provide salvation, that the human reason is the only means by which to predicate the behvior that is in his control, this will never end. We cannot leave ethics and the epistemological tradition on its own to be overrun by the vermin who now teach it in our Universities, Churches, and from the pulpits of Washington's houses. We have to take it back, or Man is fucking doomed. And make no mistake about it, we've been being warned of this for a hundred years and very few of our predecessors took action. Boomers, all of em.....
Quoting universeness
You know what, just for you, I'll stall my writing for tonight, and I'll pull out a piece of paper dedicated just to poem on this subject, and I'll type you something up with my Olympia SM3, and when I'm done with it, I'll snap a picture of it and it to your inbox. What do you say?
Quoting universeness
We have to get passionate about ethics once more, my friend. Everything depends on it. Think of the days when the Munich Circle, or the French Philosophes, or the Russian novelists, would gather together in pubs, and dachas, and coffee houses, not to drink their lives away, or to busy themselves with meandering activities, but to discuss philosophy. To theorize on what was right, how they knew it, what it meant for the world if it were true, and to challenge each the other like fucking ravenous lions over the last piece of life sustaining meat in the name the good. Think of all the days Einstein spent alone in his garet slaving over time, and matter, and energy, and after having brought it to the world saying to his fellow peers "Dosteovesky gives me more than any scientist, more than Guass." Think of what the fuck that statement meant for Einstein. Think of this when you feel like you're losing passion. The shit wakes me up everytime.
Quoting universeness
Well, he's come round again, and he's glad you're here with him, whoever you are stranger. Keep your gun ready and your aim steady, brother. And I mean it, don't let yourself be angered by ingnorance and stupidity, to the best of your ability. Anger deflates the meaning of the good in a strange internal way and the last thing you need for your own fulfillment is to bitter and resentful because people who are not you are ignorant and stupid. I know it seems strange for a stranger to ask, but trust me on this one at least. Letting go of anger was the most powerful transition I've ever gone through in my life. It's not something you will regret. Anyway, I'll get you that poem sometime soon.
-G
If (I of course, hope it never happens) one of them did? Would you state/think they had made a wrong decision?
Would it leave you with a feeling of 'guilt by association?' You were not asked, you would not have let them if you had been asked. I agree but such is rarely in our power. To me, I think I would spend the rest of my life living and trying to 'earn' their decision. Whatever was their responsibility in the form of progeny, mother, father, etc would become mine.
I share your opinion towards children.
Quoting Garrett Travers
But is your rejection based purely on the hypothetical nature of simulated dilemmas?
Are you simply saying, that a person should base their ethics/morality on what they actually did when they faced a real situation? If so, I agree that such real experience is far more valuable than any preemptive musing, no matter what criteria source you use to produce 'thought experiments.'
But thought experiment is a valid strategy within the scientific method and such thinking has paid off in my own personal experience.
Quoting Garrett Travers
I agree it's certainly very high on the list. I also put 'willingness to learn/change/improve' very high.
Quoting Garrett Travers
I agree with most of what you have typed but the 'state' can facilitate a better way for our species, in my opinion, if we can get its structure and functions correct. I see no way to avoid 'a hierarchy of structure,' within a human-based society. Especially when it is (or needs to become) globally based. We have to achieve the very difficult task of spotting and stopping any individual with nefarious intent. Such a structure must be formed 'of the people, by the people and for the people.' It must be fair, democratic and contain economic parity for all and it must also contain very powerful checks and balances. I think we know the formula, but we need the global will.
Quoting Garrett Travers
I am flattered, thank you. Perhaps I will turn it into an oil painting!
Quoting Garrett Travers
I applaud your passion and the content of your message and I wish that more of our teachers in schools and universities demonstrated such passion when delivering their subject to the next generation. Maybe we would have a lot fewer sad conclusions form in human minds such as antinatalism.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Good to confirm that 'the good people will always be back in some form and we will be millions,' We will always be around to disrupt those who seek to be King of slaves. I am here and ready to resist. I hope the guns only every have to be verbal and organisational but if the Kings want to kill you then you have the right to defend.
I will keep my anger and make sure it's directed correctly. I agree it's a dangerous and self-destructive force if misused or manipulated. I really do handle it with care but I need its motivational power. I don't think I have bitterness or resentment in any raw form. I think they coalesce into a determination to protect others against unfair treatment. Looking forward to your poem.
I don't do guilt. I am either responsible, or I am not. Guilt is little more than a childhood emotion, generated to reinforce lessons of right and wrong in early development, that parents, and teachers, and generally immoral people manipulate in children to cover up their own guilt they feel for reasons much the same in relation to the parents, teachers, and gennerally immoral people that influenced their purview. This kind of thing resulting in a life-long expression of a adolescent emotion just one should have extricated himself from the prison of long ago.
As to the question: Yes. My life is not theirs. Their life belongs to only one entity, the consciousness bound within their frame, and the frame from which its consciousness is generated. But, I'd have you consider something. If it came down to the wire, and your own child sacrificed himself for your life, you would not have to earn his decision, he would not have ever given you a greater reason to believe that you hadn't already done so, even if his choice was one of passion, and not of ethical assesment. As far as children, that's where the true source of our toubles in the world lie. I challenge you to find any form of evil behavior that cannot be traced back to some form of childhood, trauma, abuse, manipulation, gaslighting, or ostracism.
Quoting universeness
Glad to hear, my man. I'll start on it tonight, let's if I can't come up with something cool.
I understand that such an act can be purely based on 'love' or even a kind of 'biological or tribal loyalty,'
I would still want to 'inherit' whatever I could from 'who they were,' and nurture it as best I could. So I still see an 'earn' aspect. Perhaps it would be more in the form of 'memorialisation,' depending on the age of the child.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Well, I know what you are saying but what is evil behavior to some (blood sports or eating meat for example) is good behavior to others. If we consider only 'evil behavior' as it would be labeled by the majority of people then is this not also true for any form of good behavior. Behavior you first learned or garnished from childhood experience.
