AN ANALYSIS OF THE CONCEPT "SELF"

[prof]

you ask: What is the inner maxim of my life?


I strive to attain goodness and value.

Do you know the distinction?

Something is good if it has all the properties it needs to fulfill its purpose (or its definition or its intention.)

Something has value if it contributes to the ultimate purpose which is a quality life for all.

...Think about it.

Hence, I want to be a person of good character.

I'll keep working at it; and some day I might get close to achieving it. .

If you out there are morally-better than me, then that's great

More power to you!

I still recommend that we work on living up to our highest ideals. This is the job of [what, in Ethical Theory, is known as] our Directive Conscience.

[For details, see the remarks in the first few pages of Katz - A Unified Theory of Ethics, a booklet which you can google.]

[duszek]

How could I be morally better than you ????

How to measure and how to compare ?

I am not competitive even.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

You want to be a person of good character.

What for ?

In order to be happy ?
In order to be a respected member of the community you live in ?
In order to avoid feeling depressed ?

How can you tell if you are moving in the right direction, that is towards becoming a person of good character ?

My questions are not rhetoric ones.

[prof]

How could I be morally better than you ????

1)How to measure and how to compare ?

2)I am not competitive even.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

3)You want to be a person of good character.

What for ?

In order to be happy ? ...

4)How can you tell if you are moving in the right direction, that is towards becoming a person of good character ?.

Greetings, duszek

You ask some good questions. For purposes of clarity I took the liberty of numbering my answers to correspond with each of your inquiries. Here are my responses:

1) There is an objective/projective test - the Hartman Value Profile - which measures statistically (employing decimal fractions) a person's values; and it produces many results which are highly-relevant to morality, as the system defines that term. See my thread: What is Morality? See also this link to learn details about the HVP test: http://www.hartmaninstitute.org/resourc ... n-studies/

I want to be good and I want to be valuable. Do you know the distinction?
To be good is to have all the properties which something (or someone) needs to fulfill its purpose (or its definition, or its intention.)

To be valuable is to contribute to fulfilling the ultimate Ethical purpose of a quality life for all.

Have you ever heard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - agreed to as an ideal constitution by the member nations of the U.N. Here is a link to it:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

One individual is morally-better than another if s/he fights for more of those Rights than the other one does. And, if s/he gets something done: The fight is to be effective.

2) That is a poor self-image expressed there. We aren't having a contest ! Each decides for himself if he desires to be ethical. There is no competition, and no coercion. It is a free choice. Do you want to add value to your life? Do you want a quality life - not only for yourself alone but for one and all? If so, you will be moral to the best degree possible for you. You will comply with the Four Rules of Life.

They are Know Yourself. Choose (to be) yourself, and accept who and what you are. Create yourself. Give yourself.

Each is important and valuable because each leads to the next step. Giving yourself (to the world) is a step to Self-Enlightenment, to enlightened self-interest. This is to be accompanied by Humility. [That, in turn, drives out the quest for power (over others.)] So, work on it

3) I want a good character in order to be Ethical - as explained in the new paradigm for ethics, both theoretical and applied, which you find by googling Katz - A Unified Theory of Ethics, and those other writings by Marvin C. Katz, Ph.D. In my other threads, I presented links to the three sequels to this effort: Adventures in Ethics. Ethical Explorations. and Ethical Insights. Here are some links to my scribbles:
A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS - http://tinyurl.com/27pzhbf

ETHICAL ADVENTURES - http://tinyurl.com/38zfrh7

and the paper, ETHICAL EXPLORATIONS - http://tinyurl.com/22ohd2x

For further reading and insight into the topics of Ethics check out the following booklet and thereby add to your reading enjoyment.

LIVING THE GOOD LIFE http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... _Lifef.pdf


And yes, I want to be happy. Don't you?

4) You ask: "How can you tell if you are moving in the right direction, that is towards becoming a person of good character?"

If your life is working smoother, if you have contentment, if you have taken on some responsibility, if things are clicking and good things seem to be coming your way, in other words: if you feel you are acquiring practical wisdom, and that you are thriving: if children and dogs love you. If you light up a room by entering it, if the people you encounter feel like a plant that has been watered because you brightened their day, if you are active in the struggle for human rights, for a quality life for all.

Then you are going in the right direction.

[reasonvemotion]

duszek wrote:

What are the values in "Anna Karenina" ?

