boo boo

Because opinions can never change Mr. Misfits is the best band ever.

I knew very little about Paul during the election, I just knew he was the only one in those debates that made any lick of sense. Still, it was my lack of knowledge about the candidates that made me decide not to vote.

And since I've learned a lot more about his policies my opinion of him has changed.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Inuzuka Skysword

I never ever said I supported the Iraq war if that is what you are referring to. Most of these wars like the Vietnam War, Filipino-American War, etc. are all stupid and were a waste of time and men.

I think the American Revolution was just. It was an act of self-defense. While the British weren't attacking us and such, they did infringe on our right to life, and the government that ruled over us was leading us to destruction. War was rational.

It is a bad example because you are asking me to defend wars I completely disagree with in the first place. I never said that the present war was just. I just criticized our tactics.

There is no defined right or wrong if there is no goal. What would be considered right or wrong in this situation?

And what do you base your ethics on?

No, it isn't. That is why I was criticizing the popular philosophies of this time aka. post-modernism where you are to sacrifice your life for your fellow man, where humans are viewed as the dust of the earth, and etc.

One can feel happy following religion if he wants to, but the question is whether he is truly happy. I bold "he" because it comes down to the issue of identity. Do you feel happier when you are yourself or when you act not on your own principles, but the principles of others? Do you even have a self? If one looks at the present, one would say that one is not chained to his past actions and "the self" does not exist. However, when he dies his whole life becomes the past and that is when "the self" can be realized and a character accurately formed. While man lives in the present he can only experience the chemical function of happiness. When man looks to the past he can realize who he can form the most accurate picture of his character and that is when he defines himself as truly happy or not. This comes down to what I underlined, "truly happy." Of course, I could post another paragraph about this and I will if you please, but I will spare my effort for something that I find we might have common ground on.

Why? I mean, you saying it is depressing is not really refuting my point because I see no reasoning behind that statement.

No, I am not saying that at all. In fact, I find it to be quite the opposite. I realize that what really is, is the self. I realize that my life means something to myself. Your way of pursuing truth at the cost of the self is Nietzschian and we know what happened to him. He sacrificed his existence to the world. While you might say that he found some truth, I would say that he did not since he denied the first truth, the self.

The question comes down to whether man is to serve philosophy or philosophy to serve man. I cherish my existence and I will not sacrifice it.

When I mean beyond I mean that was is not part of "the self" is part of the objective reality. It was meant to be obvious.

Morality is based on reason. People will derive different moralities, but because there is an objective morality one will always be better. The idea is to find the best. We may not find it, but at least find the best you can find because it leads to more happiness.

I don't support subjective morality because there is always a "right" way to do something.

I will quote what you said:
When you say "what I gain from reality" you are concerned with your own interests first. That is selfishness. Then you go on to say that these selfish motives of yours are more important than anything you can get from your selfish goals (aka. selfish motives).

The Unfan

I wouldn't know because I actually have goals, however, that doesn't mean that someone without goals can't have morality.

What is good for society based on known information. Typically of the social variety.


What if someone derives happiness from defeatism? What if veiwing others as more important than yourself gives you a sense of humbleness which makes you happy?

But what is good to identify with? This seems like nothing more than opinion, and saying that everyone has the ability to identify with thatever they want and it doesn't matter is bordering on a nihilistic thought process. On the other hand saying there is an objectively good thing to identify with is outright opressive. This statement alone makes it sound like you're saying it is objectively bad to feel connected to religion or religious figures while saying it is subjectively acceptable. Which is it?

It seems like a confusingly misinformed philosophy.

THIS. You seem to be so anti-nihilism yet this is exactly what nihilism is. You're saying that objectivity revolves around subjectivity derived from self awareness, and that since nothing is more important than self that self is the best thing to edify. You, your opinions, and your goals are the basis of your world view, and anything that is against those things is obviously bad. For the nihilist it is about their subjective experience of a subjective world where they then formulate subjective opinions of what is happening. The only difference is that you have a large enough ego to call it objective.

and then Uh-huh. I follow.
What evidence is there of being an objective morality? If morality is derived from reason and reason changes from person to person than morality has to be subjective. Oh wait, you have proof? Let's check this out.
But different people get happiness from different things. If someone gets happiness from immorality this would prove you completely wrong.

I wouldn't say that I am 100% selfless.

But I think I do view this the opposite way that you do. I view reality as important because it affects everyone. Not just me. If we were capable of existing in our own seperate realities outside of each other than I would probably have an entirely different world view.

