User Tag List

First 456

Results 51 to 58 of 58

  1. #51
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Natural selection? Determinist physical laws?

    What answer are you looking for?
    The point is, when an animal strives for a good feeling, it inevitably has a tendency towards survival. Anything that does not conduce to survival cannot be affirmative of the being of the animal.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  2. #52
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    Just because one has values does not mean that one must accept such values uncritically (even the value that one ought not to accept ideas uncritically if possible).

    I should also note that many values may have actually evolved in response to specific adaptive problems which arise in complex social groups.
    If you have values other than rational inquiry, your value will be antithetical to your critical thinking. For example, suppose you value honesty or compassion more than anything else. You will do what you think is honest or compassionate, and will not critically analyze the consequences of such behavior. In this regard, your value-centered thinking retards your critical thinking.

    What I recommend is ensuring that there is not one principle that you have that you value more than critical thinking. That is tantamount to my thesis of abnegation of value centered thinking.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  3. #53
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    But I don't see that it's working toward affirming ones self.
    I was trying to use "affirming ones self" in the way it seemed BW was using it. I would have chosen different words myself...

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    In other words, simply thinking through each situation to make sure that the decisions you make in such situations are those that you will be happy with.
    The problem with "thinking through" as an answer to everything is premises. We simply do not have access to absolute truths, and therefore can never be sure our premises are correct. Faith is inescapable. In order to be sure of any conclusion, you need to have faith in your premises. Consequently, two people can have completely opposite views that are each logically valid. This whole "being rational in all situations" thing (a delusion in my opinion) doesn't really get you anywhere, because at the most basic level, all disagreements are faith vs. faith.

    Also, how do we know what will make us happy? From my observations, it seems extraordinarily uncommon for people to know what makes them happy, and NO ONE knows what will make them happy in all situations. Our consciousness just does not have the computational power, nor can we ever be sure of how our internal states will affect the environment or how the environment will change.

    Based on the information that we actually do have, we may as well look at it as a maximization of happiness problem, I agree. But we need to be humble in our conclusions, and open to other people's views and premises. Because otherwise there's no way two people starting from different premises will ever come to a compromise.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    The point is, when an animal strives for a good feeling, it inevitably has a tendency towards survival. Anything that does not conduce to survival cannot be affirmative of the being of the animal.
    I disagree. Haven't you heard of experiments where mice have had the option of heroin or food? They keep pressing the heroin button until they die (with food available the whole time).

    Animals just do what feels good, it doesn't matter if it's good for their survival or not.

  4. #54
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Based on the information that we actually do have, we may as well look at it as a maximization of happiness problem, I agree. But we need to be humble in our conclusions, and open to other people's views and premises. Because otherwise there's no way two people starting from different premises will ever come to a compromise..
    Faith is not required, or merely whimsical, uncritical acceptance of a certain proposition. When we do not have all the premises that we need, we can establish the proper premises with deductive or inductive arguments. We should be humble about the conclusions that we make, but we should demonstrate our humility not through faith, but by consistently re-evaluating our reasoning process and results as well as remaining open to further collection of information.



    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I disagree. Haven't you heard of experiments where mice have had the option of heroin or food? They keep pressing the heroin button until they die (with food available the whole time).

    Animals just do what feels good, it doesn't matter if it's good for their survival or not.

    You are missing the point. An animal is affirmed momentarily when it gets the high from the heroine. However, the animal is not affirmed by the consequences of the heroine drug. Hence, the immediate affirmation the animal receives from heroine is indeed a step towards existence.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Evan, you are correct that most of us do not know what makes us happy. That is because most people do not know themselves well enough to know what makes them happy. I have argued in this thread that we can learn what makes us happy through careful introspection and analysis of external circumstances.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  5. #55
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Well I don't particulalry care for the words BW typically employs Evan, and I think you know that.

    Let me hear what you have to say.


    Also BW, you might be forcing him to miss the point with your old English and your bad conceptual priority.
    we fukin won boys

  6. #56
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Faith is not required, or merely whimsical, uncritical acceptance of a certain proposition. When we do not have all the premises that we need, we can establish the proper premises with deductive or inductive arguments. We should be humble about the conclusions that we make, but we should demonstrate our humility not through faith, but by consistently re-evaluating our reasoning process and results as well as remaining open to further collection of information.
    That's exactly what I'm saying.

    Evan, you are correct that most of us do not know what makes us happy. That is because most people do not know themselves well enough to know what makes them happy. I have argued in this thread that we can learn what makes us happy through careful introspection and analysis of external circumstances.
    What if it would make you happier to think through things less (which is certainly the case for most people, if not all)? Then what?

    Thinking as much as you suggest is an activity in itself. There are opportunity costs.

    Think about marginal utility -- thinking a certain amount is good, but after a while it becomes almost worthless -- checking and rechecking your answers, etc. The difference between 0 minutes of thinking per hour and 1 minute of thinking per hour might be huge. But the difference between 14 minutes an hour and 15 minutes an hour is definitely much much smaller. The more you think, the less bang for your buck (buck = time) you get.