I can understand the emotional aspect in that, it's not the emotions are meaningles or anything. It's simply that, much like with scientific framework, ethical framework lack objectivity in approach to the degree that emotion informs them. If it came down to it, I would also desire such a thing, I think. I hope that helps in understanding what approach I am coming at things with.
Quoting universeness
That's where ethics comes in. Virtue Ethics, Deontological Ethics, Utilitarian Ethics, And Objectivist Ethics are all frameworks that have developed objective standards on which to predicate your moral code, dependent on your respective dilemma, and some more objective than others (I'm sure you can imagine which is which). None of these framework permit bloodsport as ethical behavior. You might think of what you just said in another way, like so: "I know what you're saying, but what is unscientific behavior to some (astrology, witchcraft) is scienctific for others." The two are logically equivalent in nature. We all know that the scientific method(s) does not permit astrology as a scientific approach at reality. So too, is it the same with ethics. Just to further elaborate, and this all may have been stuff you've considered, but I like going over it. A good way of conceptualizing what Ethics, Morality, and Virtue are, is to compare it with like-framework. Ethics is to behavior what Science is to inductive observation. Morality is to behavior what the Scientific Method (s) is to inductive observation. Virtue is to behavior what proper analysis of data is to inductive observation. Tell me if that makes sense, if you've considered it, or if I should refine and reformulate it for better conveyance of the idea.
I'm off for a wee evening of alcohol and chat Garret.
I will respond to your response tomorrow!
Have a great night!
You too, man. Stay cool.
Sorry I keep forgetting to press t twice Garrett!
Yes, the "don't" was an unfortunate typo that reversed the intended meaning. I doubt that public education has much to do with personal moral calculations. And History is too eclectic & inclusive to apply direct force to specific individuals. Nevertheless, non-philosophers typically prefer simple broad principles, like the Golden Rule. Still, such general precepts must be interpreted for specific situations.
Academic Philosophers are unusual in their motivation to precisely analyze human behavior down to general rules. Yet, their collective conclusions tend to cluster in the shape of a Bell Curve, but with "fat tails". By that, I mean those who are highly motivated (narrowly focused experts) tend to move toward extreme positions. Moreover, the extremists are more likely to be opinion influencers, and leaders of "movements".
Fortunately for the rest of us, the Middle position (Aristotle's Golden Mean) still dominates the statistical distribution of opinions. That's why philosophical wisdom typically advocates a moderate stance, in order to avoid incessant warfare between right-wingers and left-wingers. However, when the shooting starts, the moderates in the middle get shot-at from both sides. So, we learn to keep our heads down, until the combatants run out of ammunition.
Stalin and Hitler were not academic philosophers, but they were influenced by the likes of Marx (communism) and Nietzsche (individualism) to build Utopian sky-castles, regardless of how many follower's lives it cost. And they forced moderates to choose one extreme or the other. Which placed unreasonable and untenable ethical pressure on them. When trapped in the jaws of a moral either/or vise, they had no option, but to "look to themselves" for an incalculable solution. :cool:
Sounds like you are forcing a gullt-trip on yourself. Presumably, that stems from a feeling of responsibility for the woes of the world. You may have internalized that feeling from a polarized religious or political background, or from an idealistic or perfectionist philosophical tradition. Until you can learn to accept your own imperfections, your diversionary tactics will still be haunted by the spectre of failing to live-up to your own standards, or the standards you are judged by. Impossible standards sound good in theory, but in practice they produce only angst. :gasp:
A lot of people perform A and B. C, less so. C takes time, ability, and effort. More people who are capable, though, could do more study, and should.
Quoting universeness
Well, universeness, our problems may be beyond our capacity to solve. I don't like that, but it may be true.
It would be nice if we could flip a switch and suddenly have zero carbon output, zero methane output, and so on. No such switch. Too bad. We are DEEPLY dependent on fossil fuels and there is no handy substitute at hand. Wind and solar, nuclear and hydro are alternatives, but we are a long way from deploying them fully. We don't have enough time before things get much worse.
Yes, we could suddenly shut down carbon emitting plants and processes all over the world, then watch the world's economy collapse. World-wide economic collapse and worsening global warming are both bad. Which one shall we have?
We are between a rock and a hard place.
I am a little sad to read this. Whenever I try to to operate on myself, to judge myself or force myself to do or to stop doing or feeling something, what is happening is a fragmentation of the person, and the provoking of conflict. It is counter-productive. Please, you have told us that you are a boxing match, a violent damaging sport; ring the bell for the end of the last round, and call it a draw.
I have told this story before here, but...
I was a smoker from the age of 11 until my 60's. Many times i tried to stop and managed once for 6 months, but always fell back. Always there was this conflict: 'I want to stop smoking' but 'I want a cigarette.' and the more I forced myself not to smoke, the more I felt I deserved the reward of a cigarette. And the more I had a cigarette the more I condemned myself as a weak-willed foolish self-indulgent person.
This went on until I had an insight. I have described the situation as though from the outside, but when I say 'insight' I mean an understanding that is not separate from what is understood. I understood the conflict as a whole, and from within. And in the moment of that understanding, there was a change without effort; if I want to smoke, I do not want to not smoke, and vice versa. And from that moment, I have not wanted a cigarette, ever, at all. It is finished.
Of course one cannot force oneself to have such an insight that ends the conflict, gritting one's teeth and urging oneself on does not help, and nor does fighting oneself - even as one wins, one loses. It is a matter of looking without judgement, of looking at oneself without separating oneself between what is seeing and what is seen.
On the outside, the world can be worked on, improved perhaps, cleaned and tidied and so on, but working inwardly does not make sense; insight and understanding is what can heal and transform.
“The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways,” he famously said. “The point, however, is to change it.”
