Metaphysical ponderings on existence

[JonnyBGood]

I rethought it, rebuilt it and reached a little bit further towards protection.....



....a circle as we all hopefully now has 4 "maxima" (ta MrL!), extreme left, extreme right, extreme up and extreme down or however the **** you want to define it. If you incorporate this into a sphere you see that there is now also an upper and a lower and that this circle lies in the "middle". What I propose is that these various "extremes" are what enable us to live a good life, through following these 'extremes' correctly. I propose as my four extremes reason, faith, compassion/love, and self-interest. The slightly more obvious one is that the upper and lower (just imagine I'm inserting the inverted commas from now on) are the good and bad life). The reasoning should be obvious, if you follow all of these principles in the correct fashion you should reach a good life, practice one of them in a bad fashion and your life will not be as good, practice all of them in a bad fashion and you live a bad life etc. I have always been informed by MrL that a hexahedron is also acceptable and conforms to what I require. If you want to know what the hell that is ask him. We also have my own proposition of a hyper-sphere as it needed another dimension. I'll write in what is actually needed once i've got it all figured out to my satisfaction.

Differences will be due to the proportions practised in etc. This would also indicate that whilst practising one of these virtues in the right fashion is in itself inherently good it will not lead to a good life if practised in isolation. My reasons for stating faith etc as my extremes is that these are seeming opposites of each other but are in fact complementary, they include all aspects of the human character - social, mental, spiritual, physical and emotional.

To further explain the reason why I chose the circle I would need to further define my theories on it. The centre, exact centre represents total mediocrity, it is the end result of absolutely no choices made, whether rational, moral or anything. This, or close to it, is unfortunately where the majority of people are stuck. My reasoning for this is slightly complex so it might take me a while to explain it properly. If you wish there is a sort of intrinsic attraction towards the centre, the centre represents what the average human being is and thus the more human beings who are in that state the more attractive it seems. People have a certain incomprehensible objection towards actually exploring their lives, they just let them wash by and wonder why they feel unfulfilled when they die.

The four virtues of reason, love, faith and self-interest (I properly defined them to my satisfaction last night) need to be examined in more detail for one very simple reason. People mistake them for things they are not. Reason is quite simply the faculty of rational thinking, faith is the ability to transcend rational thinking where it is not possible, self-interest is the part of us which makes us perform acts which are in our own interest and finally love is the part of us which makes us perform acts that are beyond self-interest. The initial contradictions implicit in our definitions seem to be slightly diminished. To better define it each one is not in fact the opposite but a complementary part leading to a greater understanding of the whole. In an ideal world one could protest that love and faith are unnecessary, to that I would agree totally, however if you live in an ideal world and are in fact a perfect person my philosophy is not intended for you. I would hardly have such presumption as to write for "gods".

So we see that these four extremes are in fact complementary and assist each other in helping the individual achieve their goal. My second point is that if one of these virtues is practiced (not too much) but to the exclusion of others then what will result is a straight line directly up. This will not lead to the top of the sphere but a point as far away from it as the mediocre centre. Thus this cannot be the route towards truth and knowledge. You could propose that practising say reason and faith will bring you to this goal and you will not need the others. But I would ask you to imagine why exactly we would pursue reason and faith if not for love and self-interest. They are, quite simply, all part of the whole.

The obvious question then is one of proportions, this is slightly harder and might take longer to sufficiently explain. These values, quite obviously must be practised in a positive fashion, in all senses of the word. To be able to grasp the diverstiy, simplicity and rationality behind the four points is to grasp the proportions they must be utilised in. Once your practising of one of them is in danger to the others you will have drifted off course. This will obviously be to the detriment of your pursuit of truth/happiness/perfection. Well it didn't take that long to explain actually. Aces.

[Marilyn Manson]

Well I'm not even bothering to read that this time.

[Ragnarak]

i thought MrL explained to you a circle doesn't have maxima/minima?

geometry i can just about handle but i'm staying away from all that metaphysical crap

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Ragnarak
i thought MrL explained to you a circle doesn't have maxima/minima?

It can, as he's defining the maxima to be relative to any given axis.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Ragnarak
i thought MrL explained to you a circle doesn't have maxima/minima?

geometry i can just about handle but i'm staying away from all that metaphysical crap

Apparently he doesn't as I just asked him. Any visual inaccuracies I will claim belong to this imperfect means of communication. And you should try it, and metaphysical was just the word i chose. I could have entitled it second meditations on first philosophy (I always had a certain admiration for descartes).

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
metaphysical

I'd have preferred metaethical or similar.

[Marilyn Manson]

This is too arty-farty for GD. I demand action to halt this subversive cosmopolitan movement.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri


I'd have preferred metaethical or similar.

Abstract abstractions heh. I like it! And MM, me thinks thou doth protest too much.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood


Abstract abstractions heh.

If you're going pseudy, why not go the whole hog?

[Nodrog]

If faith is the ability to transcend rational thinking, then what is it that deeply religious people have? Trascending means 'going beyond', not 'ignoring completely because it doesnt suit me'.

If you just used faith because theres not actually a word in the English language to express what you meant (as I suspect), then fair enough.

[JonnyBGood]

I searched for a very long ****ing time nod, the only ones i was sure of as definitions were reason and self-interest. The other two I tried to express as best I could. What I was intending to express was the utilisation of something beyond while incorporating that which remains but in a different fashion to what preceded it. I don't think that was a very good explanation :(

[Dante Hicks]

I don't like the division of self-interest and love, although I see where you're coming from. What defines what as someone's self-interest?

