Philosophy Now Forum

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:26 pm the only, "revolution," that could possibly improve anything would be an individual revolution--every individual rebelling against all authority and dependence on others, choosing to seek only to be the best one can be, seeking nothing but one can achieve and produce by their own effort, engaging in no relationship with others that is not totally voluntary and to the mutual benefit of all those in that relationship.

Is that what you have done, RC?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:29 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:26 pm the only, "revolution," that could possibly improve anything would be an individual revolution--every individual rebelling against all authority and dependence on others, choosing to seek only to be the best one can be, seeking nothing but one can achieve and produce by their own effort, engaging in no relationship with others that is not totally voluntary and to the mutual benefit of all those in that relationship.

Is that what you have done, RC?

I'm sorry, I do not answer personal questions. What I have or have not done is irrelevant.

I will say that is a fair summary of my view of right human relations. Nothing can be of value to me at anyone else's expense. If in any relationship with others either benefits at the cost of another it is wrong. I have nothing to gain from anyone else's loss. Why would I seek what cannot possibly be of value to me?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:44 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:29 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:26 pm the only, "revolution," that could possibly improve anything would be an individual revolution--every individual rebelling against all authority and dependence on others, choosing to seek only to be the best one can be, seeking nothing but one can achieve and produce by their own effort, engaging in no relationship with others that is not totally voluntary and to the mutual benefit of all those in that relationship.

Is that what you have done, RC?

I'm sorry, I do not answer personal questions. What I have or have not done is irrelevant.

I asked to see if you have lived what you are saying. I somewhat agree with your sentiment, but some of your statements seem extreme for the reality we live in. People can certainly be more self-sufficient and independent thinkers in many ways, yet still be benefited by all kinds of things produced/provided by the effort of other people (which benefit them as well). And rebelling against all authority (as you suggest) would result in being locked up... or in some eras, hung. Aren't there ways to work with a system (full of good and bad), and make improvements (in it, or for oneself or others) without being intoxicated and completely controlled/destroyed by it? Is there only one path for, and one kind of, revolution?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:26 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 1:21 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 11:42 am
You're right, Belinda. That is sadly true. So long as the vast majority of mankind longs for something or someone else to provide them safety and security and guarantees of a nice life in which they don't have to work too hard, or learn too much, or think for themselves, guided by their leaders, authorities, and, "priests of knowledge," (teachers), there will be governments. Of course the systems of, "education," run by governments will always produce more of that kind of people.

Bring on the revolution.

It won't happen, but the only, "revolution," that could possibly improve anything would be an individual revolution--every individual rebelling against all authority and dependence on others, choosing to seek only to be the best one can be, seeking nothing but one can achieve and produce by their own effort, engaging in no relationship with others that is not totally voluntary and to the mutual benefit of all those in that relationship. There is no social solution.

That would be much to be wished for, of course it would.The best we can hope for is to balance the Classical and the Romantic.

Classicism believes in evolution rather than revolution. It trusts that many good things have to be accomplished by institutions rather than by heroic lone agents; and accepts the necessary compromises involved in working with other people.

https://www.theschooloflife.com/thebook ... classical/

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 4:21 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:44 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:29 pm
Is that what you have done, RC?

I'm sorry, I do not answer personal questions. What I have or have not done is irrelevant.

I asked to see if you have lived what you are saying.

Why? If I weren't, would it make what I said untrue. If a criminal in jail says, "it's wrong to steal," does it become untrue because he happens to be a thief?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 4:21 pm I somewhat agree with your sentiment, but some of your statements seem extreme for the reality we live in. People can certainly be more self-sufficient and independent thinkers in many ways, yet still be benefited by all kinds of things produced/provided by the effort of other people (which benefit them as well).

It's not what others benefit from that matters. I want others to benefit from what I do, and I certainly benefit from the productive efforts of others in every product and service I use. That is my point.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 4:21 pm And rebelling against all authority (as you suggest) would result in being locked up... or in some eras, hung.

Rebelling does not mean being part of demonstrations or insurrections. It means doing whatever you choose to do, legal or illegal, taking all reasonable precautions against consequences. One does not announce their rebellion if they want to succeed. I've pretty much lived as I chose, and many of the things I've done might not have been, "legal." (It's one reason I do not answer personal questions.) But it's not defiance of the law or the system, it's simply ignoring or evading it, as quietly and discretely as possible.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 4:21 pm Aren't there ways to work with a system (full of good and bad), and make improvements (in it, or for oneself or others) without being intoxicated and completely controlled/destroyed by it? Is there only one path for, and one kind of, revolution?

