The Philosophy Thread

[Louanne Learning]

- A trust in the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works, and rejection of the supernatural;
- Making ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals;
- The belief that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion and without imposing their beliefs on others.

Sounds very much like scientific pantheism

- Men are dissatisfied with their lives. "I'm bored" or "I'm miserable".
- Men compare their lives with those of others, and desire them. "I wish I had what my neighbour has" becomes "I'm miserable because I don't have what my neighbour has."

To be led by materialism and then negatively comparing yourself to others is surely a recipe for unhappiness

our disinclination to renounce our desire, leads to conflict and produces enemies.

Also, I think it relies on an ancient instinct to fear "the other" - rather than use your more enlightened rational side that with some critical thinking arrives to the conclusion that there is nothing to be afraid of. This probably involves empathy, too.

I hope you found some useful things here, and thank you for putting up with my long-winded ramble

Thank you so much for the thoughtful response!

 

[Louanne Learning]

In Chapter One of All Men are Brothers, Gandhi compares himself to a scientist, in that neither he nor a scientist ever claim finality or infallibility about their conclusions.

Gandhi’s method of inquiry differs – he relied on deep self-introspection, searching himself through and through, and examining and analysing every psychological situation (in his words), but yet followed the process of acceptance or rejection, like the scientist would.

And yet – about his conclusions, “One claim I do indeed make and it is this” -

For me they appear to be absolutely correct, and seem for the time being to be final. For if they were not, I should base no action on them.

Got me thinking about the concept of certainty in not only philosophy, but science, too, and the relationship of certainty to the likelihood of acting on what you believe, or what you know.

I think what Gandhi may be saying is that he believes in himself? It’s the logic that must be correct.

But, for a scientist, it means accepting the data. It’s the data that must be correct.

But, in both cases, it’s the perceived legitimacy of one’s position that spurs one to action.

But how does risk-taking fit in with all of this? Sometimes you don’t have all the information, but have to act, nevertheless. Enter hope?

 

[Rigor Mortis]

But how does risk-taking fit in with all of this? Sometimes you don’t have all the information, but have to act, nevertheless.

That, too, is knowledge.

 

[GrahamLewis]

Sometimes you don’t have all the information, but have to act, nevertheless.

That is life. We never have all the information, but are always compelled to act in some way (even refraining from acting is acting).

 

[GrahamLewis]

On a related matter, a Buddhist teacher, whose name I forget, once said (I'm paraphrasing), "Meditation can make even a fool into a sage, but unfortunately, fools never meditate."

 

[Homer Potvin]

But how does risk-taking fit in with all of this? Sometimes you don’t have all the information, but have to act, nevertheless. Enter hope?

Poop or get off the pot, as the saying goes.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Poop or get off the pot, as the saying goes.

This is a good philosophy.

 

[Homer Potvin]

This is a good philosophy.

I agree. Indecisiveness is no bueno.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Indecisiveness is no bueno.

I was never as good at making decisions as my husband. He was very decisive. When there was a decision to be made, he made it, and stuck to it. I commented to him once, "You're so good at making decisions. Decisions are so hard for me."

He replied, "Well, just put aside the influences, and make the decision."

 

[Homer Potvin]

I was never as good at making decisions as my husband. He was very decisive. When there was a decision to be made, he made it, and stuck to it. I commented to him once, "You're so good at making decisions. Decisions are so hard for me."

He replied, "Well, just put aside the influences, and make the decision."

I've found the key to making good decisions is to make as few as possible. That doesn't mean ignoring things but creating an environment where there aren't many that need making, if that makes sense. I deal with this with new/young managers all the time. It's like, if you over legislate and put yourself in a spot where you have to make a 100 decisions a day, you're going to be wrong at least 25 times. Cut it down to 10, and you might get away with only messing up one.

 

[Louanne Learning]

I think part of the difference between quick decision makers and hesitant decision makers is their relative willingness to accept a wrong decision.

 

[Louanne Learning]

I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts about what you think this means.

 

[GrahamLewis]

I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts about what you think this means.