___Karl Marx
Back to your original post --- who's responsible for the evil in the world? : A> God ; B> Politicians ; C> Philosophers ; d> You?
Marx, the philosopher, spent his life in dark, dusty libraries perfecting his theory of an ideal political & economic system. So, he relied on non-philosophers to be the cannon-fodder, who actually did the dirty, bloody work of revolution. Therefore, you need to ask yourself : are you a leader, or a bleeder, or a thinker? Who appointed you to be the next Lenin, or the next peasant soldier, shouldering the earth-moving responsibility for changing the course of the world? Did Marx or Lenin achieve their high ambitions? To move the world, you need a lever and a fulcrum. :cool:
Yes, It's reasonable.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Well, I can look up each label you assign to the label 'ethics' and gain an understanding of the variety that each combination refers to, which I did. In doing so, I gained a more detailed understanding of 'ethics' labels. I was intrigued by the Rand description (in wikipedia) of an objectivist ethic as the concept of man as a heroic being with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life. I have always rejected this viewpoint. Which I think is clear from my OP. So human debate about such labels continues, as it should.
Quoting Garrett Travers
I think you are saying that these find commonality in the sense that they each provide 'a road towards the development of a general principle.' All this is fair enough, but the deck can be stacked for so many people in so many ways! Is it evil that someone is born with 'paranoid delusions or sociopathic tendencies etc?' I dont think this would be due to any kind of childhood nurture, although it must be true that how such conditions are treated is of paramount importance when discovered. But economic issues or ethnicity or religion or region or any other such dumb barrier should not be reasons why we don't intervene effectively when someone has such a condition. If they go on to behave in 'evil' ways toward others, then who is really responsible here? We even have such concepts in law. Declared insane! Not legally responsible for their actions and they go into institutes for the criminally insane. But are they evil?
In Carl Sagan's book, 'Broca's brain' he cites the case of a Russian serial killer who it is thought to have killed over 50 people. When science eventually studied him, they decided on a process hitherto untried (which was ok as such as he could be 'ethically' used for medical experimentation.) They severed his corpus callosum ( the communication channels between the right and left hemisphere of his brain). He was left with some difficulties but they eventually declared him 'cured' of his urge to kill others.
I completely agree with your imperative for 'ethical consistency,' but even with all of the ethics labels you have offered so far and how they are interpreted and conceived by others, we have not yet, as a human society, achieved a full understanding of the labels, 'ethics', 'good' and 'evil/bad.' To me, it's illogical to see these labels as 'stand alones,' they are intertwined and interdependent aspects of the human psyche. On a practical level, we must continue the struggle to gain a full non-religious understanding of these concepts (Evil is F*** all to do with ghosts and demons etc) and create a just system for all, which is not dependent on economics or availability of services, etc on a global scale.
Surely the way in which you are educated affects your moral compass. If as a small child, I am taught Christian doctrine as the 'true moral code' then I am, for example, going to believe that it is morally correct to condemn nonbelievers and homosexuals and treat women as less important than men.
I may change my moral imperatives later in life but my early education is crucial to the struggles/dilemmas I will face later in life.
Btw I do think the golden rule is indeed a moral imperative.
Quoting Gnomon
:lol: Very true analysis and currently, good advice but I hope this 'inevitability of war' between opposing viewpoints, as the only final way to 'settle the argument,' will be removed as an option. I hang my hopes on the M.A.D deterrent. I hope that technology absolutely ensures that we will all perish if we use war to settle things. I like the choice of "get it right! or you will all die! all of you, EXTINCT. The Earth will eventually try again with another species," So, we will be motivated to get it right!
Quoting Gnomon
I lay no blame at the door of Karl Marx for the likes of Stalin and Hitler, in the same way as I lay no blame at the door of the fabled god(s) for the actions of humans. Marx simply suggested a fairer way to distribute wealth and power using the model of a human commune. Working together for a common good rather than allowing a rule by Kings or autocrats. In my opinion, a young Karl Marx would have fought against Stalin and Hitler with equal venom, as he would have recognised them both as autocrats.
Yes I am, but I am also asking, should you be doing the same? Should we all be doing so?
I am an atheist so no religious influence apart from the influence of its rejection. I am socialist but I don't accept your suggestion that socialism is a political polarisation. I see democratic socialism as a human imperative rather than a political one. It is a political necessity, in my opinion, to create a fair society.
It's interesting to me that you use the term 'perfectionist,' similar to utopian etc.
Do you think a just, fair human society is unobtainable?
I do accept my imperfections but I can still strive to improve, cant I?
I can only leave the judgment of whether or not my actions demonstrate such improvement, to others.
I feel that the term 'diversionary tactics' is unwarranted. What would my purpose be for employing any subterfuge in this thread? Personal aggrandisement is the only nefarious intent I can come up with. If that is my true intent then others will call me out on it I hope. Perhaps your 'diversionary tactics' flag will encourage others to be ever watchful.
I welcome angst, else I should become complacent. I welcome it but will not allow it to overwhelm me.
Don't you think this reassurance will be a reason for some to start such a war? I think it's a very scary idea that such a war is possible in the first place. Gives me nightmares!
Good stuff, I hope you are correct and I can only agree with your comment here.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I have personal faith that it's not. Our capacity to change has been demonstrated in fabulous labels such as 'revolution,' 'hope,' 'enlightenment,' 'pioneer,' ' explorer,' 'wonder,' etc. I know you could provide me with an equally emotive list of negative labels or you could provide negative outcome examples of labels such as 'revolution,' (Orwells 1984 etc) but no, I will never give up on the human race as it would mean giving up on myself. You have used many words in your posts which are not bitter and are not cranky. I would like to see you change your 'handle' but perhaps you like the 'ironic' element too much and I fully accept your choice of 'handle' is just that, your choice.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yep, all complicated stuff. I think your depiction of a desperate race between reaching a destructive point of no return and a point of 'turn around' towards a better stewardship of our planet is an accrate depiction. We all need to pick our causes, be vigilant and do all we can in pursuit of the latter outcome.