No! The, "systems," are the problem. Every human invention to produce the kind of society one thinks they would like (government) requires forcing all those who do not want it to support or conform to what others want. It can never succeed and always devolves into suppression and a system of power elites. It's not possible to fix government and make it nice--it is attempting to find the right way to do the wrong thing.

A free individual has as little to do with government as possible. That means, "not fighting it," but making one's self as invisible to government as possible. One way most of those who are unhappy with government defeat their own purpose is to antagonize government and draw its attention to one's self and one's activities. No one is going to change government so long as that is what most people want. There is only one life one can make totally free--one's own.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 10:33 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 4:21 pm I asked to see if you have lived what you are saying.

Why? If I weren't, would it make what I said untrue.

It may show that it's unrealistic, even for you.

Should one unrealistic extreme take the place of another?

Or might we consider that: 1) there is much more going on than any extreme black-and-white assessments can realistically comprehend and address, and 2) maybe it is such thinking (as that) which contributed in leading us to where we are now? In other words, it may be the same kind of thinking regardless of whether it fights or supports any particular agenda/idea: if it is rigid and uncompromising in its rightness, and if it upholds a separatist ideal -- then it may be more of the same, wearing a different cloak. And on we go...

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 5:11 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 10:33 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 4:21 pm I asked to see if you have lived what you are saying.

Why? If I weren't, would it make what I said untrue.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 27, 2021 4:21 pm Or might we consider that: 1) there is much more going on than any extreme black-and-white assessments can realistically comprehend and address, and 2) maybe it is such thinking (as that) which contributed in leading us to where we are now? ...

It's your, "we." It's where you are and your kind of views that produce it. As I recently wrote to Simplicity:

Those I would consider, "virtuous," are those who embrace their own nature as volitional beings, neither desiring or seeking anything in life but what they can achieve and acquire by their own effort, knowing all they are and all they enjoy is theirs because they have earned it. They are not virtuous to meet anyone else's standards or for the sake of anyone else's welfare, but the requirement of their own nature to know they are not a parasite, dependent on others, and that they are worthy of associating with and enjoying others because they are never a threat to anyone else and all their relationships are voluntary and benevolent, because they have nothing to gain from anyone else that is not to the benefit both to those others and to one's self.

To me, every fundamental is, "black and white." Whatever is not true is false. Nothing is, "almost true," or, "partially true," or, "nearly true." Nothing is, "almost right," like giving nearly the right change. Nothing is partially pure, like a drink with only a little arsenic in it. Nothing is nearly good, like only stealing a little or murdering people once in a while. To compromise with evil in any way is to surrender to it. It is never right to interfere in another human being's life uninvited. It is never right to seek or desire what one has not earned or achieved by their own effort. It is never good to deal with others in any way that one knows might harm or endanger them. It is always wrong to do anything, in one's thinking or overt action that is not known to be right. Like it or not, reality does not allow anyone to do wrong and get away with it.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:24 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 5:11 pm Or might we consider that: 1) there is much more going on than any extreme black-and-white assessments can realistically comprehend and address, and 2) maybe it is such thinking (as that) which contributed in leading us to where we are now? ...

It's your, "we." It's where you are and your kind of views that produce it.

I'm simply using "we" to refer to human beings... and presenting some reasonable ideas we might consider.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:24 am To me, every fundamental is, "black and white." Whatever is not true is false.

That may work for you, but that doesn't mean it's true or right in any other capacity than for yourself at this moment in time. The extreme statements you make demonstrate this -- because extremism shows itself to be in service to an idea of "rightness" to such a degree that it sees/accepts nothing else, and it is limited by that.

My statements have nothing to do with 'partial truths', or 'almost right' -- that's your invalidating spin based on you clearly thinking there is no question or broader view in regard to what is right and true, according to you. That sort of mindset is at the root of every convoluted system you oppose.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 5:07 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:24 am To me, every fundamental is, "black and white." Whatever is not true is false.

That may work for you, but that doesn't mean it's true or right in any other capacity than for yourself at this moment in time. The extreme statements you make demonstrate this -- because extremism shows itself to be in service to an idea of "rightness" to such a degree that it sees/accepts nothing else, and it is limited by that.

It is the only thing that works. Reality is what it is. What describes any aspect of reality is true. Everything else is a lie and deception.

You cannot defy reality and get away with it. No matter what you feel, or how you would like things to be, you either learn and discover the truth and conform to it, or you live in defiance of it and suffer the consequences. It is always wrong to steal, to lie, even to yourself, or to attempt to get away without being the best you can be in every way. Why would anyone, "accept," what they know is not true? Why would anyone do what they are not certain is right? Why would anyone aspire to be anything less than there best?

