Philosophy Now Forum

RC,
I didn't realize you were pure virtue, the laws then are for the rest of us.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:46 am RC,
I didn't realize you were pure virtue, the laws then are for the rest of us.

Everybody is different. If you think it is a virtue to not need someone else to tell him what is right and wrong is a virtue, why wouldn't you aspire to that? If you are beig snyde, that's OK too. Cute, but OK.

Apparently some people do need laws, or some other kind of authority to tell them what is right and wrong and how to live their lives, but obviously everyone doesn't. All those who set themselves up as the authorities that make the laws believe they know what is right and wrong for everyone. The only difference between your law-makers, leaders, and authorities and me is, I know what is right and wrong for me but not for anyone else, and I will not force my views down anyone else's throat.

I don't care if others look for a leader, or authority, or anything else to make their decisions for them, because they are so insecure in their own ability to make right choices. The consequences will always be disastrous, but it's their choice.

Premise: the most kind, are the most worthy to live in society. Yea, or nay?

If any words in the premise need defining, define them, and reason with them. The alternative is to use them to support knowledge first discovered before words, then proven by accumulated life experience of causation. Tidy up with a conclusion, if possible.

Clear that up and by golly we’re making progress. Is not such an approach, philosophy?

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:08 pm Premise: the most kind, are the most worthy to live in society. Yea, or nay?

If any words in the premise need defining, define them ...

It's your premise. You define them.

RC,

One is born into a cultural society and is thus conditioned well before the power of reason has settled in. You sound like you think you are expressing personal autonomy but personal autonomy is mutually exclusive to behaving according to morality. Do you contend that you live in a society following its morality and yet maintain your personal autonomy? I think your kidding yourself. Autonomy is impossible living in the shelter of a society. Even very few animals live autonomous lives living in small groups or packs which have their own morality.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 6:43 pm RC,

One is born into a cultural society and is thus conditioned well before the power of reason has settled in. You sound like you think you are expressing personal autonomy but personal autonomy is mutually exclusive to behaving according to morality. Do you contend that you live in a society following its morality and yet maintain your personal autonomy? I think your kidding yourself. Autonomy is impossible living in the shelter of a society. Even very few animals live autonomous lives living in small groups or packs which have their own morality.

First of all, you are wrong about animals. With the exception of lions, all cat species are solitary animals, and very protective of their territories. All the raptors and many other birds are also solitary species. Except for schooling fish, most fish are also solitary animals, and all prokaryotes are solitary and don't even get together to mate. Except to mate, the solitary animals not only live alone, but actually avoid each other.

Those animals that are not solitary are hardly, "social." Hive and colony animals are like caste systems where each individual organism is born with their life predetermined. Herd animals use each other as sacrificial individuals, not to protect each other. They survive by sacrificing the weakest and slowest to the predators to save the rest. All the animals that are at all "social," live by the law of, "might makes right," and the brutes of what are called, "animal societies," get to mate and enjoy the food, while the weakest are often simply left to die.

If you don't understand that nothing determines what an individual is but what they choose to be and do, please read, "The Moral Nature: The Requirement For Life Principles."

All an individual's inborn characteristics and abilities, their rearing, society and culture they are born in are the raw materials from which, when adults, they must choose from, to use or reject, to make the most of their own life they possibly can. Nothing, not one's genes, not one's inherited characteristics or abilities or lack thereof, not their economic status, environment, culture, or society determines what any individual is. It should be obvious to anyone, ten children all born into the same family, in the same society, with the same economic, educational, and social backgrounds all turn out to be totally different people, some successful, some total failures, some creative, some morons. If culture and society determine what a human being is, how is it possible for them to all be so different?

There are endless excuses available for those who want to claim they are not responsible for their own useless lives. "It's not their fault. Their social culture, or heredity, or deprived childhood, or genes, or irresistable desires and passions or any other feeling, made them do it." There is only one thing that determines what any human being consciously does, their own conscious choice, and what anyone does or makes of themselves is always the sum of all their own choices. It means, if one is not successful or happy, it's their own fault.

RC,
I understand your point but full autonomy is impossible living in any society. There is a finer point to your argument though. That point is in reality the physical world is utterly meaningless, here is where autonomy can be recognized. All meaning belongs to a conscious subject and thus, the individual is the creator, free to bestow whatever values upon the physical world one would want. We tend to accept the values that society has laid down prior to our own existence, but it is not an absolute necessity to accept the values that our ancestors put in place. The individual is creator thus one is quite free to rename all the animals---lol!!! and create as many gods as you like--lol!! You create the game.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 4:52 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:08 pm Premise: the most kind, are the most worthy to live in society. Yea, or nay?

If any words in the premise need defining, define them ...

It's your premise. You define them.

Don't need to. I know what they mean. The premise answers the second question of your thread title, btw.

Are you worthy of the society of your thread?

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 4:28 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 4:52 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:08 pm Premise: the most kind, are the most worthy to live in society. Yea, or nay?

If any words in the premise need defining, define them ...

It's your premise. You define them.

Don't need to. I know what they mean. The premise answers the second question of your thread title, btw.