If we go extinct, I for one will go kicking and screaming about the folly of others.
Showing compassion for another is a strength, so thank you. It was not my intention to portray any element of sadness in the struggle of "I" with "me" and "myself" My own emotion of sadness is a product of me, myself and I. We all have these three voices due to having a triune brain. This is not a fragmentation this is a result of the physical fact that our brain is actually three separate brains connected together. Me, myself, and I are physiological, not metaphysical.
The conflict occurs due to the priority functions of the r-complex, the limbic system, and the cerebral cortex. We all have similar struggles. Gaining balance is my goal, as this will, in my opinion, allow me to be as useful as I can be in the area we label 'human life.'
I accept that 'boxing match' imagery was not my best choice. How about three siblings who all love each other but who have big disagreements about what the family priorities should be?
I hope that disavow's the sadness conclusion.
Quoting unenlightened
Defeating any kind of addiction is a mammoth task. Sounds like you achieved it. I can only applaud you and add your example to the list of evidence that humans can defeat very difficult, complicated harmful situations and improve their life accordingly. How much more so then, if we had much better and more intense help from everyone else around us.
Quoting unenlightened
Surely new insight and understanding comes from internal conflict or musings. If not from the internal then where does new insight and understanding come from?
If you don't like the adversarial imagery of 'internal conflict' then perhaps you will find 'internal musings/debate/rumination,' more palatable.
The main point is not to surrender to exasperation, exhaustion, feelings of the inevitability of personal defeat, placid acceptance of a negative fate etc.
I understand your emotive use of 'cannon-fodder' and 'who actually did the dirty, bloody work of revolution.' I have often used the phrase 'Lions led by donkeys,' to describe the soldiers on WW1 and those who led them. I am currently reading the personal memoirs of Ulysses S Grant.
A fascinating and somewhat terrifying insight into human conflict.
Should Marx have been on the front line with the people of the Russian revolution? Seems apt to me but I don't know his personal capabilities or circumstances at the time in question but would he have been able to affect the outcomes of that particular conflict if he did what you suggest was his responsibility to do. I don't know.
I could perhaps be labeled with all or any of the tags you suggest, as could many others, including you. But my question is, is it our individual responsibility to aspire to such actions when we see and report discontent with the way things are or do we remain nothing more than at best, armchair warriors. We can try to organise, unite, pressure the system we so disdain. Many do but is it imperative that everyone who does not like our current society becomes an activist? Is this your responsibility and mine? I can get the metal for the lever, will you help build it and the fulcrum? I think we will probably have to do a lot more than that if we are to win this desperate race against time and prevent our own extinction.
Stalin and Lenin had personal autocratic ambitions, in my opinion, and were not much better than the Tsar they wished to replace. Picked leaders often disappoint so we need to learn the lessons of history and never have a revolution which has a single leader. The roman senate knew 'emperor' was a bad idea, we simply still haven't got the very complex issue of a hierarchy of authority correct yet.
BUT WE WILL!
For me, the solution has to lie in very powerful checks and balances. It has to be relatively easy to remove any leader.
All authority must be OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE and must be implemented globally.
Only those who are insane would do so, but yes, they exist and they can reach the highest levels of power at the moment and yes, that is terrifying. But seriously, we f****** deserve extinction if we let that happen. No individual system should exist where the will of an individual or small group can cause something like a global nuclear exchange to occur or any equivalent or worse technology in the future. We must strive to create a global socio-political system that makes such a circumstance almost impossible. Very powerful checks and balances are needed at every stage in hierarchical authority. Absolute scrutiny of anyone appointed to any significant position of trust and power is essential. We even have to regularly scrutinise the scrutineers. History has been screaming these facts at us for centuries. We have to do this until we have at least billions of us living and thriving off-planet. Then such an event as Earth's destruction would not mean our extinction was assured. Our own survival is the imperative that shows space exploration and development is wise. I am also hopeful that if we can make a future where individual humans are a lot happier with their individual experience of 'being alive' then conflict will naturally reduce its 'threat level,' perhaps even all the way to zero.
I would highly recommend venturing into all of them to learn their value, but you really should familiarize yourself with what Rand's arguments were for that. So far, the two most reasonable ethical frameworks I've discovered are Objectivism and Utilitarianism, they make the most sense to me if you sort of combine them, and respect each respective domain of dilemma's you may find yourself in. Virtue Ethicals is splendid as well. Deontological Ethics is Kantian, and for the most part I reject him outright, but the Hypothetical Imperative is a stroke of genuis as far as ethics is concerned.
Quoting universeness
Good questions, really. I would say actions that are determined to be evil through the application of ethical framework remain evil no matter who enacts them. However, if it can be dertermined that a person actually lacks the cognitive faculties the define consciousness, like healthy, aware, consciousness, no they cannot be considered either good, nor evil. That's when we as arbiters must apply reason and ethical framework to assess how to operate futher in the situation.
Quoting universeness
Such a good topic that isn't talked about enough. The corpus callosum is the only connection between both hemispheres. They've done experiments with "spli-brain" patients where if they ask a question to the person while stimulating one side of the brain, the patient will answer the question in the opposite manner he answers the same question if they stimulate the other side of the brain when asking it. Groundbreaking stuff on the nature of consciousness that no one ever thinks about. Good reference. I think they use this method to treat very severe schizophrenia, or something like that. Normally leaves the patient ruined forever. There's even been cases where a patient went crazy on his wife and began beating her while telling her that it wasn't him, that he didn't want to do it. Both sides of his brain were operating independently of eachother.
Quoting universeness
Bingo! That's the key for me. I told you I'd stop my writing to send you a poem, what I'm writing right now is a new ethical framework that incorporates elements from all bodies of ethical work that I can find that are compatible, and integrate them into something a bit more coherent for the average person. A bit more accessible, I even have a name for it that' totally new, however I can't share that publicly because there's a good chance I'm actually onto something. At least something more a kin to a real exploration that you're going to find in the modern world. I'm not saying I'll be successful, but I'm pretty fucking committed, this is also my field of study in college, so I've got formal ed to help me along. But, yeah, I completely feel what you're saying in all of this.
