About educated people and their understanding of values

[artisticsolution]

It could be interpreted as economic value

How can I be innovative? How can I invent something? How can I re-design some existing product or service so as to make it even more useful? How could my new design make the lives of others more comfortable? How can I start a new business? How can I be a "money magnet" in order to have the wherewithal to fund a good and noble cause, as a donor? How can I share the prosperity I come into as a result of figuring out how to make money?
How can I, in business, be a "conscious capitalist" (be ethical) by uplifting my staff, helping my customers gain more, improving my environment, supporting the culture in my community, and seeing to it that all stakeholders in my business are, somehow, winners?

This too is creating value.

so the Central Question of Life is about raising consciousness, about making a person more mindful.

I was thinking about this very thing today. It seems to me as if there need to be certain safeguards in place, when one is asking these types of questions, in order to be mindful that one is not fooling oneself into thinking a self serving agenda is actually one that will help others in his/her community.

I think it is helpful to imagine sharing a slice of cake with another. In order for the cake to be divided equitably so that each person is a "winner" so to speak, one person could cut the cake in half and the other person can decide which piece is his/hers. The ultimate goal here is a sense of fair play and equitable division...a win/win so to speak.

I think a person who does not take this scenario into account when thinking of other's welfare, is wanting a bigger piece of the cake...whether one knows it or not...and for what ever reason which most of us can justify why our piece of cake should be bigger...we believe we deserve it...plain and simple. Same goes for the person who did not make the cake but wants a share anyway. If that is the case...in order for the person wanting his cake for doing nothing an element of thankfulness serves as payment, if you will, in obtaining a piece of the cake. But it seems that thankfulness feels is too high a price and it is rare the person who can honestly be thankful.

Of course, this cake allegory is elementary. It is merely a starting point with which to begin showing a concrete sense of balance or fair play and how know if helping others actually 'win' is what one actually desires or if one is merely feigning helping others win in order to appear like a savoir among people. Is it about actually helping people to an relatively equal share of cake or is it about having our cake and eating it too?

[prof]

Well said, artisticsolution.

Now that is what I call a constructive response

You have given me new insight as to how to explain the concept "fairness" both to adults, and maybe even to little kids. Also, a pretty-good analysis of "selfishness."

A fine example of philosophy there ! I am grateful.


Also, while on the topic of business and ethics, see p. 50 here:http://tinyurl.com/27pzhbf

pp. 18-20 here:
http://tinyurl.com/38zfrh7

and see the summary (about a very-creative business model) here: http://dennisbakke.com/summary

[Bill Wiltrack]

.





......................................An Educated Person Lying & Trying NOT to Break Eye Contact







..................................................................












.

[prof]

Marco Rubio is schooled, trained, instructed - but not educated, in the sense I meant it.

My point in the original post is that no one is educated who does not know his/her priorities, who does not know what is really important, who does not put caring about people first.

The formula I > E > S expresses it well in a compact form. Intrinsic Values trump Extrinsic Values which in turn are far better (more valuable to us) than Systemic Values.

For example, when the formula is applied: People are (one conscious, aware human life is) more important than things (materialism) - more than all the things in the world put together; and a single material thing is vastly more important than all the ideologies, rules, systems, bureaucracies, (and papers one must carry; or intricate, multi-page regulations and forms to fill out ) in the world.

This is just one interpretation of the formula. ...the formula is true by definition and by observation.

Education that doesn't result in insight, wisdom, and perspective is not true education.

[The Voice of Time]

My point in the original post is that no one is educated who does not know his/her priorities, who does not know what is really important, who does not put caring about people first

Bullshit. "does now know his/her priorities"?

So when you fall in love you automatically know your priorities, is that so? Calculating everything like a logical machine?

Bullshit. "who does not know what is really important"

And you always do? Even in the hardest dilemmas or even when you are tired/exhausted? A time and place for everything I say.