Are you worthy of the society of your thread?

Who made you the grand inquisitor? You frame a question in words you refuse to define so you can change them to whatever you want to edight any answer. "Do you still love your wife?" "Yes." "Then you are guilty, because by. 'love,' I mean beat." No one is obliged to answer such a crooked question. Is that your idea of being worthy of the society of others?

I suspect what you mean by. "kindness," is some sentimental altruistic slop, like "compassion," "sympathy," "empathy," "commiseration;" "pity," or the absurd notion of, "unconditional love." It's what the worthless always put in place of actually being any real value to themselves or anyone else. They are probably not worth a damn to anyone, but they have the right, "feelings." They're, "kind."

I was once asked, "Don't you want nurses to be compassionate?" My answer is, "NO! I want any nurse who tends to me to be competent, knowledgable, and efficient. I don't care what her feelings or motives are. The nurse's "feelings" are absolutely worthless to me. The nurse may be positively dripping with compassion and kindness, but if that nurse screws up my IV, I'm dead."

I don't care how. "kind," anyone is. If they do not produce any product or service of value to themselves or anyone else, they are not worthy of anyone else's association. If they are alive they are parasites or predators, living on the productive efforts of others. They are not civilized human beings.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:10 am RC,
I understand your point but full autonomy is impossible living in any society.

I do not know what convinces you autonomy is limited by society. The truth is, everyone is autonomous fundametally, whether they like it or not. Everything one does consciously they consciously choose to do. One can choose to allow others, or circumstanes, or authorities, or their feelings to influence or even determine their choices (which most do) or they can choose to use their own mind and reason to make their own choices, but even those who choose to surrender their autonomy to someone or something else must choose to do so.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:10 am There is a finer point to your argument though. That point is in reality the physical world is utterly meaningless, here is where autonomy can be recognized. All meaning belongs to a conscious subject ....

Up to here, you are right. All meaning, value, and purpose begin and are derived from human consciousness. Nothing means anything except to human minds, there are no purposes except those chosen by human beings, and no values except those required to fulfill human chosen goals, ends, and objectives.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:10 am ... and thus, the individual is the creator, free to bestow whatever values upon the physical world one would want.

That is absolutely wrong. A value, such as good, bad, right, or wrong, is a relationship between some thing or action and some chosen objective, (purpose, end, or goal). A value is, "good," or, "right," if it achieves or advances the objective, or, "bad," or, "wrong," if it prevents or hinders the objective.

One is free to choose any objective they like for any reason. One cannot choose what will or will not be successful in achieving that objective. Reality determines what is or is not possible to achieve anything. One is free to choose anything as an objective, reality will determine if the objective is possible, and if possible, what is required to achieve it.

If one's objective is to live successfully as a human being they must discover what reality requires to achieve that objective. The two aspects of reality that determine what will achieve human success are human nature and its requirements, and the nature of the physical world in which humans live. One cannot defy the requirements of reality and succeed--they cannot defy the requirements of their own nature or defy the principles (mistakenly called laws) of physical reality and succeed.

The physical aspects of the human organism require food, water, shelter, exercise, and care of the body. The psychological aspects of human nature require knowledge, without which no other human requirement can be fulfilled, including the physical requirements, reason which uses knowledge to make right choices, and conscious choice, without which nothing can be achieved or done.

Objectives can be chosen. What will achieve those objectives cannot be chosen. They are determined by reality and must be discovered.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:10 am We tend to accept the values that society has laid down prior to our own existence, but it is not an absolute necessity to accept the values that our ancestors put in place. The individual is creator thus one is quite free to rename all the animals---lol!!! and create as many gods as you like--lol!! You create the game.

One of your mistakes is the tacit collective assumption that individual minds are somehow determined socially or culturally. It is apparent every time you use, "WE."

What you believe and think is determine by one thing, how you choose to use your mind. You can coast and let what everyone else thinks and believes, or what your teachers, leaders, and authorities tell you to believe determine what you believe, or you can choose to think for yourself and insist you won't believe anything you cannot understand, based on the best evidence available to you and reasoning from that evidence, never accepting anything as true, no matter what authority or expert claims, if you cannot understand how and why it is true. It is better to remain ignorant than to fill a gap in your knowledge with what is not true.

[This will probably be the last time I respond to you unless you learn how to use the quote function at the top of posts. I only found this post of yours by accident. I do not have time to search all posts for yours. If you use the quote function, I'll be notified of your posts. Otherwise, they'll be ignored.]

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:10 am RC,
I understand your point but full autonomy is impossible living in any society.

I do not know what convinces you autonomy is limited by society. The truth is, everyone is autonomous fundametally, whether they like it or not. Everything one does consciously they consciously choose to do. One can choose to allow others, or circumstanes, or authorities, or their feelings to influence or even determine their choices (which most do) or they can choose to use their own mind and reason to make their own choices, but even those who choose to surrender their autonomy to someone or something else must choose to do so.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:10 am There is a finer point to your argument though. That point is in reality the physical world is utterly meaningless, here is where autonomy can be recognized. All meaning belongs to a conscious subject ....

