Karl

the course of life rarely runs smoothly.

That explains quite a lot. It's important though to realise that we adopt aspects of philosophies simply by exposure. They are all around us from adverts, to school books, well known sayings, political discourse and we can't avoid them and the spin they place on our understanding. I would also be puzzled if asked to choose a 'favourite' colour :-) I would ask in what context. I like black for a night sky so that the stars are visible, but not black for my bedroom because I don't much like goth :-) You display a lot of Hobbsian aspects-apologise if you don't like the label, but it has to be said that Hobbs also considered labels a quirk of human convenience that identity could not be found in anything. If one examined red and took away its attributes nothing at all remained. All you could do is the point at things and say nothing. That means you fit very neatly into the Hobbsian uncategorised fluidness if you see what I'm getting at-or maybe I should say as a convenient descriptor which doesn't prescribe anything in particular to anything at all. I just point. This is why I said that those that subscribe to subjectivism would argue they subscribed to nothing at all, that they could not be labelled that they were just what they were and that's that. In effect we can't get further in discussion, because no reason could ever penetrate that belief -a subjectivist would say reason doesn't exist either. We just look and see and that's how it is. I could challenge you by looking at concept formation, but it's an arduous, complex path that I find pointless at this juncture. I accept that this is how it is for you and if it's working better than what you had before, then It's unproductive for both of us to argue. I'm happy I went from interesting to charming-a definite sign of improvement.

That is an intrincisist view point of course. I regard man as fallible in all respects. We can both deliberately and unknowingly act against our values bcause we have free will and we can institute new values at odds with our older versions. The intrincisist says to be still and listen and we will then be aware of the values that our written intrinsically within us. We are not however, as the intrincisist and the subjectivists tend to agree, with egos as black as sin, that our nature is to grab at every piece of material in a frenzy of greed so that we must give up our liberty by contract to a ruler. We are also not-as an intrincisist will insist- that our values are written by God, or some other supernatural force without regard to our natural rottenness. That we should be ascetics and live a life of penury and abstinence as far as possible, to still our minds in order to get as close to God/or whatever faith we subscribe, as we can in order to liberate this intrinsic knowledge hiding beneath the corrupt outer shell. That's the short version :-) How would it be if you were completely in control of your values and that they were part of a process of sense precepts becoming concepts through integration ? Would it be an imposition in any way other than to move the responsibility firmly into your own mind. Would it matter if your values were good because you created them as concepts from all your combined experiences, that you could come to know reality directly and act with honesty, integrity and rationality ? That fallibility was always a necessity-a part of learning ?

I think any disagreement here is one of philosophic semantics. Where you say values are intrinsically derived from the heart, I see them as conceptual reasoned and derived from sense precepts. We learn what gives us the greatest opportunity for happiness and that is to be rational, have integrity and honesty in all dealings. Our values vary, but we should stick tightly to those virtues regardless of what we are told we should do. However we think they are derived, the important thing is to have and recognise that fact that we have them. I don't think it's necessary to be in one camp or the other as long as we remain true and unerring. That we don't try and knowingly evade compromise, or justify an action we know contradicts our values in order to obtain a value falsely.

You see, what you are saying has a lot of truth in it. That's why I was trying to grasp if your definition for the heart was actually a store of values and not just whim. I already see that this is true for you because your previous reply showed those values and I can't argue with your actions if they are genuinely in line with those values. It is only when it becomes a kind of fanciful whimsy in which values are considered unnecessary or even dangerous that it becomes difficult to even begin a discussion. I think if you look after your values, abide with them, don't be afraid to be uncompromising, then whatever you do will work out for you. You also picked up on societal values, or at least those promoted as being homogenous by those in charge. This is a collectivist fantasy which we are forced to live under. All you can do is maintain your values. Once you give in, once you compromise then you are a slave. Even abdication is compromise and should be recognised for what it is.

I didn't compromise my values to marry my wife. She didn't compromise her values to marry me. That doesn't mean we agree on everything, only that we allow each other to remain consistent to our values. To be honest is the hardest thing of all and that is where it must begin. That's not the easiest thing to do, it is somewhat like your own philosophy but turned 180 degrees. In other words I wont compromise no matter what-if that means I go through my life as a bachelor then so be it, that to me is better than the alternative. Indeed this is exactly the approach I took after narrowly avoiding marrying in a compromise arrangement.

