Philosophy Now Forum

tillingborn wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:This is where it gets tricky. How to judge who is being nice and who is not.

I agree. On a one to one basis it's not always clear; I cringe at some of the times when people have formed a judgement of me that isn't very flattering, but entirely justified given the evidence they have. A recent example was when I received a call as I was driving; I passed my phone to my daughter to answer, as she did some nutcase cut me up and I started effing and blinding. That was my introduction to a potential business client. My poor daughter tried to speak, but the caller was clearly horrified and after a while hung up. I lost a bit of business, but far worse, I put my daughter through an excruciating ordeal; she has forgiven me; I haven't.
On such a scale mistakes will be made (you'll have to take my word that there is more to me than a foul-mouthed oaf) and I think prof's advice is sound; it must be true that if you are civil, people are more disposed to respond in kind. Really though, I was referring to his bravery in standing up to oppression, which given his story, I take to be involvement in the American civil rights movement, the purpose of which was to end the unambiguous abuse of a large section of the population. That he and people like him prevailed has made America and the world a better place, but there is still a lot to be aggressive, though not necessarily violent, about.

I am laughing at your story about your foul mouth...sry...it just reminded me of the time my friend let me listen to a message from one of her colleagues. The woman had called her while driving and forgot to shut off the phone...and then could not find the place she was looking for and was cussing up a storm. My friend thought it was hysterical...but she still did business with the women...cause we both have been there done that. It's freaking scary to almost get into an accident! Adrenaline takes over and you forget yourself for a moment! LOL

Anyway, I have absolutely no problem with mistakes or misunderstandings or occasional turret's syndrome ...lol.... those are things most people do. What I am talking about wanting to fight to keep others from doing the same.

reasonvemotion wrote:

This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us.

I like it that way. Why should I involve myself with others, strangers. That is nonsense.

This reminds me of a few of months ago I took my mom to UCLA. While we were there we decided to stay on the beach. I know this nice little place where the surf comes right up under your balcony. Beautiful spot to unwind from all the shit that was going on in her life.

So we go to bed .....and in the morning...I take mom out on the patio...wrap her up in a blanket...get her coffee, basically try to treat her like a queen if at all possible.

Well, after I get her all settled out there on the balcony...I go in to make myself a cup of coffee. When I finally got my cuppa joe prepared...I head out to the balcony and close the sliding glass door...only to suddenly learn the hard way that the lock is broken...and the little thingy falls down and locks us out on the patio!

So try as I might....the door won't budge. Now I start getting concerned because my mom needs to take her heart medicine at 9 and if she doesn't...she can go into afib. So I look below....we are about 3 stories up...and there are rocks and surf below and because it is high tide...no one is on the beach at all! My only option...was to yell to the room next to me to see if anyone was there to call the front desk.

So I yell, "Hello...Hello...is anybody there?"

The lady comes to the window, looks out, and gives me a dirty look, waves me away then closes the curtain!

So then I think, "I am fucked"....lol... so I decide to get up on the railing and step over to the other balcony...which is set back about a foot. I think perhaps I can yell to the next room...or at least convince this woman to call the front desk.

So up I go on the railing and holding on for dear life I climb to the next balcony. I start pounding on the glass..."Could you help us...my mom is a heart patient and needs her meds and we are locked out of our room!"

Nothing...nada...zip. The lady refused to come back to the window. So I start yelling to the next window...."can you help us...hello!" (I don't get embarrassed very easily) LOL

Finally, that woman came to the window and even came out to see if she could help! I asked her if I could climb over to her balcony and go through her room so I could go to the front desk for help.

She said yes, and I was able to bring back the maintenance guy to climb over both balconies, break the lock and let us into the room.

To this day when my sis sees me...she starts humming the theme song to "mission impossible". lol I tease her back and say..."luckily I had my trusty zip line and a stick of bubble gum with me! I come prepared to save the day!" And then do my captain America stance that I am sure you can imagine my cape flying out from behind me!

Anyway... I take it your more like the first lady in my story rather than the second?

tillingborn wrote:

prof wrote:Here is what this thread proposes:

The secret as to how to improve your life is simple. Make someone else's life easier by improving the quality of their life.

That's very commendable. As I understand, it is essentially the doctrine of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. ...

...Most people agree that the world would be better if we all got along.

I applaud you, but I am puzzled by your need to have aggression defined...

Greetings, tillingborn

The formulation of the Rule which I like best is this: Do not do to someone else what you would not want done to you.
This conclusion follows from the definition of Ethics in the theory I proposed, namely, that we are to Intrinsically-value individuals. They are each of uncountable value.

I, in my posts and threads, have been seeking true propositions to which "most people agree", and you have been kind enough to offer us one. ...as quoted above.

As to your last sentence, duszek wrote this in his post: "I agree with you, prof.
I have made up my mind to make only kind and helpful comments on discussion forums like this one.