View attachment 456

I've always understood that to mean that we get caught up in our abstract thought-based image of ourselves, discounting all the deeper aspects of our existence; we get hung up on "shoulds" and "couldas" and don't give ourselves credit for being far more than out intellects and perceived memories, as well as our anticipations of a future that almost certainly will not be what we "think" it's going to be. We're mysteries moving from mystery to mystery, and we keep trying to fit that into a logical box.

Or something like that.

 

[Louanne Learning]

We're mysteries moving from mystery to mystery, and we keep trying to fit that into a logical box.

And the whole idea of how well do we know ourselves? We're wonderful at observing and judging behavior in others. How good are we at observing and judging our own behavior?

Some people certainly look at themselves more than others. Self-awareness is not a given.

I'm not sure, though, that that has anything to do with what Watts is saying. I'm not really sure what he is saying.

 

[Homer Potvin]

I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts about what you think this means.

View attachment 456

My short answer would be that the world doesn't care about who you think you are. It will do with you what it sees fit.

 

[Naja Noir]

I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts about what you think this means.

I think it's mostly about time and perspectives, ours, as well as those looking at us.

We're ever changing, each new day brings us farther from whatever past snapshot we had taken of ourselves. I am not who I thought I'd be, and tomorrow something else will change, be it a grey hair, or a realization.

Also, people see things differently according to their own unique perspective. From your kid, to your neighbor, to your best friend, you're someone different to each of them. I might think I'm a cool hip mom, but my kids might see me as a try hard, etc... not that that's a true story or anything.

So I'd say it's a little of column A, a little of B

 

[Rath Darkblade]

I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts about what you think this means.

View attachment 456

Naja Noir's post is close to the mark, but the quote doesn't say that the 'you' who you think you are will not exist (future), but does not exist (present).

How can I, you, or we not exist in the present, right now? I can think of two possibilities:

1. The 'you' who you think you are might not seem that way to others. Others see you differently than you see yourself.

2. The blessed peace we have all experienced since the end of World War II is a miracle. World history is, alas, the story of war, punctuated by brief periods of peace. If you read history even badly, you will be aware of that fact.

It therefore follows that if a world war was to break out tomorrow -- and let us hope and pray that will not happen -- it will only take one utter moron to launch a nuclear missile, after which most of us will cease to exist. (As Einstein observed, World War IV will probably be fought with rocks).

And since we've touched on a sobering and somewhat depressing subject: have you ever thought what it would be like if you didn't exist? What if you were a disembodied spirit, able to see and listen to others but not interfere (as the spirit of Ebeneezer Scrooge does, for instance)?

Some people mistake this for one of humanity's dreams, i.e. living forever, but I think that is a fallacy. Living as a spirit, being able to see tempting food and thirst-quenching drink and not be able to eat or drink it? Living a mockery of a life, while the next generation moves about around me, unaware of me? Screaming my non-existent lungs out to try and advise them, while they are blissfully unaware of my presence? It sounds more like a nightmare than a dream. Indeed, it reminds me of Harlan Ellison's dystopian short story, I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream.

If our lives are to mean anything, then like everything else, they must have an end, as depressing as that may sound. I'd rather not live forever, not even as a ghost or spirit.

What's your view?

 

[Rigor Mortis]

It's about the illusions and delusions we build up about ourselves, the exaggerations of virtue and vice that we attribute to our "true character."

It reminds me of an exercise I came across many years ago. It's not authenticated, not peer approved, just a little aside at the end of a drunken night.
Think of your favourite animal. Explain.
Think of your second favourite animal. Explain.
Think of your third favourite animal. Explain.

If I remember correctly, my answers were:
Black Panther, is there anything cooler?
Owl, or some kind of predator bird, wise and badass, what's not to like?
Dog, loyal, integrity, bit boring but you gotta have 'em around.

According to the entirely unresearched exercise, your first choice indicates how you would like to be perceived by others, your second is how you would like to perceive yourself and the third, tough shit, is what you are.

 

[Louanne Learning]

My short answer would be that the world doesn't care about who you think you are. It will do with you what it sees fit.

This reminds me that people see us differently than we see ourselves and reality is only in the eyes of the observer.

 

[Louanne Learning]

We're ever changing, each new day brings us farther from whatever past snapshot we had taken of ourselves.

This is a great observation.

And who we think we are is a mere construction of our minds.