You can settle for half-truths and whatever comes along, and compromise all you want. Reality won't force you to do anything, but it will never mitigate the consequences of a life not lived in ruthless dedication to knowing and living by the truth. Reality will never reward those who mix black (wrong) and white (right) and live in the grey area of never quite right and never quite good.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:13 pm You cannot defy reality and get away with it.

What is reality? Whose reality?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:13 pm you either learn and discover the truth and conform to it, or you live in defiance of it and suffer the consequences.

Might you discover it's not what you thought at a given time? Might you discover this over and over throughout your life?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:13 pmWhy would anyone, "accept," what they know is not true?

Because it serves them, and they convince themselves that it IS true... so that their fantasy becomes their 'reality'.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:13 pmWhy would anyone do what they are not certain is right?

Because it serves them in the moment, and they don't know what else to do.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:13 pmWhy would anyone aspire to be anything less than there best?

Because they don't know what else they're capable of.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:13 pmYou can settle for half-truths and whatever comes along, and compromise all you want.

This is you applying your 'spin' again. As if anything that doesn't fit your idea of truth and good and reality... are not. And if anyone (such as myself) suggests that there is more to consider, you seem to label it as "not real" or not good enough. You don't know. You don't live everyone's life from everyone's perspective. It's not up to you to set some kind of bar for everyone. Human beings doing that... is why we have all these systems of rules. People telling other people how they should think and be. You don't know.

I happen to think the Universe is much more dynamic and perfect than any superficial flat notions and rules.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 6:13 pmReality will never reward those who mix black (wrong) and white (right) and live in the grey area of never quite right and never quite good.

You just don't see how much more there is to consider than your black and white view! It's astounding, really. You call it "grey area"... when it's actually bursting with color. You call it "grey area" because it's based on your limited ideas of black and white. And it's the kind of dogmatic righteousness that created the very systems you fight against -- except that it was someone ELSE'S dogmatic righteousness of black and white! We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. [Einstein] It appears that you cannot see that your spin is the same kind of thinking we continually experience the limits of.

I think we have to move beyond black and white thinking. It's like going from black and white TV to full spectrum TV. It's like moving from 2 dimensional to 3 dimensional. There's nothing "grey" about it.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 3:11 am I think we have to move beyond black and white thinking

Move, "beyond it?" You haven't got to it yet. You really cannot discover what is wrong with anything until you first know what is right. If you don't now what truth is, or even what it is, it is not possible to know what is not true.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 8:34 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 3:11 am I think we have to move beyond black and white thinking

Move, "beyond it?" You haven't got to it yet.

Again, more of your false projections. Wow, there are so many of them, you seem to be emulating 'Age'. And, like him, you claim to know and care about 'truth', yet apparently ignore/deny your own absurdity in spewing so many false claims at people-you-don't-know, claiming to know what they think/know/don't know/feel. It's not just ridiculous, it demonstrates the exact opposite of commitment to truth, in service to yourself.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 12:27 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 8:34 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 3:11 am I think we have to move beyond black and white thinking

Move, "beyond it?" You haven't got to it yet.

Again, more of your false projections. Wow, there are so many of them, you seem to be emulating 'Age'. And, like him, you claim to know and care about 'truth', yet apparently ignore/deny your own absurdity in spewing so many false claims at people-you-don't-know, claiming to know what they think/know/don't know/feel. It's not just ridiculous, it demonstrates the exact opposite of commitment to truth, in service to yourself.

Well, forgive me, but I was certain it was you who claimed things were not just, "black and white," which a metaphorical way of saying nothing is absolutely true or false and that everything is subject to revision--which is what I regard as not having a sound grasp on what knowledge is. And when you say, "we have to move beyond black and white thinking," it sounds like a recommendation for some collective (like society perhaps) needs to change it's thinking which to me evades the fact only individuals are able to think.

I'm not blaming you for anything you didn't say. You have to decide how you are going to interpret things, of course, and if it helps for you to think I'm accusing you of anything you didn't intend, so be it.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 1:36 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 12:27 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 8:34 pm Move, "beyond it?" You haven't got to it yet.

Again, more of your false projections.

Well, forgive me, but I was certain it was you who claimed things were not just, "black and white,"

I did say that. How does that mean I've never considered things that way... which I have. So your statement that I 'haven't got to it yet' is your own false projection. I've seen it, considered it, and moved away from it.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 1:36 am which a metaphorical way of saying nothing is absolutely true or false and that everything is subject to revision--which is what I regard as not having a sound grasp on what knowledge is.