Aggression, however, is not all bad. ..."
He went on to say how it is at times useful. He did not, however, define the term. I requested that he do so in order that I could better understand what he meant. I do not have "a need" to have it defined.

Eventually, though, I would like to see all major concepts in a theory of Ethics receive exact, rigorous definitions (compatible with the frame-of-reference, the structure, of that theory.) This is analogous with how Physics defines "force", "centrifugal", "momentum", etc., etc.

Thank you for your approval and applause. Of course, I didn't 'fight' for civil rights for all to get applause; I did it for the cause, because it is the right thing to do. Thanks, anyway. I appreciate it. It is nice to meet here a poster - like you, duszek, artisticsolution - who does not feel it necessary to tear apart every word I say. For that is not my idea of the best way to do philosophy.


And in re accusations of my being "insinuating" I have written again and again:
IF THE SUIT DOESN'T FIT, DON'T WEAR IT !

This - the above paragraph - does not apply to you, tillingborn. Hence I have confidence you won't take it personally.

Prof wrote:

I'm sorry you found what the system of Ethics implies to not be comforting; it could be better if you were comfortable.

People are happiest if they develop their ability to make their own choices and learn from their own mistakes, provided they harm no one but themselves. If one has reasoning capacities, as an adult, being forced by some authority to do what he does not want to do would probably cause more harm than good.

"Ugliness" and "evil" do not fit into an idealist's world view, as according to them the world should not be this way. It is indeed possible to imagine a better world, but the world is the way it is, and there is no use denying it or dreaming it away. Get down in the world and get dirty. Understand the things you would rather turn away from. Find out about the real world.

This - the above paragraph - does not apply to you, tillingborn. Hence I have confidence you won't take it personally.

I won't take it personally either. You think you have that much influence.

To this day when my sis sees me...she starts humming the theme song to "mission impossible". lol I tease her back and say..."luckily I had my trusty zip line and a stick of bubble gum with me! I come prepared to save the day!" And then do my captain America stance that I am sure you can imagine my cape flying out from behind me!

Anyway... I take it your more like the first lady in my story rather than the second?

I don't care for your smarmy stories of self-aggrandizement.

reasonvemotion wrote: People are happiest if they develop their ability to make their own choices and learn from their own mistakes, provided they harm no one but themselves.

I agree.

Still, it would be preferable though if they didn't even harm themselves, since as John Donne observed long ago "no man is an island". If you harm yourself, I lose a little too. At minimum it may be a result in reduced use of your potential to create value. Those who add value enhance my own enjoyment of life experience.

[A rough analogy may be the added dimension of enjoyment some get by following a symphony with the score.]

reasonvemotion wrote: If one has reasoning capacities, as an adult, being forced by some authority to do what he does not want to do would probably cause more harm than good. (emphasis added.)

OMG ! Where, may I ask, in the original post of this thread, or in my later posts, is there anything about "forcing by some authority"???

reasonvemotion wrote:... It is indeed possible to imagine a better world, but the world is the way it is...

This is the ethic of resignation that for centuries has held back India from becoming a modern economy. "It is what it is." How helpful toward making progress is that? Let's develop for today's world a problem-solving orientation.

Bernard Shaw said: " I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?"

You will find it worthwhile to read over J. F. Kennedy's State of the Union address HERE: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... on-address
He expresses a "can do" attitude.

Did President Kennedy later paraphrase Shaw, saying something to the effect of:

Some look at the world and ask why?

I conceive of a better future and ask, Why not?


Anyway, that is my attitude.

The Voice of Time wrote:

prof wrote:... I did get to hang around with Isaac Asimov, Bucky Fuller, Abe Maslow, and Bob Hartman. ...:

I don't even know who any of these people are. You might as well had said Jack, Jill, Jones and Jamey ^^

[/quote]

Has it not occurred to you, Voice, to look these people up in Wikipedia? They all have biographies there. Abraham Maslow was for many years Chairman of the Department of Psychology at Brandeis University. He is best known for his Theory of Human Needs.

{I might expand on my life-world described earlier, though. I also was personally acquainted with James Farmer, John Dewey, Alan Watts, and Scott Nearing. I met Irene Curie's son, and Neils Bohr's son, both of whom followed in their parents' footsteps. I feel very privileged to have these fond memories. Now I am lucky to associate with the wise people who post here.}

I will note here that 'Izzy' Asimov, R. Buckminster Fuller, and Robert S. Hartman were poly-math geniuses. They all were prolific writers. Isaac Asimov broke all records for publishing. With Hartman it was mainly articles in philosophic journals,- as you can discern in his bio, in the Who's Who entry you find at the Institute dedicated in his honor after his death. http://www.hartmaninstitute.org/

He was my mentor/teacher although I never took any official credited courses with him.