I do not love unconditionally or those that are undeserving because it would make me a compromiser. I respect my wife, her values and ethics. It is because I have stuck with my own values that her values do not compromise my own (or mine hers). We compliment each others values and so the love is deep and strong. It is the values in others that we love, otherwise love is fickle and shallow because we refuse to stick to our values then we are trying to gain value by an act of self deception. Sometimes we don't know this, we accept the compromise for short term gain, but then things turn sour and our happiness dies.

I find your reasoning conflicted Des and that makes it difficult to understand where you are. If I had to guess I would think you are a Hobbsian nominalist-and of course, only a Hobbsian nominalist would say they weren't because everything is subjective right down to the philosophy :-) What confuses me is that you don't appear to subscribe to the 'might is right' philosophy of Hobbs except in passing when you talked of the 'dog eat dog world' that you believe is the aim of objectivism. I suppose if you are a true subjectivist, then even the label subjectivist is entirely an arbitrary nominalisation anyway ? Are you mystic at all in your approach ? Do you have God or some other dogma which you follow ? I dont see evidence for it, but maybe you are at that odd halfway stage at which a deity/dogma becomes a plausibility over a King. You mentioned Locke and Hobbs so I'm guessing they were influential ? Other than that bit of guessing I'm stumped. I would wish to know where you are philosophically, but I'm struggling.

I understand it, but I cant endorse it. That's the best I can do. There is no point in trying to talk a committed suicide out of their plans but it won't stop me trying all the same. You have been forthright and have not tried to obscure your aims either unwittingly or by deliberate deviousness so I see you have thought it through. I might question your reasoning processes, but I can't accuse you of having your eyes shut. You clearly know what you are doing, where it leads and why you have committed to it.

Of course Nikolai, we can refuse the reason, to look on a much shorter term, to attempt not to think. I was pointing out that we plan, even when we are at our most irrational. The alcoholic on his final days will still plan how to obtain drink, even a suicidal person will plan the method of their demise. This isn't about decrying the pleasure of the moment, we should live there too if we can. One is not planning relentlessly like some crazy beaver that can't stop building dams-that would be exhausting and fairly unproductive. It is about balancing our long range with our more immediate. It is in the planning and the problem solving that we bring reason the the for, but ultimately we must gain and adhere to the values virtuously in order that we bring ourselves the greatest satisfaction by remaining true to them. When we try and gain values we did not earn-to falsify-then our lives are unhappy shells. Is that true ? I can only answer for myself that it is, I cannot answer for others. All I can say is that evading reality, giving up the mind is a kind of subtle suicide. It is giving up and tuning out-I understand why having felt that way for many years. It is not for me to say that it isn't the better option either, everyone will decide for themselves, but it isn't the only option; that rational thinking, survival in the face of tough problems, over coming and fighting is what I believe life is for. It's been an excellent discussion and I think I understand better than I did what it is you are doing. I cannot condone it, but I see that it is not my place to question its validity. If it works for you then that is sufficient.

You can teach skills, but it is more important to educate people on how to educate themselves. This equips them to reject the false; the spell weavers and sorcerers-some of whom unwittingly spread falsehoods believing they are helping. We live in a time when the ability to reason has been largely ignored by state education-some say deliberately. It has made us ever more compliant with the words of politicians and corporations, making it difficult to defend ourselves agains their twisted narratives and fluid definitions. We buy into the lifestyles they skilfully offer, the rewards and compromises. It's got so bad, that many of us, who intuit the falsity of the message are utterly lost in the shifting sands and verbal swamps we are forced to navigate. To wit, many have given up and now look towards the new age religions, or to back woods living in order to escape the exhausting torment that leaves a feeling of powerlessness-as if we are adrift on an ocean with neither sail, oars or map. To abandon ones mind is to acquiesce completelely. It is to say 'I no longer think, for what good does it do'. Others are opting out completely, to live a life away from civilisation where they only interact with nature-but this is simply running away on another level. Both of these options are precisely what an animal does when faced with a threat it does not understand, either to freeze and stare fixedly at the oncoming danger, or to hide. The threat we face is man made, it needs rational minds to find solutions to it. Blanking ones mind or hiding, is to give up. It makes inevitable that which is still only a possibility. The war on minds-on Liberty-is over and not a single shot was fired in defence, because we gave up the one weapon which would have us prevail.