That you should follow your passions ?
Even if the object of your passion is selfish ?

Anna K made foolish decisions, due to her lack of experience with men and protected environment. Her biggest mistake was to leave her son. No man is worthy of the desertion of one's child. This decision was pivotal in her death. Her position became an emotional and physical prison and this in turn caused depression. Anna's initial passion gave her the strength to choose the man over the boy, but as this subsided she realised she could not cope with it. Vronsky was weak and gave her no real emotional succour, his mother was the strong influence in his life and Anna did not use her strengths to her fullest advantage. She would be condemned not admired for what she did for "love". I would say she acted like a sacrificial lamb. Love is a passing fancy between men and women, not a thing to die for, we all recover from it, eventually.

[duszek]

Anna wanted to be happy but she failed.

She did not mean to hurt anyone.

Her husband Karenin was a cold man. She shouldn´t have married him in the first place. But in those days a woman could hardly afford not to marry.

Vronsky was a sweet illusion. The price she had to pay for cherishing this illusion was high indeed.

What were the maxime underlying her choices ?

1. You live only one time. Dare to follow your heart and try to be happy, even if for a short time.

or:

2. Sacrifice your child and your reputation if it is in the way to experience a nice adventure in your life.


I don´t judge and don´t condemn Anna.
The novel is about social conventions which do not allow an individual to pursue their happiness according to their ideals.

If you are stuck in an unhappy marriage you are doomed.

How many women today would endure a mean husband until they die ?

[prof]

Let's not get too far afield from the topic of the thread, okay?


Does anyone have any comments on the analysis of the Self concept that was set forth in the o.p.?

Does it fit in with the model offered in the unified theory of Ethics?

[reasonvemotion]

Anna struck out on a path where she had to be competitive, she had to find strength and purpose to get what she wanted for herself and she had to do things she probably despised herself for in order to win this man.

Hence we may define it as: “Taking what I want without consideration for others.”

She failed.

It is a dark and violent story.

Her motives, were undeniably selfish, there was nothing noble about her. It was passion, one could say a form of madness, probably heightened by the fact that her own marriage was lifeless, but passion never lasts.

Think of it this way. If Vronsky had been married, would he have left his wife for Anna. No. He would have indulged himself in an affair and even in this situation I still see Anna killing herself. Suicide was a selfish act, the last effort to gain control.

It all came unravelled.

‘Vengeance is mine, and I shall repay.’

You have to fight for the things you want, not die for them.

[duszek]

I do not wish to hijack prof´s thread, so this is going to be my last post about Anna K.:

She killed herself out of vengeance ?

This is a completely new interpretation for me.

If you haven´t read the novel, I do not suggest that you should, or not necessarily in this life.

But from what I remember and what a Russian professor of literature talked about during a lecture Anna lost her face (her reputation, her standing), she became an outcast and had nowhere to go and nowhere to stay. And no money to leave Russia for, say, Paris.

If she had lived in the USA today she might have gone to another state, changed her name, found a job and started from scratch.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Does your value system apply to Anna´s particular situation, prof ?

[prof]

Yes the value system applies.

It is hard to say though what her "particular situation" is -- since she is a fictional character.

I appreciate that you don't want to hijack the thread.

[reasonvemotion]

"Tolstoy believes that while these people determined their own fate, vengeance shall come from a higher being. He does not seek to punish these people and finish their fates, a greater, more profound fate lies beyond what happens to the characters in the course of the novel. This is best evidenced when Anna attempts to enact revenge on Vronsky with suicide". She says, “You…you will repent of this!” after their last fight, and then in an effort to seek revenge decides to kill herself (746).


Yes, I have read the book.

You and the Prof can thrash out "an analysis of the concept self" (if that is permitted of course, far too many constraints, from what I can see).

It is hard to say though what her "particular situation" is -- since she is a fictional character.

I have no further interest in this thread.

[prof]

This is, after all, a forum on Ethical Theory. [Even interpreting great literature, as a way of doing philosophy, requires some set of theoretical criteria in order to make a sensible interpretations, some 'tools' to work with.]