Of course, it should. But my comment was directed at the current conflicted situation of public education in the US. For example, government-funded schools are now political battlegrounds over the teaching of "Critical Race Theory", among other academic concerns. One side seems to view it as an ethical issue regarding fair treatment of "minority" citizens. Meanwhile, the opposition treats it as a political propaganda attack on the besieged colorless race. (note -- I know nothing about the CR theory other than the label)
Up to about a century ago, secular public schools were primarily mandated to produce ethically-good citizens. But now, the teaching of good morals is left mostly to private religious organizations. So, the secular mandate of modern mind-molding is to train children to be technically-good workers. Presumably, regardless of Race, Religion, or National Origin. The attitude seems to be : the future is untainted, but history is morally compromised -- and best avoided in the presence of tender minds. :smile:
That "suggestion" was not my personal opinion, but a reflection of the historical & current political polarization between "socialist" Liberals and "capitalist" Conservatives. Throughout history, those on the top echelons of society (owners of capital) were typically status-quo Conservatives. The Moderate mid-levels of society were content to just hang-on to their not-so-bad positions. And the huddled masses, were either passively accepting of their lot in life, or frustrated by the lead-ceilings as they tried to climb-up to the next rung in society.
For millennia, upward social mobility was mostly a pipe dream, until the Socialism & Communism & Unionism movements reacted vigorously to the inhumane conditions of smoke-stack industrialism. As long as the masses remained compliant and quiescent though, there was no political polarization. But when poverty & racism & sexism became in-your-face issues, and the divide between Haves & Have-nots became un-ignorable. Only then did the top dogs began to have their noses pushed into their own sh*t.
Traditionally, Monarchic politics was a concern of only the rich & powerful. But, when Democratic ideals began to question the morality of ancestral aristocracy, a newly-revealed chasm between top & bottom of society soon became entrenched into routine Democratic politics. Unfortunately, the hierarchical gap between rich & poor remains to this day, as a running sore in all societies. Hence, the ancient Left vs Right division between noble peers, has evolved into a Top vs Bottom polarization of minority & majority classes. Yet, political mud-slinging still labels social Liberals as commie Leftists, and economic Conservatives as fascist Right-wingers. That's why moderates in the middle must learn to duck, as the slinging now comes from left & right and top & bottom. :cool:
I don't much like brainspeak. I have never seen or felt my brain and I am not convinced I have one. Nor do i believe that you or anyone else is more experienced wrt their own brain.
Quoting universeness
Alas, you have not understood me; it is so simple, that almost no one does. No one has defeated anyone or anything, and no task has been performed. There is literally nothing easier than not doing what one does not want to do.
Bravo! That sounds much more optimistic than the OP. I just hope your momentary enthusiasm doesn't turn into apathy, when the ideal of egalitarianism remains as far away as the horizon. I learned long ago, to lower my expectations, even as I set moderately higher goals. :smile:
If we are to depend on our rational faculty to guide our ethical decisions and understanding, what assures us that the truths we arrive at can be nailed down as factual? This is of course the problem of skepticism that occupied philosophers like Hume and Kant. Kant’s solution led him to his categorical imperative and moral ‘duty’. I assume you reject his approach , as did Rand. I could be wrong but I suspect that the whole course of 20th and 21at century ethical theory devolves upon Kantian ethics , even as many approaches submit him to critique. Most contemporary philosophers share Kant’s subjectivism, or what Grants Hartman calls ‘correlationism’ , the belief that real objects in the world can only be understood in their empirical scientific truth relative to our subjective schemes and categories of understanding. This means. that science can never have direct access to truths about the world, but only approximate and falsify. In other words, for post-Kantian thought a certain degree of relativism is built into rationality.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t your notion of rational thought, like Rand’s, give us such direct access to empirical truth that Kant rejected? Descartes believed we had such direct access to truth, mediated by the direct connection between the pineal gland of the brain and Divine guidance that equips our brains with the faculty to recognize truth in the causal relations we discover in the world. But you are an Atheist so it sounds like you believe that we have that faculty but it is not given to us by God.
It is an ironic choice, the irony more visible to me than anyone else. I don't want to change horses mid stream, and this handle goes back to the first incarnation of Philosophy Forum, so a few years worth. Plus it would take too much CPU time to think of another handle.
Tell that to the heroin addict.
Firstly, the myth of the heroin addict is not all it's cracked up to be. After Vietnam, GI heroin addicts were generally able to give up the habit without too much trouble.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/01/02/144431794/what-vietnam-taught-us-about-breaking-bad-habits
But that aside, the point I am making is that people are conflicted. An addict will typically honestly claim to want to stop but by their action show that they want to continue. when you want to do something, then it is very hard not to do it. It is the ending of psychological conflict that is required; when one is single-minded, there is no conflict, and things become fairly straightforward.
In short, we can't. We have to use reason, evidence, induction, hypothesis, data analysis to inform of us the best possible conclusion. Which is an exercise in rationality, or 'executive function,' as I've remarked upon in our other discussion. The method I use is one I'm currently developing which involves applying the logic from all established ethical framework to vett for consistency and applicability. For example, the only logical validation for the deontological framework would be contracts and undertakings that involve tacitly accepted responsibilities like child-rearing, or college. Meaning, deontological ethics, when placed in its proper context is actually compatible with the Objectivist framework. I can provide more clarity on that if need be.
Quoting Joshs
Yes, I reject both Kant's categorical imperative, specifically, and Hume's 'Problem of Induction," specifically. However, not necessarily just because of Rand's arguments against them, which are sound. And yes, Kant's presence dominates the default-mode ethical framework of the general publis, which is a bit of an enormous problem, even though it has been highlighted and argued against definitively in my opinion. Which I am happy to do with you myself, if you so desire.
