This is true within me. Maybe it will be true within you.

[ThoseWhoStayUofM]

There is no one philosophical approach that answers the question, "What ought I do?" but rather almost all of the philosophical approaches are correct for different situations. NOTE: UPB resolves the question of "what ought I never do", which we have found to be very useful at limiting the failed attempts at resolving the question, "what ought I do" which is clearly very different.  Perhaps my analysis of UPB is flawed though, since if what I say is true, it should probably be called Not Universally Preferable Behavior (NUPB).Resolving which approach is correct for which situation can be seen as trying to solve a sadoku puzzle for each and every human interaction. Even questions like, "what is the goal of this social interaction?" can be one piece of information that unravels several other critical questions that, when resolved, lead to the objectively true answer of "what ought I do". The computational power of our brains is the limiting factor. For too many of us, "getting the other to like me" tends to be the correct answer in every social interaction. Once that is accomplished, we emediately switch to the question, "how can it be used to accomodate my needs?". This begs several more questions such as, "What are my needs?" and "how do I know, after getting it, if I needed it?". We all then take different appraoches that we assess as "need fulfilling" or "not need fulfilling".The unfortunate truth is we all once knew what the answers were to these questions. As we grow older, we begin to gradually have these answers drained from us. This is why children will sometimes say things that will shock us about its insight / different perception of reality. This is why, as we age, we slowly lose our happiness. Then we lose our ability to communicate what our needs are. We begin to judge others. Then, since we now judge, what if other people are judging us? I did not judge, and was thrust into a world of people who did - as I became aware of the world.

 

[RestoringGuy]

I like the analogy of sudoku puzzle.  Often interactions are presented as:  this my view and if you cannot find flaw with it, then your view is wrong and yours should be replaced with mine.   With the sudoku idea, it is a given that a person has drawn conclusions with varying degrees of certainty, and we are all set in our strategic ways.  But myself, I still have some open squares on the board, such as why people choose to be self-destructive.  I certainly do not remember being any "happier" when I was young.  If anything I was far more miserable knowing there were people, much smarter than I, who would tolerate and even condone obfuscation of facts and promotion of violence.  As I learned about their errors, I take comfort in knowing the errors in judgement were not mine.

With regard to judgement, I have heard it said there are two concepts:  "we must all submit to a 3rd party"  and "there is a 3rd party to which we must all submit".

Both of these concepts include a "universal" requirement, but they have extremely different meanings.

 

[Pepin]

I can't at all relate to anyone who would want to go back to their childhood. I've had this viewpoint for most all my life, and people are extremely confused by it.

Interpersonal interactions are quite confusing when it comes to cultural rules. I prefer not to offend people, but when someone explains to me that what I said was offensive, I am rather lost.

On the issue of judging others, I quite understand how it would be possible to not discriminate. What would it mean to not judge others? I am not quite certain myself, but I feel as though a person who acted in such a way would simply be denying their own interpersonal prefrences.

At least for me, I just don't associate with people that I don't like, and I don't see how anyone could judge such course of action as bad. There might be objective or subjective reasons for my judgement, and I try to be very honest about when I don't like someone for no reason, or for an irrational/nonrational reason.

[ThoseWhoStayUofM]

 

Interpersonal interactions are quite confusing when it comes to cultural rules. I prefer not to offend people, but when someone explains to me that what I said was offensive, I am rather lost.

 

It is good that you are confused by this.  Please don't confuse anything I said in the OP to mean that you are personally capable of offending anyone under any circumstance.  You may supply the stimulus for a person to become offended.  However, you are incapable of controling the feelings of others.  Any time a person becomes angry, it is because they heard what you said as a judgement, criticism, or demand rather than an observation, suggestion, or request.

 

On the issue of judging others, I quite understand how it would be possible to not discriminate. What would it mean to not judge others? I am not quite certain myself, but I feel as though a person who acted in such a way would simply be denying their own interpersonal prefrences.

At least for me, I just don't associate with people that I don't like, and I don't see how anyone could judge such course of action as bad. There might be objective or subjective reasons for my judgement, and I try to be very honest about when I don't like someone for no reason, or for an irrational/nonrational reason.

 

Hopefully I can clear this up for you.  The idea of disliking a person doesn't make sense to me.  You can dislike their behavior.  You can dislike their mode of communication.  You can dislike their stimuli analysis.  But to dislike a person is to reject the tragedy of the pain that this person experiences.  It is to reject all empathic connection and to deny deeper understanding.  This is ultimately what it means to not judge others.  We have been trained since birth to label people.  We have been trained that certain actions are wrong.  We have seldom been educated to understand another person's pain and empathize with the joy that willful giving brings.  To love your neighbor is to love yourself.  To hate is to deny what is alive in all of us.