Karl

No, it isn't optional, everybody consciously or unconsciously adopts principles and philosophy, they have no other means of guiding their actions. The first two questions are key to creating a succesful philosophy; ethics are the tools of the philosophy. Philosophers have spent many millennia considering those first two questions in order to be able to deal with the third. You are probably using a jumble of virtues, but disconnected from a single integrated philosophy. More like a loft shoved full of bits of past and present, but with no coherence. To adopt virtues based on nothing but what another man tells you is to abdicate responsibility for your own life to some authority. Many do just that. The values you choose are not my values, they maybe very different from mine. You might well sacrifice yourself, but it is never voluntarily 'for others' unless you have abdicated you thinking to another authority. Nothing is ever voluntarily done for others, it just seems that way. Every action is a selfishly motivated action. If you choose your principles then you have to apply them equally to others, otherwise you would be choosing principles that cpuodnt bring you the values you desired. That doesn't mean others have the same principles or values that you do, but then you would find it difficult to trade with someone who had principles which ran counter to your own. As to the founding fathers. Having a philosophy and principles does not mean that you won't ever blur the edges. We are fallible, we evade. The trick is to know when you are evading. This does not mean the founding fathers were bad men, they were acting out of reason, but they were acting at a time when slavery was acceptable and they were also acting in a situation. For instance you cannot have perfect principles in a prison camp because you are denied the freedom to act.

We know exactly what we are looking for, the problem is that we don't know how to keep it and gain it in such a way as we experience no negative emotions by doing so. Compassion for others-as a primary value-is a state of sacrifice. As a secondary value it may or may not be affordable. We can only be charitable in any sense, if we have sufficient spare value. If we are so ill that we cannot care for ourselves then we cannot care for others. If we are so poor we cannot afford to eat, keep warm, or find shelter, then we cannot give what we have not gained ourselves. If we are imprisoned we cannot give others freedom.

You must choose a set of principles, they aren't given to you, they have to be discovered and they have to function to bring the values desired as well as the happiness from gaining those values. Where am I ? How do I know it ? What should I do ? It is not for me, or anyone to say what your principles should be, but I leave you with this thought. Man must think, he can do so irrationally, or rationally, he must choose to force his mind to work and not trust to instinct, God, emotion, or supernaturalism. His first thought, his first choice must be to decide if he should live or die, his next choice is how to accomplish that aim. That means-presuming that he chooses life-that he holds life as his primary value, not just his life, but all human lives. He knows that in order to keep his primary value, that he must be free to choose a philosophy which values his life specifically over all others, it must allow him the freedom to choose and therefore it must not deny others the freedom to choose. This was what the founding fathers knew. They did not arbitrarily pluck principles from the aether. They were high level philosophers. They said life-Liberty-private property-justice and the pursuit of happiness. So I add that he must first deserve it: reason-independence-honesty-integrity-productiveness-justice and pride (in no particular order and not as an exhaustive list).

I don't understand the 'some-thing comes from no-thing', or that not being a reference to existence. Some-thing is existence. No-thing is non existent and isn't a negative/zero in the sense of a numbering/counting system, it is literally the end of consciousness and therefore identity. Like you said. When we die, for the deceased there is neither identity, or identification because there is no conscious form. That doesn't mean existence ceases, but that with no consciousness to percieve it, then there is no-thing that can perceive it. There is something strange here. Are you personalising it to you, as MH, or as a wider categorisation. If it's the former then we may have agreement, or at least I agree with the Tao. So, now, something (existence/consciousness) comes from no-thing, because we are talking about axiomatic twins. They cannot be further broken down as they are fundamentals but they are uncreated, as is the universe. Order then does arise from chaos, in the sense of form bringing individual consciousness. Awareness is identification of existence through consciousness of it. Of course that leads to function within the universe. And of course we die and then there is no-thing for the dead individual. It is as if they never existed from their point of view (which is impossible because they are no-thing). Is this what you mean ? If it is, then that is objectivism, but taken from a very discreet, personal perspective instead of a broader sheet. It functions fine in light of that viewing angle. What we are left with is what objectivism is really about and that's the 'functioning' part, the ethical, moral man. Interestingly Rand also came upon objectivism by Nietzche, but he had a philosophy of a malevolent universe in which man was want to take from other men, which is anti-reason. Anyway, if I'm reading this right, then we can dispense with 'the universe of big bangs' and all the rest, because these are scientific and not philosophical questions. We can begin on a new sheet. The universe exists and I exist because I am conscious of myself and the universe I reside within. Thus: existence is identity; consciousness is identification