Quoting Joshs
Yes, which is absurd. It is only through logic chopping and semantic word-play that such a conclusion be asserted. In fact, it wouldn't matter if it were the case that such was true, which it isn't. The domain of existence is apprehendable by the human, using only induction to guide him, let alone logic, experimentation, independent observation, with the entire history of science and innovation predicated upon it to demostrate it. There's not a single modicum of evidence suggesting as much beyond theory. Our subjective schema are predicated upon perceiving objective data that comes through objective instruments, processed by an objective brain, objectively created to do so through the objective process of evolution by natural selection, organized by objective standards of consistency, and objectively experimented with in the objective world, to objectively repeat the process. Subjectivity, although an element of human life, is practically irrelevant to it. Human life is overwhelmingly situated upon objective phenomena. It may even be prudent to regard the term 'subjectivity' as little more than a subjective concept to describe only that small space between our thoughts and our actions.
Quoting Joshs
This is absolutely true. Access to reality we certainly have, but that access is only spread over five domains and what instruments we can build to augment them, thus delimited. That does not mean that what we perceive is not reality, or that reality cannot be known. It would quite literally be impossible to conclude such given the history of science upto this point. If we couldn't detect truth, we wouldn't have done any of the things we've accomplished apropos tech, medicine, engineering, it's just irrational.
Quoting Joshs
Without a doubt. However, there's this misunderstanding of Rand's that claims she asserted the notion of Radical Objectivity, which is patently false, and I've had to dispel this a number of times for her misinformed - having never actually read her epistemology - detractors who formulated their thoughts by word-of-mouth from other detractors. But, yes, I am empirically typing this message, and you are empirically reading it at this time. No doubt about it. Or, you wouldn't have made it to this sentence here. Our intake of empirical data is a natural function of the brain, also an empirically observable entity, empirically used for everything we're discussing here.
Quoting Joshs
Yes, Descartes is another philosopher that needs to be thrown out of the 'important' category of philosophical thinkers. I applaud his attempt, but his epistemology is completely backwards from where it should have started. "I am" and "What am I," are some of the first things I ever asked myself consciously, which is where that should have begun for Descartes. However, it's clear that the thing Descartes was highlighting was actual the entire working structures of the main-brain, emotional processing network, and the healthy operation of the prefrontal cortex (controlling both) that was the source of it all, he wouldn't have known so he get's a few points there for effort.
Quoting Joshs
Yes. When we see how the brain operates, the inclusion of a divine presence is not required for the model to produce what you see before you in the mirror.
Rationality of course needs a substrate on which to operate, and that’s where causality comes into play. Rationality allows us to figure out how things fit together in causative patterns. Prior to Kant , a good example of a nice , rational causative scheme would have been a clock or a car engine. In these devices , individuals parts works together in a specific way to create a functioning machine. The parts retain their identity outside of their role in the workings of the device. After Kant the focus shifted to the idea of machine as a gestalt whole, wherein each part only has its identity in relation to its contribution to the larger whole. So Kant’s subjectivism contributes a relationality to causation that sees connections where previous objective causal models saw only independent parts arbitrarily combined in causal sequences.
One could say we have here two kinds of rationality. The pre-Kantian rationality accepts arbitrary concatenations of parts as the exemplar of reason. The post-Kantian approach looks for gestalt pattern everywhere. In terms of ethics , the pre-Kantian ethicist sees narrow islands of rational ethical conduct surrounded by a sea of irrationality , psychopathology, emotionality, malevolence and evil. The individual will is declared sovereign because it is the only thing that can be counted on to be understandable and predicable, a machine we know well because it belongs to us. We can’t be in a position to endorse other beings the way we endorse ourselves because we know so little about others, they are unpredictable and potentially irrational. And even when we see them as rational, they will be operating according to a rationality which, like a car engine, has its own arbitrary causative sequence of working parts. So we have no choice to use our own will as sovereign basis of ethics.
Yes, this has been something that has been impeding some of the sciences for some time. For example, check out this article on the nature of consciousness, you'll see what I mean; just skim it, don't even need to tarry on it. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351365249_WHAT_PRODUCES_CONSCIOUSNESS
The gestalt methodology is something that cannot be divorced from the mechanistic, they have to be observed together, or the resolution of the image is distorted. Another one of those elements of objectivity that can be used to predicate one's ethical framework upon.
Quoting Joshs
Oh, how I wish this were truly true. I see your point, and I agree. But, when you detach the fundamentals of reality from your philosophical approach, the links of the catena dissolve into misapprehension, confusion, and in Kant's case, a nonsensical prolix of self-generated jargon that doesn't have correspondence any longer.
Quoting Joshs
An utterly brilliant assessment. Thank you, I needed that from this website. It was getting to the point of nonsense dealing with some of these arguments. You're right, we actually have no choice. But, it isn't just for reasons associated with what you're saying. It's actually hard wired into you, you ONLY have the tools of cognition offfered to you by 3.5 billion years of evolution, that has somehow produced beings that can apprehend a high-enough resolution image of reality to not only survive, but to expand presence and knowledge. This is only done throught that mechanism, and it is quite literally bound to every individual, individually. Reason is the one evolutionary advantage that has outlasted every other predator in the history of the world, or bested them; and for the reason of its ability to navigate reality and assess beyond the fulfillment of basic, subcortical activity and thought.
I think we mainly concur with each other's viewpoint in the areas discussed here.
I will spend some time reading on the general area of ethics to deepen my knowledge on the topic.
I hope your deep study of ethics proves fruitful for everyone.
I don't know enough about this to comment.
Quoting Gnomon
In the UK, the area of historical slavery is taught at secondary school level(12-17) within the subject called 'Modern Studies.' But it's no more than a course unit. I am certainly attracted to the idea of teaching the topic of 'racial conflict/harmony in schools but I agree that it cannot be skewed in the way you are suggesting it currently is in the US schools.