Inuzuka Skysword

Morality is a means to an end. The end is the goal. Every true morality in history is based on morality being a means to an end from Christian morals to the morals of altruism. The goal may not be a selfish one, but there is a goal whether it be transcending the human in us or personal happiness.

Why are these your ethics or rather "the ethics?"

You have to look at what happiness actually is. No one can derive happiness from something that destroys the self-esteem. Happiness isn't an abstract feeling that we cannot explain at all. Happiness is the human response to what is good. What makes one happy is good for the human psychologically and such. There is a mechanism in our brain that determines what is painful and what feels good. Why is it there? To protect us. Something that destroys us can not give us happiness.

I don't quite understand which idea you are attacking when you say, "What is good to identify with?" I will take a shot. The good is what is rational. What leads you to the goal of human happiness.

And that is nihilism? An idea which opens up the realm for human potential is the most anti-nihilist thought on the planet. Nihilism is an anti-hope idea and an idea that is based in hope can not be considered nihilism.

I am saying that one will never reach true happiness if he follows religion because that happiness will never be his. So it is objectively evil to follow religion.


THIS. You seem to be so anti-nihilism yet this is exactly what nihilism is. You're saying that objectivity revolves around subjectivity derived from self awareness, and that since nothing is more important than self that self is the best thing to edify. You, your opinions, and your goals are the basis of your world view, and anything that is against those things is obviously bad. For the nihilist it is about their subjective experience of a subjective world where they then formulate subjective opinions of what is happening. The only difference is that you have a large enough ego to call it objective.

I do have the ego to call it objective. That is what makes in anti-nihilistic. I don't view existence without hope. I view it with hope because I create my existence. In the midst of a meaningless world I have become a god and given it meaning, but not just subjective. I have given it an objective meaning. No one can live and be happy without believing that what they perceive is objective reality.

I don't believe that what I do are the only things that are rational. What is rational can differ depending on the circumstances behind the situation. While I may criticize myself for taking up job A in this country where job A is popular, I would not say it is immoral to take up job A where job A is not popular.


When I said that people will derive different moralities, I meant it in the way where something can be moral in one place, but not in another. Of course, it depends on what is rational at the time.

There is an objective morality because there is an objective reality. If there is a best way to live in this reality, then there must be a morality that guides one to live that way. I do believe that one can make the most out of his existence and at the same time cast it away as if it were trash. This means that there is a morality. There has to be something to guide me to this best way of living.

No, I view it the same way as you. Reality affects everyone. However, the way it affects everyone is not the same. Starving kids in a third world country affect me, but on such a small level that, unless it were to affect me more, I shouldn't care. My happiness does not depend on the enjoyment of others. You brain doesn't give you pleasure when someone across the world, whom you have never met or even knew existed, has stayed alive one more day.

Well, I figured that if you wanted to get in on this argument about morality and ethics then it wouldn't be to hard. If I were to argue regularly then I would have to repeat myself, which I don't feel like doing. If you want to know why I think those are good then you have the last couple posts between me and The Unfan for you to read.

I mean, your way of argument was no better. You assumed that everyone would think those a bad things. I was just trying to point that out.

cardboard adolescent

woah, nietzsche is really not about rejecting the self. i mean, 'existential egoist' pretty much sums up nietzsche's whole philosophy. ultimately though, i think the way to happiness is by balancing the interests of the ego with all that stands against it... jung would talk about reconciling the individual ego with the collective unconscious or a buddhist might talk about the 'middle way' of not resisting the ego but at the same time not letting it get out of control... because if the ego's desires and drives get too big its disappointment will only be that much greater. at some point you have to come to terms with the fact that you can only be who you are through others, so you naturally rely on others. if you allow others to feel better about themselves through you, they will probably reciprocate. it's hard to make that 'trickle down' sense of morality big enough to encompass starving kids in third world countries... I can say that helping out strangers will ultimately make this world a better place to live in for everyone but that 'ultimately' might be a few centuries after you die. how do i make someone care about what happens beyond the scope of their life? how do i convince someone that the soul is eternal but that there is no beyond to this world? that might be tricky. but you should probably consider that it is possible, after all, what do you know?

sleepy jack

I don't really understand why people are getting so upset by Ron Paul. He's never going to win the Presidential election. Besides, even though I fundamentally disagree with him on every single issue, I'd rather have him as President because at least he appears to stand for something other than violence and corporations.

__________________

Inuzuka Skysword

Well, he does stand up for corporations.

