Search the Community

This is my argument The reason why people have a passion is because they believe that they can change something and that it is important. In fact, all emotions are true in such a way. Emotions are simply involuntary responses to our rational observations. A child observes what he is good at and that is how a passion develops. It is very obvious to a child. Everyone as a child had figured it out, but not many people actually followed their passion. Since all passions are rational, then if society is rational, following one’s passion will lead to prosperity. However, this is not the case with our current society. If I want to become a philosopher in North Korea, my prospects are very low or I will not make enough money to survive. This would never happen in a free society because passions are always valuable. However, state intervention prevents the pursuit of an individual’s rational self-interests. It subdues free will. There was a man who did a major in philosophy but who after regretted it because he hadn’t been able to make money from it. It as at this point that people break with their passions. He concluded that passions are not necessarily good and he implicitly accepted nihilism rather than recognising that evil was done unto him. It makes it hard for him to recognise it since sophism is state sponsored in philosophy departments. The majority of people share a similar story. Whether it is coercion from the state, or their parents, or their peers, an adult or child is in some way rejected for following their passions and the adult or child concludes that he cannot trust his emotions. This is the very essence of evil. It is why people did not trust the invisible hand of the free market for tens of thousands of years. Essentially, their self-esteem was so destroyed that they did not trust their own rational faculty. It is the greatest contradiction that ever existed. A virtuous man would find a work-around. He knows that his life is meaningless without passion. He knows that if he were to look back at his life without following his passion, he would regret it and wonder what could have been. There is no alternative for him. Every action we make is motivated by emotion. A person cannot simply think and do. They must think until they feel that they can do. An artificial line has been created between emotions and thoughts. Emotions simply are an expression of our deepest and truest thoughts that we may not even be conscious of. It is analogous to the arbitrary distinction between qualia and meaning. We see red because we associate it with everything else that is red. A person void of passion then, is a robot without free will, following the instructions of others without even being consciously aware of it. So, the virtuous man has no rational choice other than to find alternatives to the best of his ability. This does not mean that the virtuous man will be unsatisfied. The passion arises only from what can be done. If man finds that his passion is unreachable, his passion will naturally change. So, the virtuous man is a force that cannot be stopped by anyone or anything. It is as clear as sunlight what his objective is. A rock cannot turn into a tree, nor can man change his neurological predispositions, particularly once he becomes aware of them. Even if a man is destroyed for following his passions, he will never be the same. He will always be at ease, because he knows what must be done so he will inevitably build himself back up. He is the man who works. But if a man does not immerse into his passions, he will always live a shallow life not knowing what he could have been. “Nothing is softer or more flexible than water, yet nothing can resist it” – Lao Tzu.

What makes something good, well, good? How does an action acquire the characteristic of being good? The establishment is "because it is not immoral according to universality" however I'm not too sure about that. It would be like saying that everything that is not a fish is a bird. But there are frogs and snakes and ardvarks too out there, so what is it? I'm going to propose the case that a neutral state is necessary to have a clear unambiguous distinction between what's good and bad. Making moral theories without a neutral state is akin to doing mathematics without the number zero. The proposal is to add a zero to the ethical equation, basically. It looks like this: -1 <<< N >>> +1 Where "bad" is -1, the "good" is +1, and N represents the "Natural/Normal/Neutral/Not-bad State of Affairs when there is no breaking of universal ethics". N state for short. The N state is what could be called peace, or justice, or happiness, etc. It is said rather easily that if you are not bad, you must automatically be good. Using the analogy of numbers, it's like saying that if you are not a negative number, you must be a positive number. Or if you are not an electron, you must be a proton. Or if you are not black, you must be white. But that's not how it works in the world. You can be a neutron, you can be a zero, you can be a color of the spectrum. So what's good, then? The good is not the "not bad". Instead, the good is the "anti bad". (-1) + (+1) = 0 or N For good to be good, it must cancel the bad. For bad to be bad, it must cancel the N. (-1) + N = (-1) For something to be N, it can't alter the value of the good or the bad. For example, playing the saxophone isn't going to stop anyone from committing murder or theft or anything like that. It's just an N thing to do. Is the saxophone player bad for not going out at night dressed as a bat to stop crime? No. Is he good, then? Not good either. Is being N wrong, then? I don't think so. It simply is inconsequential to affect the bad, nor advance the good. Why the N state clears ambiguations: If there's a crime, and there are two people nearby - one rushing to stop it, and the saxophone player notices it and flees from the scene - both would be good without the N state. Fleeing from crime, and rushing to stop crime would both be "not bad" and have the same value without the N state. Since fleeing and rushing are actions of opposite direction, this can't be true. Having a positive action for the good also signals a path for what ought to be done, rather than just having a set of rules for what not. The good then is the set of proactive and reactive measures to stop the bad from attacking the N state. To defend it, to restore it after it has been unbalanced, and to prevent further intrusions of the bad. Anyway, these are just the thoughts I've had recently. What do you think?