Quoting Gnomon
I am against any religious organisation being involved in the education of children. I don't have a problem with schools informing children of the existence of and the main tenets of the main world religions but there should never be any hint of 'this is the one WE favour.'
I would not allow religious schools in any form.
Quoting Gnomon
Sounds like the secular school system in America and the UK needs a lot of change.
Surely in US schools, they understand that ignorance of history causes repetition of horrific historical events.
I can't argue with any of the points you make in this response. It sounds like an accurate synopsis of the rise of the current political framework in many countries.
All I can respond with is 'what a bizarre viewpoint!'
Quoting unenlightened
Ok, if that works for you :meh:
My belief that the vast majority of human beings are good people is deeply held.
I will never become apathetic.
The cosmic calendar scale's the time since the big bang to a single year.
On that scale, the past 8 thousand years scale's to only a few seconds on the cosmic calendar.
A human lifespan is currently no more than a blink of a cosmic eye.
I think that Human society will be fair and just within the next few seconds of the cosmic calendar.
Fair enough! :up:
If a person becomes too 'single-minded' and they have very little or no 'psychological conflict' then they can lose all empathy/compassion for others. The state of mind you describe can be very good in many situations and very dangerous and damaging in others. I rely on my psychological conflict as a monitor of any musings I am having about actions I may/may not perform.
That said, Lady luck has a way of messing up the most carefully of laid out plans. To bad, that's just the way it is I'm afraid. For such unfortunate peeps, help is justified and necessary for they usually become the first domino to fall, setting of a chain reaction that usually spirals out of control. A fine mess we've got ourselves in!
Quoting Joshs
I read with interest your exchanges with Garrett Travers.
I am trying to focus past the philosophical historicity you are both discussing and attempt to arrive at the more practical, everyday consequences of your deliberations.
To create a fairer system for all, what structural, societal changes would you suggest?
Let me suggest one.
Every democratic system must have powerful checks and balances so that the 'sovereign will' of any individual does not become a justification for abuse of any powers wielded by that individual.
So, as well as elected representatives in a hierarchy of power, we must also have an elected 'counci//senate/forum of the people.' Such a group can call for a plebiscite from any group of stakeholders regarding the status of any politician in government or the term of that government before a new election is required. The term can never be increased, but it can be reduced or terminated. No such horrors as a lifetime presidency would be allowed, ever!
This group could stop a law from being passed by the sitting government if they obtain the necessary sanction from the people.
This group could remove anyone from their position, again if they obtain the sanction of the particular stakeholders involved (probably those people who elected the individual in the first place.)
This group can consult any relevant mass of population they choose, at any time on any issue.
Is such a group viable? desirable? Would they be effective scrutineers of government actions?
So, we must all take responsibility for this, every single one of us!
It is everyone's responsibility to help change this truth.
It is your responsibility also. You are not good-for-nothing, that's just untrue.
Again we are not of one mind here. I say 'single-minded', and you hear 'bully' or 'tyrant'. But a tyrant is not single-minded but is deeply conflicted, dependent for his identity on having power over others, because he has no self-understanding. It is the lack of insight that leads to the loss of empathy.
No, I don't only hear bully or tyrant, I merely flag possible consequences of individuals who are too 'single-minded' and do not engage in any psychological conflict. I don't have a strong enough example of what I would consider 'pure evil.' The best offering I could make would be the theist description of satan but as an atheist, I don't like to employ anything invented in the theistic mind. But I could employ terms like single-minded and no psychological conflict when describing pure evil. I could also of course use such terms to describe someone who is determined to defeat or combat pure evil
.
Quoting unenlightened
Raw hatred has no empathy with its target but it does not necessarily lack insight.
I hate fascism but I do not lack insight into its doctrine.
Well if you have to speak of evil, then you seem to be already in a theological discourse, in which case you need to understand the way that language works. The term 'pure evil' is at best paradoxical, and liable to lead to contradiction. "How can evil be anything but impure?", I might ask.
Quoting universeness
I have been using insight in a restricted sense of inward seeing or understanding of oneself in a specifically undivided way. I'm sorry if that was not clear in the context. I do not suppose you are seeing the doctrine of fascism in yourself and as yourself?
For what it's worth, here's my own cosmic calendar. It shows an optimistic upward progression, despite all the physical entropy and political digressions. I attribute the upward evolution to the counter-entropy force of Enformy. Scientists call it "negentropy", but I prefer the more positive sounding term. :smile:
Enformy :
[i]In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be supernatural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.[/i]
BothAnd Blog
It's helpful to look at life as a battle/war. Sure, there's the possibility of reinforcement, but it's better to assume there's none! Every man, woman, child for himself/herself/itself! Be independent and all will be well!
Pure can be defined as 'not mixed with anything else, not diluted, not questioned' which fits with my intention for using the term 'pure evil.' My advice to you would be to concentrate on thinking about why you have difficulty recognising the existence of your own brain.
It's very easy to snap a single twig. Join enough twigs together and they become a lot harder to break.
My advice to you is to inquire into the significance of this piece of meat you obsess about. Notice that it doesn't have as much control as it thinks over basic functions like the circulation of blood, including heart-rate, the digestive system, body temperature, reproductive system, - all the important stuff is controlled elsewhere, leaving the brain to play fingers on keyboards and make funny noises at other brains.
Looks good to me! I like the predicted exponential growth towards the rather more concerning Omega point. Concerning as Omega is the last greek letter in that particular alphabet and usually signifies an ending. There is also a depiction of what looks like an explosion. I hope that's just misinterpretation on my part and this is an Alpha point (or the end of human inequality), a beginning celebrated by a firework going off.
Well, as I have often said, I might disagree with what you say but I respect your right to say it, as long as you are not inciting violence.
I wonder how we have travelled from agreement to conflict?