I agree. Those things are axiomatic truths. Consciousness and existence are twin axioms and several others emerge. This is as far as we can go because we are not and cannot be outside the universe. I do not call it mystery, but it is beyond knowing and I certainly did not imply determinism-emphatically rejected it. However you began by saying that there was something before existence, that the universe came from no-thing, then amended it to a chaotic some-thing. I asked if it was chaotic then, is it not chaotic now ? because you implied that chaotic energy had become ordered. If you could grasp the statement: existence is identity ; consciousness is identification, then I think you would see the answer clearly. Whatever consciousness is, it is a identified part of the universe, it is some-thing. Existence exists, we have a direct perception of it as it is, but our consciousness is making the identification. I do not mean that consciousness is arranging existence like a great hand, but that our consciousness is automatically creating perceptual categories for us and our conceptual faculty is an active process of consciously integrating those categories. We make sense of chaos to the extent we do not see it as chaos, we see it as order. The sophist believe that we see falsity, that our perceptions are wrong because we do not see the underlying chaos. This philosophy has morphed into the modern 'quantum theory' in which our consciousness has become an active component and identity is eroded away. I specifically asked the question regarding 'chaos to order' in order that you might realise what the problem is and how it has been approached to date. The muscle mystic is the sophist, the quantum theorist, the materialist; the spiritual mystic sees a designer, a creator which has given us eyes to see the order he has created. These two approaches are not different, they only seem that way, both are denying man identity. In one philosophy man cannot see because he has eyes; in the other man cannot see except through Gods grace. What is interesting about your approach is that you have actually denied portions of both of these philosophies and are standing astride the knowledge that man DOES have identity. Thus you have already thrown out both philosophies with one hand, but have reinstated both with the other. You hold that man has both identity and that he does not. I can point this out, I can't make the integration and you have to want to make it. It does of course mean that those parts of mysticism (as opposed to the axiomatic) would have to go. My guess FWIW is that you are an agnostic (not in the religious sense of that word), you are unable to confirm either camp so it's easiest just to allow the 'possibility' or 'potential' to fill in the gaps. I'm saying that you can abolish those potentials and remove the doubt, but I suspect you don't have the confidence to do that because it could seem like faith- and you don't do faith, so there we are. Anyway, I think I now understand your thought process and how you have arrived at your view point. There is a beautiful passage from Rand "where the wings of your mind should have grown, there is, instead self doubt" and in SRM "if I could give it to you (enlightenment), would you take it". It isn't for lack of desire to see the Sun, but a fear of choosing the wrong kind of glasses And missing it. That's a conundrum if self doubt persists and the opposite is blind faith. I empathise.

I'm afraid you are going to have to do a bit better than that ;-) The laws of physics describe the nature of causality of course, but where do you draw the line between order and chaos ? Causality on a grand scale in a long time frame appears like stability, but nothing is totally fixed is it ? Determinism does not rule either...so ? I'm trying to show you something that I think you should explore-if you are the kind of guy who likes an cognitive adventure. The things you are unable to fully explain are the same things, in a longer chain, that you have continually denied. It isn't your denial that is incorrect, but your failure to see that the path of your philosophy leads to precisely the same place. Many on this forum hold philosophical views that are identical to your own, but they are consistent. You deny the conclusions of those others, but your own philosophy ends up in an identical place. Einstein ended up with God because he made some elementary philosophical foo bars. This is an issue with science that it depends absolutely on the philosophies that underpin it. Science supplies answers only to those philosophies that power it. Get the philosophies wrong and science becomes useless as a tool for advancement. Like the tools that hang on your wall, each one has a special place and a specific use. Without a philosophy they are just pieces of material of various properties. Science can't be used for philosophy. Just as a screwdriver can't determine how to navigate to the shops. However, maybe I'm pushing now.