Rational animal would be a more accurate definition, but I think human Sounds better. A would say a label is pacifist, communist, intellectual, buddhist etc. More a description of attributes. I don't know how you operate in any great detail, I'm still unsure of your philosophy because much of what you say seems contradictory. I still don't know how your definition of heart ? Neither do I understand how you can be neither rational nor irrational. I can understand that it is possible to be both rational and irrational at times, but to say you are neither, definitely stumps me. When you say 'playing out old patterns' do you subscribe to the subjectivist philosophy that the world is purely a creation of your own consciousness, or did you mean it some other way ? I don't think deliberately hurting people is a good idea at any time, but we are social creatures and must interact as we are doing here. The only sure way not to hurt someone unintentionally is never to interact at all, but then that course of action would hurt friends and family equally. Unless you mean your previous actions were destructive ? Interesting to charming :-) I can live with that.

Use your suffering to grasp life. Don't be a passenger, take the wheel and drive. You are a brief spark, use the time you have as best as you can. Don't seek to insulate-participate.

This isn't true. Life is struggle. Grab it.

Absolutely Nickolai. Although I do not think other people's pain makes one sad and regretful anymore than watching a child learn. Teaching is a great pleasure. As one teaches so does one learn.

I don't ascribe any label to you other than rational human being. I'm only interested in the philosophy you hold, what were its origins and what its success at achieving happiness. Neither do I decry living in the now, or the value of emotions. I'm saying that we cannot live in the now in the way of an animal, by doing so we effectively ignore our minds and thus the survival mechanism that brings us happiness. We might pretend we can live as animals, but that involves devolving our reason to some other entity and abandoning our minds. Effectively we let someone else do the thinking for us and walk around like zombies staring at the first thing that comes across our path. If there was ever such a thing as sin, I believe it is the refusal to use the capacity to reason and to act like mind slaves or animals. We are not and we should not IMO.

That's all any of us can do Des, but you still have to plan long range, unlike an animal that is on automatic pilot, you need your mind to plan the next pay cheque, next meal and beyond. The success of your planning determines your survival into that future. I like thunder too.

You said you lacked of interest in anything beyond the present i.e imaginary long range future as you put it.

OK so how do you describe this heart? What does it do ? How does it operate ? You never consider the future ? How you will earn money, what you will eat, your health and well being ? Nothing matters at all ?

I always hope for good things for good people. :-)

Absolutely wrong. It does not require conditioning based on social convention, it only requires the rational mind of man to actively look for and maintain his only moral values in accordance with existent reality. Intrincisists believe morality comes from some higher source such as a deity/the great all/heart or whatever. They believe it is intrinsic and all that is required is to still the mind for those moral values to become clear. An intrincisicist automatically assumes that the alternative is subjectivism/rationalism in which moral values are imprinted on man by simply turning to reality. I'm shortening both these descriptions. Intrincisists, subjectivists and objectivist so find alternative common ground, but their philosophies are greatly different. You appear to have regarded my comments as subjectivist, but they are not, I'm firmly in the objectivist camp. In other words you are free to determine your own moral values in accordance with existent reality. No God, no social conditioning, just volitional conceptualisation by the independent rational mind. It is the thinking rational mind that can be viewed as the heart if you will. That it is following these moral values that man survives because man is not automatic, he has to take regard of the long range future as well as the immediate present. Both the intrincisist and subjectivist philosophies are attempts at man giving up his only means of survival-his mind. Instead, both are concerned with the primacy of consciousness-either by way of the supernatural or by collective consciousness. I support neither. I support the primacy of existence.

Putting aside the terms you have used I get the sense that you are actually referring to rational morality. I hope so :-)

Where to start ? No natural law is subjective. Laws of physics as opposed to those created by man, are real, tangible and observable. That an object falls on Earth at 9.81m/s/s and on Jupiter at a far greater rate of acceleration does not prove the laws of motion to be subjective. For instance water will boil at 100 degrees C at sea level, but several degrees less at altitude. If one is ignorant of the physics of pressure difference then they might see the difference as entirely subjective, but only because they have misinterpreted the information in light of their ignorance of the other forces involved. That a plant grows in soil is not subjective, it is observable fact that it does. We know the physics and biology behind it. It's mumbo jumbo of the worst kind and a bad example to boot. The sceptics were doing a far better job-pre Aristotle-of making that false argument.' A man doesn't step in the same river twice' is the classic. The river is different each time, different water, the man is different yards yada etc. All that was debunked by Aristotle, but over the course of millennia has returned in the form of Kant/Hegel and the legions of pretenders selling their pat version of that philosophy as 'new science'.

Then all is well.

As long as it's interesting. :-)