The analysis of "self" in the o.p., along with the analysis of "honesty" in a recent thread I offered, and the analyses of "justice", and of "morality", found in the Unified Theory of Ethics,
http://tinyurl.com/crz6xea -

{and in its brief sequels and updates HERE: http://tinyurl.com/38zfrh7 - and here:
Ethical Explorations: - http://tinyurl.com/22ohd2x
Aspects of Ethics: - http://tinyurl.com/36u6gpo }

are all done with a view to clarifying the terms of Ethics, making Ethics into a coherent discipline, where the parts of it hang together and are well-connected - by a theory which contributes relevant knowledge to the world. Ethics deals with what is good in, and for, human individuals.

What is good in, and for, humans may not be good in, and for, something else, say, rats; hence goodness for humans is a specific kind of goodness It must be distinguished from goodness in general - from axiological goodness.
A good murderer - one who murders efficiently - is a bad person (speaking morally.)

See especially the discussion by Dan on pages 22-23 of the Aspects of Ethics paper wherein he calls attention to the notion of a 'holon' that comes from Systems Theory, and how it applies to the concept of Self.

As we go through life we differentiate ourself, we see how we are different from everyone else, we define who we are, in our unique individuality, we expand our horizons, in other words, we develop the picture of ourself: we engage in self-development.

There are extrinsic aspects of this, but if done right, it results in Intrinsic Values ...our self-interest becomes enlightened. We reach the magnificent state of Self-Enlightenment. And we gain humility. We discard arrogance. We learn to add value at every opportunity, and we choose to do it. We make a habit of creating some greater value; we boost each other up; we find merit; we see goodness. We contribute to it. We change the world in a positive, a constructive, direction.

Comments? Enhancements? Questions?

[duszek]

As we go through life we differentiate ourself, we see how we are different from everyone else, we define who we are, in our unique individuality, we expand our horizons, in other words, we develop the picture of ourself: we engage in self-development.

Comments? Enhancements? Questions?

What role do academic credentials play in this process ?

Does a degree from a certain university or college form your character or your mode of existence or your consciousness ?

Felix Krull was a successful impostor, and many other people are too.

What´s the real thing then ?


"These public school boys are sharks." said George Mole to his son Adrian.

Do you need a degree from Oxford or Cambridge to work for the secret service ?
Novels by John LeCarré seem to suggest so.

[duszek]

Sometimes the circumstances force you to play a role that you loathe.

If your real self shrinks from within the outer shell can protect you.

[prof]

Sometimes the circumstances force you to play a role that you loathe.

If your real self shrinks from within the outer shell can protect you.

duszek: Could you be more specific? What circumstances? How are they forcing you? What is the role you loathe?

Is there an alternative to letting your "inner self shrink from within"?

I would argue, Yes, there is. You can grow the Self; you can develop yourself. You can consciously and mindfully CHOOSE to add value to each situation instead of subtracting it. ...We all can

Many have not done it because they have not even considered it. They are not yet ready to learn; they believe they are educated, learned. They don't realize that living is about learning, that those who keep learning are those who adapt, but those who think they know it all already are those who (slowly and painfully sometimes) perish ... in the sense that they do not flourish.

{For example, how many here took the suggestion to look up the webinar lessons A Mind for Success, to check it out? See http://www.amindforsuccess.com
A "webinar" is a seminar conducted over the internet. This particular one contains some good stuff, keen perspectives, highly-relevant to ethics.}

To all readers: I'd like to know your opinions, your views, on these topics.

[prof]

As reasonvemotion once reminded us: "Let us not forget War is Business in the U S of A."

Along this line, I would call your attention to this new book by David Swanson - WAR NO MORE: The case for abolition. It is available in many ways, virtually free of charge, at this site:
http://davidswanson.org/warnomore

It can be downloaded over the internet. Don't miss it !

This author is a genius of the first water. He writes and speaks masterfully; and has brilliant values.

He has delivered a fine contribution to both theoretical and applied ethics.

Robert Fantina, of southern Ontario, Canada, wrote this review of the book for Amazon, which I quote:
"'War No More' is a remarkable book, clearly defining why ending war is, indeed, possible. Mr. Swanson, with his usual clarity, candor, and straight-forward thinking, describes both why it must be done, and how that task can be accomplished. Reaching back into history, he demonstrates how other horrific practices, such as slavery, which were thought `necessary' for one reason or another, were eventually abandoned, and makes logical, reasonable comparisons about how the same or similar methods could work in ending war today.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who sees the futility, cruelty and horror of war, but may still believe that some war is inevitable. The facts and theories presented in 'War No More' make clear the idea that war can be ended. "


Comments? Your impressions of the case Swanson makes?