It's a philosophical understanding and not a scientific one so I can't give you any studies. Funnily enough that's exactly the role of the philosopher, to make the scientist curious. :-)

It's a self chosen conformance model and not one handed down by an external authority. You are a moral man because you choose to act as a moral man. You must choose your values and the principles that you will use to attain them. These principles and values have to be based in concrete reality. This only applies to someone who has been nurtured by loving parents that have allowed the child to develop in a safe environment. It does not apply to those who are damaged, abused, tortured, or have mental deficiencies. They can of course still choose, but their formative experience of reality has been fatally twisted and distorted and this carries through into adulthood. This makes it far harder, though not impossible. Logic is the tool of reason. Reason is the tool of mans survival, his means to gain value and to achieve happiness. Man is capable of much, much more than you can imagine, but first he must become the hero in his own life. Man asks three questions; Where am I ? How can I know it ? What should I do ? When you can answer those three questions fully to your own satisfaction then you will know a treasure. :-)

That's fascinating and a bombshell if people are able to understand the ramifications. This is the ECJ and not the UCHR ? The latter has become a lodestone for Labours reason to remain, but it is entirely seperate from the EU and was created in great part by Britian. There is still a great deal of confusion over the legal aspects related to the constitution such as it is. From what I understand our Government ran a bulldozer through the middle of the Magna Carta when it signed over powers to Brussels. What we have here is nothing less than a slow motion coup detat. A gradual hijacking of our country under the noses of its politicians and its people. Who has been presiding over all of this I wonder and how has it been concealed ?

Yes, they certainly make decisions, but only perceptually. They don't need to think (and are unable to think) long term as we must.

I will try to stop my enthusiastic bludgeoning from getting the better of me :-) I thought if you knew, then you might want to re-think it. It's a good learning exercise for me to see this is not the case, as it often isn't metaphysically. What produced order from chaos ? In the example of an ultra complex system such as the market, or the weather, then have you a theory about the apparent chaos that continues to exists when compared to your theory on chaotic energy ? I'm not disputing your theory, I just notice things in which causality is operative to a high degree.

Interesting that you have confirmed what I have said by introspection, even recognising that it isn't possible to be as present as a cat. A cat is a perceptual animal and so it lacks a conceptual faculty, so, though it also makes decisions, they are truly of the moment and not beyond it.

I did not say it necessarily made someone 'act nice'. I said that applying reason meant those who didn't act nice woukd get their back sides kicked. Reason leads to a moral stance, it leads to the moral man, it does so because man has to conform to reality and to do so he requires to choose a philosophy and that philosophy requires he chooses and follows principles in order to hold and gain values. Read O101 because I don't have time to give you the full proof here.

http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2016/06/Pew-Research-Center-Brexit-Report-FINAL-June-7-2016.pdf The EU coming apart at the seams. Sent from my iPad

Mohamed El-Erian is the co-founder of Pimco, a legend in the investing world who is now the Chief Economic Adviser to Allianz, the world’s largest insurance and financial services group which is also the largest company in Europe according to Forbes. He has just told a conference of money managers at the FundForum International in Berlin that a Brexit could resolve key issues within the EU. “There are two fundamental divisions of the EU: There’s the British view — that it’s a super free-trade zone, that it’s a destination. Whereas the Germany-France view is that it’s a means to something else — to an ever closer union. These are fundamentally two very different views on what the EU is about. If the referendum [results in the U.K. remaining in the union], we don’t resolve these different views. It means we are going to have tensions over and over again, because they are pursuing two different objectives, within one institutional agreement. So, ironically, over the longer term, an exit may actually solve one of the basic inconsistencies of the European Union.” His argument is that Brexit essentially secures the future of the EU, at short-term volatility cost. No one got rich betting against Mohamed El-Erian… courtesy of Guido Fawkes.

"“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.” - Mikhail Gorbachev.