Quoting universeness
I am not trying to under/overwhelm you. I am simply discussing points with you. The fact that I think you are wrong and have a bizarre relationship with your own brain, is my opinion. It's not an opinion you share, I would be surprised if you did, as if you agreed with me on the point discussed, our opinions would coalesce. The fact that I agreed with your initial commentary does not mean I agree with the thinking process you used to arrive at it.
Quoting unenlightened
Now who is choosing to use the word 'conflict'(like a boxing match perhaps?).
I would prefer to label it good-natured dialogue, unless my 'bizarre' label has upset you too much.
Now the reason I think this is important is that a theory is a way of looking, and while that is no problem when one is looking outwardly, when one looks inwardly, the theory that one has is part of the thing one is trying to look at; it is part of oneself. and this means that the theory through which one looks cannot account for itself and one can only have a partial incomplete view of oneself.
This is the source of the triune aspect of the mind; not the structure of the brain, but the structure of outward looking turned inwards; the observer, the observed and the theory. The winner the loser and the referee, the id the ego and the superego, etc, etc. Here is the challenge: if I have a true insight, then I see the whole - all three. But if all three are seen, who is seeing?
My reference was not to the Greek alphabet, but to the evolutionary theory of paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Other scientists, such as Frank Tipler, have used the same name for the notion of upward progression of evolution toward some final resolution. I haven't made any detailed study of the process, so my use of the "Omega Point" is pure conjecture.
However, the Inflationary instant at the beginning of the universe is also a hypothetical conjecture with no empirical evidence. Hence, the question mark. If the universe is just one phase of an eternal cosmic cycle, then the Omega Point would be the end of one rotation, and the beginning of another. But, if our universe is one-and-done, then the final state is either extinguishment, or the birth of a gestating deity -- some call it the "Cosmic Christ" -- as deChardin surmised. I don't claim to know which is correct, but I have made my guess. In any case, if evolution is indeed progressive, it should also be in the process of creating something new & different & better, in some sense. :cool:
The Omega Point is a supposed future when everything in the universe spirals toward a final point of unification.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point
Ok, thanks for the extra detail, it made your position clearer to me.
I think we have a lot of commonality in this particular area of discussion.
Sorry I took so long to respond to you, I was in PM chat with a few other members.
Ok, just some crossed lines then, no problem. My background is not mainstream philosophy so if the philosophy jargon gets too heavy then I am prone to misinterpreting it. This is a philosophy site and I admit to being a retired interloper from the computing world but I am just interested in any common ground between philosophy and science.
Based on the quote above, I would say well that is what I would call 'self-awareness,' I think a brain does
experience itself.
Quoting unenlightened
I agree that at any moment it time when I am not concentrating on external sensors. If all my senses were momentarily blocked for example then I could still think and be aware of self and brain etc but I can conceive of your point here that it would be a series of snapshots of the whole and therefore an incomplete view. If that's what you mean?
Quoting unenlightened
Yeah, I have always really liked this one and struggled with it for a while but I became 'content' with the conception that I am not able to see the whole of 'me, myself and I' at any instant in time. I think the human brain is capable of many parallel processes but my brain cannot access every part of itself at the same instant in time. Aspects of its workings are serial, not parallel. Perhaps this is currently just untapped ability. Science does claim that in our lifetime we do only use around 20% of our brains capacity. So perhaps we will discover how use our brains fully in the future.
I think that self-awareness gives a brain the ability to articulate its own functionality in the way I just have, when typing this response and I can I can still produce output even if all my senses were blocked. I mean, even reduced down to a brain in a box.
If the rest of me was removed and science could still maintain just my brain and interface with it then "I" may well still 'exist' in a very real way. How would you define what you are calling insight in the thought experiment I describe as a brain in a box or even more so, a downloaded consiousness. Not even the presence of a physical brain? Do you think such will ever be possible?
There is a way: open up your skull and look in the mirror. You can look directly into your brain.
Ouch, but Hannibal Lecter would approve. I think he actually does this to one of the characters in those movies played by Ray Liotta! Yeuch!
So you are content with I {the seer} see myself {the seeable}, and theorise me {the unseeable} -- or thereabouts? Fair enough, if you are content. I simply say to anyone who is not content, that there is another way, that does not begin with thought and theory, and also does not struggle, but is willing to see whatever is there and accept it. Seeing can see itself whole, and it is instantaneous. I hope you all will come to it.
I don't think this will ever be possible. Only your body fits your brain. You can't take your brain out and place it in a vat, supplying it with information that your body would provide for you normally. The brain and body are unseparable. Even you dreaming can't be accomplished in this way. Separating your brain from the body is just as impossible as separating the world around you from it. The brain, body, and physical world are inseparable.
Well no, for me, that just doesn't fit well. The term 'see' is something your eyes do as an input sensor. So I don't think 'seer', 'seeable' and 'unseeable' have much validity.
My self-awareness is made up of three components of a single presence. I think the three components are manifestations of my triune brain. I don't mind how these three manifestations are labelled really but I am aware of three 'contributors,' in my head, when I am involved in 'thinking' or 'decision making.'
I am sure a 'brain expert' could tell me a lot more about the science behind these three manifestations but it's always good to get philosophical views as well.
Well, we could start the process by removing arms and legs, there are humans who live lives without these. So how much more is separable from your brain without destroying "I." We can take genitalia, eyes, nose, ears, tongue. We know humans can live as a self-aware, sentient person without one or more of these. Heart, Lungs, Kidneys etc and many other parts can be replaced with transplants.
How much more deconstruction will science be able to achieve in the future?
If science can find replacements for everything I have mentioned above then we have a cyborg but one who is still "I". In the real-life examples of people who live without some of the parts mentioned above, would your opinion be that such people are less self-aware than someone who has all their preferred parts in place from birth?
Are you sure that a human brain in a box or a cybernetic body is impossible?
I think you are dead wrong.