Up to here, you are right. All meaning, value, and purpose begin and are derived from human consciousness. Nothing means anything except to human minds, there are no purposes except those chosen by human beings, and no values except those required to fulfill human chosen goals, ends, and objectives.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:10 am ... and thus, the individual is the creator, free to bestow whatever values upon the physical world one would want.

That is absolutely wrong. A value, such as good, bad, right, or wrong, is a relationship between some thing or action and some chosen objective, (purpose, end, or goal). A value is, "good," or, "right," if it achieves or advances the objective, or, "bad," or, "wrong," if it prevents or hinders the objective.

One is free to choose any objective they like for any reason. One cannot choose what will or will not be successful in achieving that objective. Reality determines what is or is not possible to achieve anything. One is free to choose anything as an objective, reality will determine if the objective is possible, and if possible, what is required to achieve it.

If one's objective is to live successfully as a human being they must discover what reality requires to achieve that objective. The two aspects of reality that determine what will achieve human success are human nature and its requirements, and the nature of the physical world in which humans live. One cannot defy the requirements of reality and succeed--they cannot defy the requirements of their own nature or defy the principles (mistakenly called laws) of physical reality and succeed.

The physical aspects of the human organism require food, water, shelter, exercise, and care of the body. The psychological aspects of human nature require knowledge, without which no other human requirement can be fulfilled, including the physical requirements, reason which uses knowledge to make right choices, and conscious choice, without which nothing can be achieved or done.

Objectives can be chosen. What will achieve those objectives cannot be chosen. They are determined by reality and must be discovered. Values, relative to any objective, are determined by reality, not human wishes.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:10 am We tend to accept the values that society has laid down prior to our own existence, but it is not an absolute necessity to accept the values that our ancestors put in place. The individual is creator thus one is quite free to rename all the animals---lol!!! and create as many gods as you like--lol!! You create the game.

One of your mistakes is the tacit collective assumption that individual minds are somehow determined socially or culturally. It is apparent every time you use, "WE."

What you believe and think is determine by one thing, how you choose to use your mind. You can coast and let what everyone else thinks and believes, or what your teachers, leaders, and authorities tell you to believe determine what you believe, or you can choose to think for yourself and insist you won't believe anything you cannot understand, based on the best evidence available to you and reasoning from that evidence, never accepting anything as true, no matter what any authority or expert claims, if you cannot understand how and why it is true. It is better to remain ignorant than to fill a gap in your knowledge with what is not true.

[This will probably be the last time I respond to you unless you learn how to use the quote function at the top right of posts. I only found this post of yours by accident. I do not have time to search all posts for yours. If you use the quote function, I'll be notified of your posts. Otherwise, they'll be ignored.]

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 1:29 pm I was once asked, "Don't you want nurses to be compassionate?" My answer is, "NO! I want any nurse who tends to me to be competent, knowledgable, and efficient. I don't care what her feelings or motives are. The nurse's "feelings" are absolutely worthless to me. The nurse may be positively dripping with compassion and kindness, but if that nurse screws up my IV, I'm dead."

I don't care how. "kind," anyone is. If they do not produce any product or service of value to themselves or anyone else, they are not worthy of anyone else's association. If they are alive they are parasites or predators, living on the productive efforts of others. They are not civilized human beings.

That's a neat trick. Define kindness as something stupid, then denounce it based on the ignorant definition. As philosophers we must rise above both growing and plucking such low-hanging fruit if truth is to pierce the egg and emerge all new, fresh and wobbly.

Kindness is, as kindness does. Furthermore, life is a box of chocolates.

For those who DO in life, for those who are paid to know things instead of paid to not know things, then competence and efficiency are the definition of kindness. By such a definition, screwing up your IV is the definition of ... unkindness.

Perspective perspective perspective. You've gots to remember where you're at, Man. You can't go fornicatin' on the front lawn in civil society.

This is why Trungpa Rinpoche advised that his guru, is situations.

Those who do in life, are operational folks. Those who keep the wheels turning.

Why is kindness is, as kindness does?

Answer: For operations-oriented work, kindness is competence. Operating theaters that save lives are probably the kindest places they is, they is, because the more involved the operation, the more brutally honest the situation. That's because incompetence is not tolerated amongst the players.

Bringing the kindness of competence to bear on the relevance of existence here and now ... whilst kindness in philosophy should not be ego stroking the other, neither should it be spirit stomping the other, i.e., break the spirit only in case of emergency, if even then. When lives are at stake, spirit stomping is a way to weed out the incompetent players and literally save more patients.

Folks often mistake competent, factual, rational persuasion for the other branching off the taproot of Verking. Sales. Sales and Operations. The big two.

The best sales is the best operations, as any natural perfectionist in operations and design, inherently knows. The rational and competent sells itself. However, these days with the shortage of nurses, the high ideal of a hospital nursing staff packed with post-graduate degrees has been replaced with ... hire me a body with a nursing license, stat!

It's fun to live in society, because of the right-wing master's anti-body glamour gift to the collective psyche, of daylight being an operator of pop culture mythology, in which the operation by daylight (and days) of the machinery of pop culture mythology is a computer hardware top down that's sexual