However, it's not about me. It's about constructing a science of Ethics, an open-source project.

Is there some way members of this Forum can help out on that? If so, please volunteer.

reasonvemotion wrote:

I don't care for your smarmy stories of self-aggrandizement.

I didn't think you would like it as this story was meant to spotlight your jaded self centered quote:


"Why should I involve myself with others, strangers. That is nonsense."



Don't blame me for your lack of insight and bad samaritan ways! LOL

Like prof says, "IF THE SUIT DOESN'T FIT, DON'T WEAR IT !"

prof wrote:OMG ! Where, may I ask, in the original post of this thread, or in my later posts, is there anything about "forcing by some authority"???

There isn't. I wouldn't presume to speak for reasonvemotion, but she might have this in mind:

prof wrote:Eventually, though, I would like to see all major concepts in a theory of Ethics receive exact, rigorous definitions (compatible with the frame-of-reference, the structure, of that theory.) This is analogous with how Physics defines "force", "centrifugal", "momentum", etc., etc

(The thing is, physicists use these concepts because they work. I'm starting to bore myself, so by all means skip this bit, but as I keep banging on in other threads, physicists have no idea what, for instance, gravity or energy are. They can tell you with astonishing accuracy what the planets will be doing many years hence using Einstein's field equations, but they cannot tell you what actually causes gravity and many of them don't particularly care. The idea of a science of ethics that is similarly indifferent to cause is a bit disturbing.)
The concern is that the discovery of 'one size fits all' ethical laws is ripe for abuse, if it is much more prescriptive than the one you already have. Since Socrates claimed that the only reason people don't behave better, is ignorance of the rules, philosophers have tried to discover what the rules are. A succession of them have come to the same conclusion as you: do/don't unto others as you would/wouldn't have them do unto you. As an ethical principle it is flawless, but it is politics and the law that tries to keep a lid on things; if you care, you can, as prof has demonstrated (no pun intended), do something about it.

prof wrote:It is nice to meet here a poster - like you, duszek, artisticsolution - who does not feel it necessary to tear apart every word I say. For that is not my idea of the best way to do philosophy.

To be honest, I think it is mine. I think what Popper said of science is true of epistemology generally. Ideas need to be challenged. For instance, in Europe we look at the arguments that the US has about the right to bear arms with bafflement; as far as we can tell, one side is arguing that it is part of the constitution and therefore cannot be changed; the irony being that it is an amendment, which to us simple minded old worlders says you can't change change. It is unfortunate that some people see an idea they disagree with as a personal assault, but you are quite right, I don’t and I hope the same is true of you.

Popper is rarely mentioned. Yet he was brilliant in his way.
"I think what Popper said of science is true of epistemology generally. Ideas need to be challenged"

Epistemology (Listeni/ɨˌpɪstɨˈmɒlədʒi/ from Greek ἐπιστήμη - epistēmē, meaning "knowledge, understanding", and λόγος - logos, meaning "study of") is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge[1][2] and is also referred to as "theory of knowledge". It questions what knowledge is and how it can be acquired, and the extent to which any given subject or entity can be known.

tshirts with λόγος in big text
dispensed as uniform like uni footmsll team

A scientific theory cannot be more probable, in relation to the empirical evidence for it, than it is a priori, or in the absence of all empirical evidence.
Popper

my method.. applies this a tier2 fundamental

tillingborn wrote:

prof wrote:OMG ! Where, may I ask, in the original post of this thread, or in my later posts, is there anything about "forcing by some authority"???

There isn't. I wouldn't presume to speak for reasonvemotion, but she might have this in mind:

prof wrote:Eventually, though, I would like to see all major concepts in a theory of Ethics receive exact, rigorous definitions (compatible with the frame-of-reference, the structure, of that theory.) This is analogous with how Physics defines "force", "centrifugal", "momentum", etc., etc

(The thing is, physicists use these concepts because they work. I'm starting to bore myself, so by all means skip this bit, but as I keep banging on in other threads, physicists have no idea what, for instance, gravity or energy are. They can tell you with astonishing accuracy what the planets will be doing many years hence using Einstein's field equations, but they cannot tell you what actually causes gravity and many of them don't particularly care. The idea of a science of ethics that is similarly indifferent to cause is a bit disturbing.)
The concern is that the discovery of 'one size fits all' ethical laws is ripe for abuse, if it is much more prescriptive than the one you already have. Since Socrates claimed that the only reason people don't behave better, is ignorance of the rules, philosophers have tried to discover what the rules are. A succession of them have come to the same conclusion as you: do/don't unto others as you would/wouldn't have them do unto you. As an ethical principle it is flawless, but it is politics and the law that tries to keep a lid on things; if you care, you can, as prof has demonstrated (no pun intended), do something about it.

The thing is, reasonvemotion seems to be saying, if the golden rule (or similar tactics) don't work, then we must advocate the opposite.