You forget the first rule 'the initiation of force is anti-reason'. Those behaving irrationally by engaging in the initiation of force answer to the law. It's very simple. Don't start nothing and you won't get nothing. Don't steal other peoples stuff or hurt them. Reason doesn't guarantee someone behaves, it guarantees that those who behave irrationally will be subject to justice. It's not really difficult to grasp, most of us have ethics that we follow which includes not stealing or hurting. Most of us understand what it is to be honest and what it is to be dishonest. Some might blur these boundaries from time to time, but we feel guilty when we do even when we justify it (and we do justify it, we do try and expunge the guilt because we know we are acting badly). Once reason becomes the standard of good, then the initiation of force becomes the standard of evil. Only the use of defence against aggressors is permitted in that situation and so, note that the use of defence produces no value, it only retains the values already earned. None of this is new, I'm sure your parents drilled it into you.

I've decided not to give an answer on this occasion. I think you have set your sights on voting to remain and you will either get your way or you won't. If you get your way then it won't be long until it becomes clear exactly what has been given up, as all those things come home to bite. Interestingly I note that Cameron is not even extending the referendum to cover our exit from the single market, so, basically this entire referendum is a fraud. As Peter Hitchins said 'you can check out but you can never leave'. A serious vote on the leave side might push things to the next stage, but, it seems like Ireland, at best we will have to keep having referendums until we get the result the EU wants.

I'm fearful of our own traitorous Governments that have skewed our constitution in order to give the impression that they have 'pooled sovereignty' and not given it away illegally.

It does. However 'I think therefore I am' is the primacy of consciousness. For me it is the opposite 'I am and therefore I must think". Deescartes was a subjectivist/skeptic along with Kant and Hegel they are the biggest culprits in the destruction of reason and the rise of relativistic pragmatism.

As long as you don't mind me pushing. I'm sure you will let me know when I've crossed your boundary. :-) Oh yes Nietzche was a fine Nihlist. You wanted a philosophy that you could follow ? Shouldn't that chosen philosophy be coherent and consistent ? 'Chaotic energy' or not; something is something and not no-thing. You clearly know that. How do you account for the chaos becoming order ? Or do you believe that everything is still chaos, which is of course really the preserve of the quantum theorists-something you have frequently been critical of-as it suggests that (the observer effect) it is consciousness that has primacy over the material ? The argument is, to me, very simple. Either existence exists, consciousness is identification of it and so existence has primacy, or that is untrue; existence does not exist and consciousness need not be conscious of anything. What you appear to be saying is that both cases are true but that you are prepared to hold that contradiction.

Force is anti-reason. It is only applied only to the irrational. To begin with force is to dispute reason. It is to say 'you are incapable of rationality so I shall bash in your brains in order that are'. Either you believe man is incapable of rational action, in which case no man is rational and so the world must remain chaos with a ruler who decides what is rational without any connection to reality-because of course 'no one can know it'. Or you believe that reason is mans only guiding light, that he can know reality, that he can act rationally and needs no rulers. As such the world is ordered and the use of force is only used against those who evade rationality by utilising force to gain values they have not earned. This is the law. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

But you don't think something comes from nothing individually. Why are you then inconsistent on the universe as a whole ? It's not that you disagree with me, many people here disagree with me, but they do so consistently in the main. Your understanding doesn't agree with your understanding. :-) Why were you searching for a religion ? What didn't Nietzche answer (he didn't answer many things in my understanding and those he did, he did so incorrectly) ? Anyway I promised not to push it and I have a habit of pushing things a bit further than other people are happy with.

Without force reason flourishes. With reason peace is found. From peace comes prosperity.

It doesn't have any peacekeeping role. The US tells it what to do. The EU spends very little on defence and relies on the 5 eyes for its intelligence and defence. Individual countries within the EU are off fighting there own little wars. You greatly over estimate the EUs influence in the global arena. It is a dog without teeth or claws. When faced with a minor situation it is unable to cope and runs in rings chasing its tail. The politicians are useless idiots and can't even cope with immigration. They allowed an invasion. That isn't peace keeping, that's sacrifice. To date, for the first quarter, the crime statistics are 169,000 crimes, or attempted crimes by recent immigrants. FFS. :-/