Bullshit. "who does not put caring about people first"

So if somebody stood in your way to reach your dreams and they stood there because they just wanted to ruin everything for you. Let's say it was a petty revenge for something. Would you still remain calm and let them smash whatever (non-human-thing) you held valuable together because you "cared enough not to physically defend against/call police on/shut away/threaten to keep away/trap etc. them", or is this some tricky sentence where you always can trace your actions to some individual (even when the individual is yourself, that is, treat "people" as also including egocentric needs)?

[prof]

I won't let anyone get me down, who may be shitting on himself.

And, dear reader, I hope you won't either.

[The Voice of Time]

And yet again you do not answer, Professor.

[prof]

If someone sees shit everywhere he looks, that is a pathetic condition to have.

If someone is paranoid, as revealed by his writing, thoughts like "they just wanted to ruin everything for you. ..." wouldn't it be preferable for us, if we could, to counsel such individuals, or give them some therapy? Wouldn't that be the ethical thing to do?

There are people at the Forum here who have those concerns, who see threats on all sides, so I will talk now about defeating "bad guys" in order to reply to this critique of an ethical theory that they hold does not spend enough time on a real issue.

There are, of course, legitimate concerns about those who take advantage of the gullible, those who appear kind on the surface but are inwardly plotting to betray people, those who manipulate and use people for their own self-centered ends, the con-artists, and, in general, those who commit evil acts.

Phil McGraw has a new book out entitled LIFE CODE. He brings up this topic. Here is a quote from an interview he gave:

"They [the "bad guys"] can be sneaky about taking what belongs to you, whether it be your mate or your money."**

He is referring to back-stabers, abusers, impostors, takers, exploiters or the reckless. He lumps the group all together under the single concept "BAITER," as a handy way of referring to all such "bad guys." {He, and I too, hold that there are no evil people, just those who commit evil acts.}

{Such conduct is that which defiles or disvalues an individual - either by means of a person, a thing, or an idea; an evil act in some way transgresses the dignity of another, fails to give honor and respect, fails - in other words - to Intrinsically value the individual ...which is precisely what (the Unified Theory of) Ethics directs us to do.}

**"The key" Dr. McGraw says, "is that once you start to pay attention instead of naively trusting, they are pretty easy to spot. Once a BAITER knows you are on to them, they will quickly move on."

So a rule for 'winning the game of life' is: Don't be naive. Be skeptical. Trust but verify. Know the tricks and the cons. Be aware. Be mindful.

[And see the definition of the "realist" in the manuscript LIVING THE GOOD LIFE, a link to which is offered below. That definition is found in the section on Optimism and Pessimism.]

For further reading and insight into the topics of Ethics check out this link, and thereby add to your reading enjoyment:
LIVING THE GOOD LIFE http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... _Lifef.pdf

[The Voice of Time]

So a rule for 'winning the game of life' is: Don't be naive. Be skeptical. Trust but verify. Know the tricks and the cons. Be aware. Be mindful.

I think "know the tricks and the cons" isn't sufficient to win forward, because sometimes you'll have to be naive so that others may dare to play along to a better path than distrust.

[prof]

Hi, Voice

Yes, you are right.

Concentrating on becoming a good person, being ethical, and adding value tends to make people like you, and trust you. Trust follows. A society where people trust each other is to be desired.

"Trust - but verify" still applies. It is good to be alert for the occasional conman (or con-woman.) In our current setup where professionals are paid per visit, rather than per results, it is best to be on guard that one is not over-paying needlessly. Many a mechanic is tempted (by greed; or merely by bills owed) to push repairs on you that don't need to be made. This includes dentists, etc.

[chaz wyman]

It is not enough to just think about cleaning one’s teeth after a meal if one wants to protect one’s teeth and gums, one needs to be aware that he ought to brush his teeth. It is not enough to merely think about it; he actually needs to DO it. And to form a habit of doing it.

Those of us who are educated – truly educated – are aware of our enlightened self-interest. We know we need others to cooperate with us if we are going to reach our goals and eventually thus fulfill our purpose(s).