It does not seem reasonable to me that we should throw the bath water out with the baby. I just seems to me, that we can all come up with circumstances where being kind instead of mean, or being unselfish instead of selfish, would benefit us more that not, if only to psychologically taking a break from self. It would be similar to exercising the body and then resting. A healthy body needs to do more than one activity. So too, I think, does the brain/mind. It is good to exercise our entire bodies...and if we only stick to one mode then we have a tendency to become weak in other areas.

tillingborn wrote:

prof wrote:It is nice to meet here a poster - like you, duszek, artisticsolution - who does not feel it necessary to tear apart every word I say. For that is not my idea of the best way to do philosophy.

To be honest, I think it is mine. I think what Popper said of science is true of epistemology generally. Ideas need to be challenged. For instance, in Europe we look at the arguments that the US has about the right to bear arms with bafflement; as far as we can tell, one side is arguing that it is part of the constitution and therefore cannot be changed; the irony being that it is an amendment, which to us simple minded old worlders says you can't change change. It is unfortunate that some people see an idea they disagree with as a personal assault, but you are quite right, I don’t and I hope the same is true of you.

It's true..American's are difficult to understand...we don't agree more often than not. I think there is a fear among us that our freedom is being taken away one tiny law at a time. It is sort of the feeling that one is in a maze that keeps getting smaller and smaller....you never really had freedom in the first place but with each barrier you see less and less choices available to you.

That being said...I think there should be a give and take when it comes to freedom so that each has the right to live her own life. I loved this speech by David Wheeler in new town:

"Thomas Jefferson described our inalienable rights as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness–the rights with which we are endowed for the protection of which we have instituted governments. I do not think the composition of that foundational phrase was an accident. I do not think the order of those important words was haphazard or casual. The liberty of any person to own a military-style assault weapon and a high-capacity magazine and keep them in their home is second to the right of my son to his life."

I guess the most we can hope for is reasonable balance of freedom. The problem is the selfish do not exercise their brains enough to think rationally enough to realize in fighting for themselves and their wants and desires, will only come back to bite them in the ass when they discover they have only championed the idea of selfish thought in others....which defeats their original purpose of getting what they want. As if everyone is striving to be selfish there is no one left to give.

"It's true..American's are difficult to understand...we don't agree more often than not. I think there is a fear among us that our freedom is being taken away one tiny law at a time. It is sort of the feeling that one is in a maze that keeps getting smaller and smaller....you never really had freedom in the first place but with each barrier you see less and less choices available to you." ________________________________________________________________________________________________
In australia the bastard little brother. Used like a condom by England. Snatched up by US.And now so popular a place to live cause we are not grimy poms or gun toting yanks.We live under the SHIELD Strategic Homeland defense initiative. our laws are now the same as US . everything that was ours is now US. Our CIA is now a dept of US CIA. our military is now the US pacific fleet. we have just received orders to build 12 new[non nuke subs].We cannot be trusted with even 30 year old designs like LA class nuke attack boats. The 5 sided box wont sell anyone US nuke and especially Westinghouse reactor tech. Even little brother. who fronts up in iraq and looses men and women just like US peeps.
And we are no 2nd line. THe desert fox. Erwin Rommel called us the best soldiers he had ever faced. including Americans. He should know. Even Patton lauded Rommel a a genius in the field.
[i love Rommel case he called Montgomery a buffoon. never a truer word] 'Monty' was rumoured too have said put the aussies in tobruk that will hold Rommel up for a day or 2.
The fox never took tobruk from aussies

oops have to go.. back latter


Nikos

prof wrote:Has it not occurred to you, Voice, to look these people up in Wikipedia? They all have biographies there.

Are you saying that I'll know them just by reading their wiki-articles? I did wiki them, they did not ring a bell. Never heard of them. Strangers out of randomland. But I'm just 21 years old, maybe they were some niche guys in the far away past?

Except, I see now, Maslow, I have read about him before, but I wasn't so interested in his character. His hierarchy is interesting but I'm not buying it. It's all a very crude idea.

The Voice of Time wrote:

prof wrote:Has it not occurred to you, Voice, to look these people up in Wikipedia? They all have biographies there.

Are you saying that I'll know them just by reading their wiki-articles? I did wiki them, they did not ring a bell. Never heard of them. Strangers out of randomland. But I'm just 21 years old, maybe they were some niche guys in the far away past?

Except, I see now, Maslow, I have read about him before, but I wasn't so interested in his character. His hierarchy is interesting but I'm not buying it. It's all a very crude idea.

INTERESTING

in 99% of my posts i never leave page . and usually only for spelling
Everything is say comes from my brainbox.

i am educated but still stupid

I think below says it perfectly what my view is on this topic.

"Too many rules and too much predictability absolutely kill creativity."