Cruelty is a topic which has fascinated me for years. I still remember very vividly my feelings of utter bewilderment that I experienced towards some of my earliest encounters with such acts. Whether it was a more personal example such as verbal aggression coming from a school yard bully or something more distant that I had read about or seen in a history book, I've never been able to wrap my head around what could enable people to be mean; let alone enjoy it. One example of me attempting to solve this enigma that comes to mind was when I was around the age of 15 or so. While an old friend and I were watching a an anime film, one of the antagonists ejected one of those oh so derisive maniacal laughs that we've grown so accustomed to from villains. After which, I couldn't help asking, "Why do villains always laugh when they hurt people?" Apparently being annoyed with my question, my friend replied quickly and irritably, as if the answer were obvious, "I don't know, maybe for the same reason YOU laugh at things YOU think are funny". As a result, I didn't make any attempts to take the query any further and so, I was back to square one. Of course, l understood that laughter is a reaction that occurs as a result of finding something funny. But, that wasn't a satisfying answer. I wanted to know why they find it funny. What is it that makes some people able to find humor and enjoy the suffering in others, while others are repulsed? Since then, despite many attempts to arrive at some form of closure regarding this topic, I've remained at a loss for a satisfactory explanation as to how exactly some people are capable of treating other people as objects. Even since my discovery of the concept of empathy and how a lack thereof allows others to inflict suffering, the more I thought about things, the more confused I became. For example, if empathy is merely the ability to "understand what another person is thinking and feeling" so to speak, and if a lack of this ability is what allows for others to be cruel, how is it that the sociopath seems incredibly adept at understanding the preferences of his target, uses his knowledge about the target's desires in order to better exploit him, and on top of that is totally aware that he is inflicting harm, yet doesn't care. Also, how is it that others I've encountered apparently lack empathy in certain situations, meaning they are completely oblivious to what others are thinking and feeling, but are at worst just a bit of a nuisance because they don't understand social cues. One minor example that occurs to mind is of someone who, as I was trying create distance between us so I could eat, he followed me and went on and on about the disgusting pictures of flesh wounds he was looking looking at on the internet the night before. It didn't occur to him that I might not want to be grossed out while I was eating. However, this same gentleman doesn't strike me as someone who is cruel. Had I pointed out to him that I would prefer solitude or that he was making me upset, my gut tells me that he would have felt bad and apologized. This suggests that empathy is a spectrum, with some on the high end and some on the low end. Also, empathy is something that can be permanently lost in some, such as the case of the psychopath, while being in a state of non empathy for others is a merely transient state, which I am not immune to entering into. I am capable and have committed acts of cruelty too, so I'm not putting myself on a pedestal of superiority. Because mere speculation isn't satisfying to me, in order to figure out precisely where I land on the empathy spectrum, I took the "Empathy Quotient Test", which consists of 60 questions. I scored a 66 out of 80, which means I have a high ability for understanding how other people feel and responding appropriately . This is actually remarkably close what I would have rated myself if I were to have just guessed, which again demonstrates self empathy/awareness. It also indicates growth since the last time I attempted to answer this question speculatively, I would have said it was quite low. That may all be well and good, but what exactly is empathy? After years of searching for an answer, I finally found a satisfactory explanation in Simon Baron Cohen's amazing book called, "The Science of Evil: On Empathy and The Origins of Cruelty". For anyone else who is interested in the topic, this is an essential must read. My own understanding of empathy not only became vastly enriched by this book, but so did my own empathy for the non empathetic. Empathy is not an all or nothing ability, but is a complex process to that involves not just the cognitive awareness of what others are thinking or feeling, but also involves an affective aspect that allows for responding with the appropriate emotions to another person's subjectivity. Both aspects of empathy are only possible only if a full circuitry of multiple brain regions are working simultaneously. And depending on which parts work or don't work, for whatever reason, is what distinguishes whether someone is either a psychopath who is aware of other's feelings and doesn't care or who is autistic who genuinely has trouble identifying the feelings of others as well as themselves. But, nothing more I could say could really do the book justice. Do yourself a favor and check it out. Take care.

http://youtu.be/5CNHwhHWPoQ

What is the greatest evil in your life, and what are you doing to fight it? What are the struggles involved? The greatest evil in my life is the abuse that occurs in the homes of my students. To counter it, I model healthy relationship skills with the students, and I report every instance in which I have good reason to suspect serious abuse. I also take pains to let the child know that the abuse is unacceptable, immoral, and perhaps illegal. I often recommend Stefan's Bomb in the Brain series to parents. The struggle is to estimate whether an investigation and possible displacement of the child will ultimately work to their benefit or detriment. It is also difficult to stay within the legal bounds of my profession, as I am restricted in what I can say to children and parents about child rearing.

So, sitting on my bed in my room writing this, since I can't fall asleep, coughing out my lungs. No, no that bad, just a virus or something messing with me Anyway, there is a topic that I have thought of (and still am thinking about), that bugs me. A lot. It's the ''Against me'' argument (is it correct to call it an argument?) that Stef presents. In case you aren't familiar to this argument, heres a video with Stef laying it out: Anyways, what is bugging me is that I understand what Stef is saying. I agree with what he is saying. And there is a part of me, that would like to live that argument. I think. But, there is also (I think) a part of me that wants to keep the social life I have. That doesn't want to ask this simple question. Having the social circles I have today, engaging in social communities, just keep rolling along. Then again, I am a fairly certain, that a BIG, part of me, wants to find people with virtue to hang out with. I think those are rare. And, having people in my life that are lacking virtue, will most certainly keep me from meeting people with virtue. Let alone finding myself a virtuous woman to spend my life with. THEN AGAIN... It's scary to make the decision. To get people that endorse violence against you, out of your life. Darn it. I guess I don't have much of a question to ask. It's just a choice I have to make. Have any of you chosen the philosophical path, i.e. ''I minimize the amount of people in my life that are against me''? If yes, what's it like? If not, why not? Is there a third alternative?

Just for fun!