What is too big of an ego though? I agree that one has to control it. In other words, I consider a man arrogant if he believes that who he is in the past is better than who he really is in the past, (using actions as the form of identification). That will not lead him to happiness because he will not know his true self and therefore never be able to acknowledge who he truly is. On the other hand, a man whose ego is controlled to become the fountainhead of his success is not arrogant. Michael Jordon would not at all be arrogant to say he was the greatest competitor of his time on the basketball court. What drove him to be the best in the first place? It was his ego which said that he could become the greatest basketball player on his time and it paid off because he believed in his true self. The middle way is not denying yourself what you can truly earn.

I rely on others, but others rely on me. Those who wish to rely on me will allow me to rely on them for a trade. Therefore, we have both earned that reliance and we are able to show ourselves who we truly are. I will not have someone rely on me who will not reciprocate. There are people who believe that they should not have to trade, that they should have to have it by right. It is not better off to give myself to those who don't want to give back. That isn't acknowledging myself.


I shouldn't care about other people that will not care about me if I am struggling to live. These are hard economic times. If I believe I have an extra ten dollars, I really don't because in the next minute I will probably have a need for it.

I am for philanthropy if one knows who he is giving to and sees value in that person. I would never give to some random African child in Somalia simply because he needs it. Especially when I know there are people in America who I can trust to use the money wisely.

"Ask yourself whether the dream of heaven and greatness should be left waiting for us in our graves—or whether it should be ours here and now and on this earth."

That sums up my view. Why believe in a heaven I can never feel when I know that I can have it right now.

Everyone considers those questions. I have thought about whether they could be possible and whether I would have any benefit in believing in them. I never notice the benefit though. No one is ever able to communicate to me a sound answer of why I should believe these things. If I have no reason to believe in them then can you really blame me for not believing in them. It is not that I have not found the reason. It is the fact that in my world there is no reason that I have found. I have talked to many people and they give me the same gibberish where they repeat circular arguments. That is all it is. It is a circular argument that has no rationale behind it. If there is no reason behind it, I want nothing to do with it just like I want nothing to do with eating an cheesy apple filled burrito sprinkled in hot fudge and hot red peppers when I am not hungry.

I know. That is the first truth one must believe in this world. No one gets anywhere without believing this truth. One might say he doesn't but in his actions he believes it.

cardboard adolescent

Ummm... can you really have Heaven right now? You speak of claiming greatness and success, but what is success? Success is making a lot of money? Success is being the best at playing some game that doesn't really mean anything? Is Heaven the state in which you have a lot of money and can buy whatever you want? What exactly is there that you can buy that puts you in Heaven? You say you wouldn't give money to someone who needs it you would rather give it to someone who will use it wisely. So... using the money to buy food isn't wise, but giving the money to someone who will use it to make profitable investments is? The reason we're in an economic crisis in the first place is because our economic system encourages selfish behavior, and as soon as you have a system that treats all people as though they were little robots that will buy only in their own self-interest, it becomes true, and their selfishness will often extend beyond the legal bounds of the system. IE, you get lots of corruption and the class divide widens and widens. Egotism isn't the best thing for everyone, it's the best thing for 1% of the country who have 50% of the wealth. And at the same time, are these people even truly happy? Most of them are completely obsessed with their work and don't even get the satisfaction out of their money that the rest of us crave. The best thing is always caring about the WHOLE, the results simply aren't as immediate. Ultimately though, the success of the whole is the only thing that brings true satisfaction.

So... what you know is that "you know?" Hm. That doesn't seem circular at all. What I take that to mean is that you trust the immediacy of your senses, and that you don't see any need to go beyond them. And yet, you do all the time. Abstraction, that wonderful thing called Reason that you keep whipping out, is a process of going beyond your senses to arrive at Universals. Some people simply take this process of Abstraction further than logical positivists are willing to, arriving at metaphysical ideas which have a history just as profound and coherent as that of science.

The benefit to believing that we all share an eternal soul is that it gives us all a common goal, it connects us to each other, it lets us see through the bullshit that keeps us separated, it gives us the incentive to care for the planet and for all the life it contains, and it gives us a true sense of what it means to affirm life and to love.

As for the question 'what is too big of an ego,' an ego gets too big when it becomes obsessed with control... when it wants everything to function according to its will and wants to turn other egos into its property. This can only lead to dissatisfaction, since it ignores the fact that other egos are also ego... that no ego is really better than any other, only more self-obsessed.

sleepy jack

Let me be more specific; he doesn't serve their interests through faux-regulation, terrible legislation and government handouts. That was more what I was getting at - not Paul's silly faith in the free market which is another issue.

__________________