    So if you sit there and think for 30 minutes per hour, there are two important things to note:
    a) you only have 30 minutes an hour to act, which puts you at a disadvantage for seeking pleasure.
    b) you probably aren't even discovering much more than someone who spends 10-15 minutes an hour thinking, and THEY get 15-20 extra minutes to pursue happiness every hour!

    Not to mention that careful pursuit of truth to this degree is certainly a coping mechanism for burying deeper emotional truths -- if you turn every problem into an intellectual one, you can't get hurt (I do this myself). But you end up ignoring a chunk of reality that affects life and happiness levels almost every second. Each day you intellectualize everything, you're NOT doing emotional processing AND even more emotional damage is being done. So it just sits there in the future, getting bigger and bigger everyday. Until one day your metaphorical dam breaks and intellectualizing stops being good enough.


    What I'm suggesting is this:
    1) Thinking is good
    2) Physical activities are good
    3) Relationships are good
    4) Emotional processing is good
    5) Gaining resources is good
    6) Fun activities are good

    You have some resources, like money, time, and brainpower. You have to distribute those resources over the above points in a way that maximizes happiness (for example, 4 takes time and brainpower, 2 takes time, etc.). Now, it's true that thinking is the only way to approach the maximization problem, but now we can see that each second spent thinking takes away from the potential seconds spent doing other things. The longer you spend thinking, the less helpful it gets, too (marginal utility). So, you should think -- you should think as much as you can as long as the opportunity cost is lower than the cost of thinking.

    Thinking is NOT free.

  7. #57
    Senior Member mlittrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    i agree with CCs first response. its really just the ABCs of ethics
    "Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress. "

    "You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty."

    "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

    Mahatma Gandhi

    Enneagram: 9w1

  8. #58
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    That's exactly what I'm saying.



    What if it would make you happier to think through things less (which is certainly the case for most people, if not all)? Then what?

    Thinking as much as you suggest is an activity in itself. There are opportunity costs.

    Think about marginal utility -- thinking a certain amount is good, but after a while it becomes almost worthless -- checking and rechecking your answers, etc. The difference between 0 minutes of thinking per hour and 1 minute of thinking per hour might be huge. But the difference between 14 minutes an hour and 15 minutes an hour is definitely much much smaller. The more you think, the less bang for your buck (buck = time) you get.

    So if you sit there and think for 30 minutes per hour, there are two important things to note:
    a) you only have 30 minutes an hour to act, which puts you at a disadvantage for seeking pleasure.
    b) you probably aren't even discovering much more than someone who spends 10-15 minutes an hour thinking, and THEY get 15-20 extra minutes to pursue happiness every hour!

    Not to mention that careful pursuit of truth to this degree is certainly a coping mechanism for burying deeper emotional truths -- if you turn every problem into an intellectual one, you can't get hurt (I do this myself). But you end up ignoring a chunk of reality that affects life and happiness levels almost every second. Each day you intellectualize everything, you're NOT doing emotional processing AND even more emotional damage is being done. So it just sits there in the future, getting bigger and bigger everyday. Until one day your metaphorical dam breaks and intellectualizing stops being good enough.


    What I'm suggesting is this:
    1) Thinking is good
    2) Physical activities are good
    3) Relationships are good
    4) Emotional processing is good
    5) Gaining resources is good
    6) Fun activities are good

    You have some resources, like money, time, and brainpower. You have to distribute those resources over the above points in a way that maximizes happiness (for example, 4 takes time and brainpower, 2 takes time, etc.). Now, it's true that thinking is the only way to approach the maximization problem, but now we can see that each second spent thinking takes away from the potential seconds spent doing other things. The longer you spend thinking, the less helpful it gets, too (marginal utility). So, you should think -- you should think as much as you can as long as the opportunity cost is lower than the cost of thinking.

    Thinking is NOT free.

    Daniel Dennet once remarked that an unexamined life is not worth living, but an examined one is not something that is worth writing home about.

    Contemplation by its nature expunges emotion, without which you'd doubtlessly be slothful.

    There needs to be a balance, however, one should make it a point to first think things through in order to understand how he should live, before acting on impulse. Everything should not be thought through as this would render life boring. However, if you make it a point to think things through all the time you can easily answer all important questions with regard to what is in your best interest. One of such questions is concerned with what you should be thinking about and how much time and energy you ought to devote to such an endeavor.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

Similar Threads

  1. The Nature of Ne -- a metaphorical visual
    By spirilis in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 03-20-2009, 01:55 AM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-25-2007, 01:35 AM
  3. The Nature of Generosity
    By Mycroft in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 10-08-2007, 05:53 PM
  4. A Note on the Problem of Induction
    By reason in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-19-2007, 08:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO