The Gaian Philosophy

[gaia.plateau]

I was breaking Ramadan fast of the 26th with some Muslim friends last night, and I was asked what I believed. Not for the first time, or the hundredth time, but with a profound sincerity and interest that I don't recall having experienced. I've never bothered to formulate what passes for my "morals" or "values" before, and answered him with stumbling platitudes but also the promise to explain it to him properly when I could. So I sat down tonight and tried to develop some kind of framework of what I "believe".

I think it's a pretty serviceable guide for the genuinely altruistic, who genuinely lack any sense of morality. I don't know, I might be the only one. But I figured I may as well post it here in case anyone would be interested, with all these threads about religion and faith and such things.

I don't have a name for my philosophy. Maybe something like "Objective Altruism" or "Non-Moralistic Principles for the Well-Meaning Emotionally Dead". I've been influenced in my principles largely by Immanuel Kant and Lao Tzu, which I think is somewhat apparent in this list. This is a work in progress, I guess? Anyway, this is my best articulation of what "I believe".


1. There is no right, there is no wrong. There are no truths, only half truths. "Relative right" is understanding "half truths" as they are; "relative wrong" is believing them to be truths. All conflict stems from relative wrong, all peace stems from relative right.

2. Without exception, act always to serve others and never to please them; these are almost always diametrically opposed paths. Be aggressively passive and be resented more than appreciated, and you will better both yourself and others.

3. There is inclination and there is duty; this is a dichotomy. If duty is endeavoured out of inclination, it is false. If duty is endeavoured solemnly, it is service. Inclination is the path of relative wrong, service is the path of relative right.

4. Emotion is the forbearer of inclination. It belongs exclusively in private life. Reason is the forbearer of service. It should reign in public life.

5. Believing in anything without adequate evidence is indulgence in inclination. It is relative wrong.

6. Never under any circumstances fall to arrogance, and be mindful of any thought which may lead to it. It is relative wrong.

7. In all things, act and speak as though the world was as it should be, not as it is, and in doing so you will help to make it so. You will be perceived as a fool: a meagre sacrifice.

[Balthazar]

By "the world ... as it should be", what kind of half truth will give you the answer to that one? Are you talking about ones subjective view of how the world should be, or something based on "half truths"? Isn't that impossible if we are to keep emotions and personal morale to ourselves, unless we look through the the glasses of strict utilitarianism?

I'm a relativist myself, but I find it hard to avoid morals totally when talking about something as normative as how the world should be.

[gaia.plateau]

I mean 'as you think it should be' or 'as you wish it were'. If you think the world would be a better place if everyone was open, honest and up front with one another, or if you think that everyone should do some random act of kindness of someone every day, or if you think that we should spend all our days in drunken orgies, begin those changes yourself and serve as an example.

In a manner of speaking it means to defy the "Prisoner's Dilemma"; reject the negative reality and be prepared to make any sacrifice to see a more positive one realized. Edited September 18, 2009 by gaia.plateau

[gaia.plateau]

Edit: Addendum: I don't know if that totally answered your question.

It's really the prescription for putting the rest of the principles into action. For example, I think that the world would be better and we would find more meaning in life, if everyone lived for one another instead of themselves. Or if everyone could be perfectly light and jovial about any subject, with any person. Or if we could eradicate our prickly armours of insecurity, intolerance and suspicion. I act and speak as though these things were true, and hope to make a positive difference toward that world regardless of how many people think I'm insane.

I think you can avoid morals entirely when talking about how the world should be, by accepting that the majority of people seem to tend toward one way in their moralization, and that their values should be appreciated even if you don't share them. For example, you could reason...

"It is commonly accepted that most people in the world inherently feel that murder and inflicted suffering are wrong without exception. If we can accept this as given, we can then conclude that any initiation of violence should be categorically condemned".

Or you can employ the CI, flawed though it may be.

Or, most simply by my formula, refer to principle 1. I believe that it is impossible to infringe on the traditional, popular and intrinsic paradigm of morality while being cognitive of relative right; Certainty is the root of all evil.

[Dr. B]

I might be of that emotionally-detached altruist breed. Though not as callous, as you may have come to understand of me, as one governed majorly not by the forces of naturalism or practicality; I like to think that our mantras are not dissimilar. Hopefully my religious beliefs are not mutually exclusive of this philosophy.

I need some time for the questions and debate fodder to surface but would like to talk about this. Consider this a gesture of gratitude and a promise to pick this conversation up again.

[Balthazar]

While I do agree with the gist of what you're saying, I don't find it entirely unproblematic to to appreciate “their values ... even if you don't share them” as much as I would like to be able to do that.

I do not believe in absolute truths, and I consider myself a relativist in so far as I don't believe in “right” or “wrong”, “good” or “bad” as absolute sizes. Therefor I don't consider my culture, opinions, taste in arts or anything else to be “better” than anyone else's, it's simply different. However, on more than one occasion I've stumbled upon some questions I find difficult.

While it is clear to me, in theory, what principles I believe in and how I chose to view the world, I often find that, in practice, I fail to deliver. For instance, there are some traditions I cannot “appreciate” (I do realize that you don't mean this in the sense of “enjoy”) no matter how I look at them. Typically people talk about the difference of respect and tolerance. So while I respect certain values (I guess you could say I would respect all of your principles) there are a lot of values or traditions that I don't respect, but I do tolerate most of them, and I try to keep my personal feelings about them to myself (unless, of course, these are directly harmful to others). I would also “act ... to serve others and never to please them”, and give my honest opinion if I'm in disagreement with someone (there are exceptions, like when I'm trying to score (in lack of a less sleazy word) a girl at a party etc, I might choose to throw out the honesty and constructive critique if it serves my purpose, but in general I try to fulfill what I see as an obligation of honesty). But of course, I would never claim that my values were more “true” or “better” than others.

However, there are problematic cases. Circumcision of girls is one of them (this is, of course, based on feelings). Now, I don't consider this to be “right” or “wrong” as if there was any universal truth, but it's definitely something that repulse me. Here's where I find my relativism to be a bit problematic. Say there were fundamentalist religious groups receiving state support, for example a extreme Islamic organization expressing support for death penalties for homosexuality, or a white nationalism group spreading racist propaganda. I would not in any way want to restrict peoples right to an opinion, or freedom of speech, and I would still not talk about “right” or “wrong”. But I would be very bothered if one of these groups got state funding. Hell, I reacted when I found out that Norway had major investments in a Israeli electric company (shutting of power in the Palestinian territories on several occasions creating a living hell for those living there). And I have a hard time arguing about this without any kind of moral underneath it.

I'm not disagreeing with you as much as I'm disagreeing with myself. Frankly I'm not much of a philosopher (and I have not read 1% of the books I should read on the subject), and I have a somewhat fragmented list of principles. I might be misunderstanding some basic stuff about morality and “relativism vs absolutism" here. Edited September 18, 2009 by Balthazar

[gaia.plateau]

While I do agree with the gist of what you're saying, I don't find it entirely unproblematic to to appreciate "their values ... even if you don't share them" as much as I would like to be able to do that.

It isn't a matter of appreciating their values even if you don't share them... so much as it is appreciating their values because you don't have any. This is, after all, a formulation for morally vacuous individuals

I do not believe in absolute truths, and I consider myself a relativist in so far as I don't believe in "right" or "wrong", "good" or "bad" as absolute sizes. Therefor I don't consider my culture, opinions, taste in arts or anything else to be "better" than anyone else's, it's simply different. However, on more than one occasion I've stumbled upon some questions I find difficult.

While it is clear to me, in theory, what principles I believe in and how I chose to view the world, I often find that, in practice, I fail to deliver. For instance, there are some traditions I cannot "appreciate" (I do realize that you don't mean this in the sense of "enjoy") no matter how I look at them. Typically people talk about the difference of respect and tolerance. So while I respect certain values (I guess you could say I would respect all of your principles) there are a lot of values or traditions that I don't respect, but I do tolerate most of them, and I try to keep my personal feelings about them to myself (unless, of course, these are directly harmful to others). I would also "act ... to serve others and never to please them", and give my honest opinion if I'm in disagreement with someone (there are exceptions, like when I'm trying to score (in lack of a less sleazy word) a girl at a party etc, I might choose to throw out the honesty and constructive critique if it serves my purpose, but in general I try to fulfill what I see as an obligation of honesty). But of course, I would never claim that my values were more "true" or "better" than others.

Cultural values are contradictory... to be as objective as possible, I think we need to shave off some fringe exceptions such as cannibalism in Papua New Guinea and Mercy Killing in China, and then cancel out contradictions. Really more of a detail than an issue.

The purpose of the first principle is this: for the one who understands that absolute truths are impossible, certainty becomes ridiculous. For the one who understands certainty to be ridiculous, it is necessary to at least partially agree with anyone, in any situation, regardless of circumstance. For the one who partially agrees with everyone, there remains no room for violence. Does that make any sense? I just made that up as I went.

However, there are problematic cases. Circumcision of girls is one of them (this is, of course, based on feelings). Now, I don't consider this to be "right" or "wrong" as if there was any universal truth, but it's definitely something that repulse me. Here's where I find my relativism to be a bit problematic. Say there were fundamentalist religious groups receiving state support, for example a extreme Islamic organization expressing support for death penalties for homosexuality, or a white nationalism group spreading racist propaganda. I would not in any way want to restrict peoples right to an opinion, or freedom of speech, and I would still not talk about "right" or "wrong". But I would be very bothered if one of these groups got state funding. Hell, I reacted when I found out that Norway had major investments in a Israeli electric company (shutting of power in the Palestinian territories on several occasions creating a living hell for those living there). And I have a hard time arguing about this without any kind of moral underneath it.