We know that it is in our self-interest to have happy, cooperative, peaceful, loving people around us, working for the common good. We know that we stand together or we fall together. We flourish when we have harmonious relationships, truly caring persons joyfully cooperating to build a better world for all.
.

Is that the Royal "we"?

[prof]

Educated people, who have studied the recent books of William B. Irvine, do not throw insults around. They have learned to live a life of Stoic joy.

It is time to review the second post, on p. 2, HERE:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9278&start=15

Let the discussion sink in, as one reflects upon it.

Is the reader acquainted with Modern Monetary Theory? It recommends that governments attend to the most urgent priorities, get the economy humming, and don't worry about a shortage of money to spend. The government can generate all the money it wants, and an active, well-rounded economy can pay up all the debt it wants to.

There is more than one way to create value. Getting the congress to do what it was hired to do may be a way. What is needed today in the USA is a jobs program. This will follow when we elect people who care.

The Institute for Global Ethics found, as a result of polling, interviews, and discussion groups in various countries all around the globe, that people in every culture shared these values in common, and upheld them when asked: What does it mean to be ethical?

Honesty, Responsibility, Respect, Fairness, and Compassion.

These are universal - in a sense.

And, further, they are derived by the Unified Theory of Ethics so in that sense the latter theory receives confirmation from live experience: those values are true both in theory and in practice.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The central question of life is simply this: What can I do or say this moment to create the greatest net value?

I see that The central question of life is, "what is the truth of this existence?" I see that this must first be answered before any other questions can even be considered, as it guides the necessity/validity of all the other questions, that could ever possibly be posed.

[artisticsolution]

The central question of life is simply this: What can I do or say this moment to create the greatest net value?

I see that The central question of life is, "what is the truth of this existence?" I see that this must first be answered before any other questions can even be considered, as it guides the necessity/validity of all the other questions, that could ever possibly be posed.

Hi Spheres,

I am not sure your priorities are in order. Surely, there are other questions that can and should be considered before we get to answering such a huge question like "what is the truth of our existence?" That question is so huge it might never be answered. Does that mean we shouldn't tackle the smaller questions of life? Questions like "how should we live?" Seem daunting enough to answer in this age of ethical dilemmas. Why complicate matters by making a question that probably can't be answered in a million years much less in our lifetimes? In other words...why waste our time on that particular question? Who cares what the truth of existence is when people are being abused and starving today in the here and now?

[SpheresOfBalance]

The central question of life is simply this: What can I do or say this moment to create the greatest net value?

I see that The central question of life is, "what is the truth of this existence?" I see that this must first be answered before any other questions can even be considered, as it guides the necessity/validity of all the other questions, that could ever possibly be posed.

Hi Spheres,

I am not sure your priorities are in order. Surely, there are other questions that can and should be considered before we get to answering such a huge question like "what is the truth of our existence?" That question is so huge it might never be answered. Does that mean we shouldn't tackle the smaller questions of life? Questions like "how should we live?" Seem daunting enough to answer in this age of ethical dilemmas. Why complicate matters by making a question that probably can't be answered in a million years much less in our lifetimes? In other words...why waste our time on that particular question? Who cares what the truth of existence is when people are being abused and starving today in the here and now?

Hello AS,

Long time no sharing!

Yes, how could you be sure, you are you, and I am I, and relatively speaking, our words have been few. I am not saying, that it is not, an important question, I'm saying that I don't see it as the pinnacle or central of questions, where as I see mine, as the pinnacle or central of questions. As far as other questions being considered first, I think it is the incorrect way to proceed. I see that along the path of asking the question I proposed, all other questions that could possibly ever be asked, are in fact answered in turn, but more importantly, they are answered more correctly, negating wasted dead ends of pursuit, as per any particular current level of mankind's understanding, of my central/pinnacle of questions. In other words, with my question at the helm, our ship stays the proper course, without needless deviation that leads nowhere, while many beautiful vistas are truthfully seen and understood; while their realities are discovered without the egocentric selfish devastation. My question is naturally all encompassing, negating the I or me of self, and instead addressing the we and us, thus the truth of the universal question.

PEACE, my friend!