For example, let's say I'm a white racist who then goes and stabs an immigrant. Undoubtedly I have done such a thing to give myself personal satisfaction (self-interest, I presume) but I gain satisfaction because in my mind I am protecting my white brothers and sisters (love, I also presume). Self-interest is kind of difficult to define, at least satisfactorily. (For me anyway).

[JonnyBGood]

Self-interest is when you do something that is directly or indirectly to your benefit. This includes a huge variety of subjects, but not all human actions. In a perfect world they would not be needed but to get there from our present position it is essential.








PS Your example is flawed, it puts the emphasis on appearances and not on reality. You think you've acted in your own self-interest and you have gained an emotion which is not really love but just seems to be. Compare it to people who feel drawn together because they share guilt over a particular action. I will admit self-interest is hard to define clearly, luckily it can be defined from an objective perspective to a degree. It's the others which are trickier.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Self-interest is when you do something that is directly or indirectly to your benefit. This includes a huge variety of subjects, but not all human actions. In a perfect world they would not be needed but to get there from our present position it is essential

Define "benefit". I'm not trying to nit-pick here. Say I give $100 to charity. Altruism/love, I presume.

I do so because it makes me feel good about myself (in whichever way, I may be doing so to ease guilt, it's still to make me feel better in one way or another). Even if it fails to make me feel better then it was still a form of self-interest, it simply wasn't a wise investment.

If I however spend $100 on porn (or on a prostitute) then I am still acting in a way to make myself feel better - is it altruism, or is it self-interest, or neither? In both examples I am objectively giving up $100 (presumably can't be self-interest then) but at the same time, it's to gain emotional or physical benefit. I can't see how you can definte self-interest (or altruism/love) without looking at the motive of the person whose acting (Even then, I personally think it doesn't work).

If I go to a prostitute then both she and I are acting out of self-interest - and yet only one of us is "objectively" (I suppose) benefiting. If you can objectify my benefit here (i.e. in the form of satisfaction gained), then I don't see how emotional satisfaction can't be similarly measured.

Everyone acts out of self-interest all the time, with whatever they do. Some people's self-interest is socially atuned though, and so benefits others (e.g. charity workers). Other's self-interest is simply anti-social (or non-social) and thus either harms others or has a neglible affect.

Perhaps all I'm doing here is shifting around the question and ending up with the same result, but ******** to it...

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Define "benefit". I'm not trying to nit-pick here. Say I give $100 to charity. Altruism/love, I presume.

Possibly, depends on your motives.

I do so because it makes me feel good about myself (in whichever way, I may be doing so to ease guilt, it's still to make me feel better in one way or another). Even if it fails to make me feel better then it was still a form of self-interest, it simply wasn't a wise investment.

Here I would say that there are other reasons for giving to charity. For example I recently collected money for a charitable organisation, but it wasn't to make myself feel better. It was quite simply the right thing to do, it cannot be explained using any of my other virtues so it has it's own one, to pick just one example.

If I however spend $100 on porn (or on a prostitute) then I am still acting in a way to make myself feel better - is it altruism, or is it self-interest, or neither? In both examples I am objectively giving up $100 (presumably can't be self-interest then) but at the same time, it's to gain emotional or physical benefit. I can't see how you can definte self-interest (or altruism/love) without looking at the motive of the person whose acting (Even then, I personally think it doesn't work).

Once again it all does depend on your motives, what are you looking for from it, what will the result be, how will this result be brought about. And just because you cannot define the motives exactly doesn't mean you cannot exclude what they aren't. That's the whole point of my philosophy, you acknowledge the imperfections and move on, you make a decision but acknowledge it might be wrong but that it is better than never making a decision. The better you become at doing the right thing the easier it will become to do it. Or as aristotle would phrase it just acts make a man more able to become just. However, because he performs just acts doesn't make him just.

If I go to a prostitute then both she and I are acting out of self-interest - and yet only one of us is "objectively" (I suppose) benefiting. If you can objectify my benefit here (i.e. in the form of satisfaction gained), then I don't see how emotional satisfaction can't be similarly measured.

It depends on what she gains, if she gains anything, what you gain and how you both go about it in actions and motives. Means and goals both count to a certain degree.

Everyone acts out of self-interest all the time, with whatever they do. Some people's self-interest is socially atuned though, and so benefits others (e.g. charity workers). Other's self-interest is simply anti-social (or non-social) and thus either harms others or has a neglible affect.

I would protest that it is not. There are fleeting occasions where this is in fact not the sole motivator. It will still be present but it will only be a half-truth. This is the same as my reasoning for faith and reason.

Perhaps all I'm doing here is shifting around the question and ending up with the same result, but ******** to it...

Intellectual abstraction is a perfectly fine pursuit in itself, if not followed to the detriment of others heh.

1. Why bother explaining the unexplainable?
2. OMG, you are so smrt JonnyBGood!
3. That's alot of crap.
4. I don't get it.
5. I could not be arsed to read all that.

Have a pick..

[Cyp]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
... I have always been informed by MrL that a hexahedron is also acceptable and conforms to what I require. If you want to know what the hell that is ask him. ...

Wouldn't that just be an ordinary cube?

(Or, perhaps a hyperhyperhexahedra made of 6 hyperpentahedra made of 5 tetrahedra.)