Do you think that all of your knowledge is based on absolute truths, while the different/varied knowledge of other people is not? I'm simply considering that truth is broader and more dynamic than any single human range of perception. What's so outrageous about that? Does it bother you because you can't claim possession or control of it?

In order to have a 'sound grasp' on knowledge (as you say), do you think 'knowledge' never evolves or expands? Isn't it possible to utilize knowledge while promoting it to be furthered and refined?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 1:36 am And when you say, "we have to move beyond black and white thinking," it sounds like a recommendation for some collective (like society perhaps) needs to change it's thinking which to me evades the fact only individuals are able to think.

People who think in black and white terms, tend to apply it to everything. "This good/true... that bad/false"... which seems like very primitive thinking. Things that seem good/true can be bad/false; things that seem bad/false can be good/true -- based on a variety of considerations and perspectives. Why is there a need to 'lock it down' somehow? Can't we make dynamic assessments for a dynamic world? (Black and white thinking sounds lazy.)

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 1:36 amI'm not blaming you for anything you didn't say.

Your interpretation is the distortion. And your projections are inaccurate. You don't seem to be able to distinguish those from truth. Truth = what you think, yes? Regardless of what others may say or think, if it isn't in your own mind, it doesn't exist or matter as truth, right? So, how is that actually absolute truth for anyone but you?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 3:28 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 1:36 am ... which is a metaphorical way of saying nothing is absolutely true or false and that everything is subject to revision--which is what I regard as not having a sound grasp on what knowledge is.

Do you think that all of your knowledge is based on absolute truths, while the different/varied knowledge of other people is not?

What other people know or don't know is irrelevant and I have no idea why you always think in such terms. If what I think I know is based on anything other than the truth, it is not knowledge, it is a mistake, simply wrong, credulity or superstition. Knowledge consists of every proposition I understand which is certain an true. That does not mean everything I am conscious of is knowledge. I think about questions, hypothesize, consider some possibilities about which I have not made a judgement, but only those things I have rationally concluded are true are knowledge, and that which I know is certain.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 3:28 pm I'm simply considering that truth is broader and more dynamic than any single human range of perception. What's so outrageous about that? Does it bother you because you can't claim possession or control of it?

Bother me? I don't care what you want to believe. I think it would be frightening to never know anything was certainly true and have a mind filled with ideas one could never be certain of, but it doesn't bother me if it doesn't bother you.

But truth is not some mystic esoteric thing that can be, "broader," or, "more dynamic." Truth is very simple. Truth is an attribute or quality, not of things, but statements (usually called propositions) which assert something about something else. "The keys are on the table," makes an assertion about where the keys are. If what a proposition asserts is in fact the case, the proposition is, "true," that is, it has the attribute, "truth." If the keys are actually on the table, the statement, "The keys are on the table," is the truth. If the keys were actually left in the car and are not on the table, the statement, "The keys are on the table," is not true--it is a falsehood or lie.

Knowledge consists of all the propositions one knows which are true. There is no other kind of truth or knowledge.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 3:28 pm People who think in black and white terms, tend to apply it to everything. "This good/true... that bad/false"... which seems like very primitive thinking. Things that seem good/true can be bad/false; things that seem bad/false can be good/true -- based on a variety of considerations and perspectives. Why is there a need to 'lock it down' somehow? Can't we make dynamic assessments for a dynamic world? (Black and white thinking sounds lazy.)

What is lazy is not doing the hard rigorous thinking and study required to ensure everything one thinks and says is true, based on observable evidence and ruthlessly careful thinking, not allowing feelings, sentiments, desires, or whims to interfere with our reason, or accepting just anything as, "possibly true," just because one hasn't done the hard work to ensure what they believe is the actual case in the real world. It is making sure one knows what is black, and what is white to prevent the mental confusion of everything being some kind of fuzzy grey.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Oct 04, 2021 3:28 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 1:36 amI'm not blaming you for anything you didn't say.

Your interpretation is the distortion. And your projections are inaccurate. You don't seem to be able to distinguish those from truth. Truth = what you think, yes? Regardless of what others may say or think, if it isn't in your own mind, it doesn't exist or matter as truth, right? So, how is that actually absolute truth for anyone but you?

Talk about misinterpretation! Truth is not truth because I think it, it is truth no matter who thinks it so long as the proposition being thought is true. There is only one thing that determines what is true and what is not, reality itself. It is never a matter of who thinks something, it is only matter of what is thought by anyone, and one's thoughts are only true if every one is a correct statement about some aspect of reality which is actually the way reality is.