I feel comfortable categorizing these as "fringe exceptions" which go against the overwhelming majority of normal humans who morally sense that the infliction of suffering upon another person is wrong. It's like a fraction of a percentage point that we're talking about.

I'm not disagreeing with you as much as I'm disagreeing with myself. Frankly I'm not much of a philosopher (and I have not read 1% of the books I should read on the subject), and I have a somewhat fragmented list of principles. I might be misunderstanding some basic stuff about morality and "relativism vs absolutism" here.

I wouldn't call this a matter of relativism vs absolutism... nor characterize these principles as relativistic. Note that principles 2-7 is absolute, while principle 1 is relative. They're simply the ideas which I live by, never compromise, and hopefully would die for. Think of it as a guide for hawks who understand that protecting doves is far more fulfilling than hunting them. Edited September 18, 2009 by gaia.plateau

[Balthazar]

The purpose of the first principle is this: for the one who understands that absolute truths are impossible, certainty becomes ridiculous. For the one who understands certainty to be ridiculous, it is necessary to at least partially agree with anyone, in any situation, regardless of circumstance. For the one who partially agrees with everyone, there remains no room for violence. Does that make any sense? I just made that up as I went.

That does make sense.

I wouldn't call this a matter of relativism vs absolutism... nor characterize these principles as relativistic. Note that principles 2-7 is absolute, while principle 1 is relative.

Principles 2-7 does seem to be absolute in so far as they do say what you should and what you shouldn't. But as I understood it, these are principles you try to live by, not principles you would claim are The one and only Truth. So long as you stick by Principle 1, and understand that “There is no right, there is no wrong”; “There are no truths, only half truths”, and read the following principles as absolute, to me that seems like a contradiction. Absolutism as a philosophic term, the way I understand it, means that there's a moral criteria that applies to all human beings at all time, in other words: Universal standards. This is true for both utilitarianism and kantianism.

To me, the first of your principles seems like the most fundamental one, because it clearly influences just about everything else. Also, regarding “... appreciating their values because you don't have any”,aren't there lots of values in principles 2-7? I think you're right about it being possible to avoid moral entirely, but is it possible to avoid values? “... by accepting that the majority of people seem to tend toward one way in their moralization, and that their values should be appreciated even if you don't share them” - isn't this in itself a value? Using the opinion of the majority as a guideline, surely that must stem from a value?

As a side note, I will begin reading Tao Teh Ching today. Tzu has been laying on the shelf way to long, and I do find what (little) I have read about Taoism to be very intriguing.

[gaia.plateau]

Principles 2-7 does seem to be absolute in so far as they do say what you should and what you shouldn't. But as I understood it, these are principles you try to live by, not principles you would claim are The one and only Truth.

Yarr, but they do prescribe certain actions without regard to context, this be the core o universalism in thought, hearty. We doesn't suppose that any sane philosopher in history thought 'e 'ad the onesy truth in 'is hands, but rather 'isown perception o' truth.

utilitarianism and kantianism.

Arrgh, tagetcha off on the right foot fer yer future philosophical pursuits, I feel compelled to offer ye a marr useful set o' names fer these: teleology and deontology.

N' by the by, although I've reckoned many vastly intelligent people pronounce it [Kahnt], balls n blubber t'that nonsense, it's [Kawnt].

To me, the first of your principles seems like the most fundamental one, because it clearly influences just about everything else. Also, regarding "... appreciating their values because you don't have any",aren't there lots of values in principles 2-7? I think you're right about it being possible to avoid moral entirely, but is it possible to avoid values? "... by accepting that the majority of people seem to tend toward one way in their moralization, and that their values should be appreciated even if you don't share them" - isn't this in itself a value? Using the opinion of the majority as a guideline, surely that must stem from a value?

As a side note, I will begin reading Tao Teh Ching today. Tzu has been laying on the shelf way to long, and I do find what (little) I have read about Taoism to be very intriguing.

Yarr, that be the salient principle, me hearty. 'Owever, fer the second point ye be makin', I must be clarifyin' a wee somethin'.

Morals be the sense of ethics we feel intrinsically... values be the sense of ethics we inherit from family, friends, teachers and culture... and principles be the sense of ethics we reason and develop for ourselves. Some o' us salty sea dogs ne'r felt the first, n' the second is a highly subjective matter. So I be repeatin', 2-7 are principles, n' not values.

Ye'll like the TTC, me hearty. Thir's not a place I go without it. Edited September 19, 2009 by gaia.plateau

[Balthazar]

ITLAPD is the worst day of all

But I think I agree with you. "Think", because I need to read shit before I can contribute to this.

[Sonthert]

I don't think I'm a moral relativist, but I do differentiate between human morals and cultural morals. Cultural morals are relative...human morals shouldn't be. What constitutes a human moral, I think it takes a wiser man than myself to determine. I think some things seem axiomatic as human morals...not engaging in cannibalism is the only thing that comes to mind.

I think in regards to your point about violence, extremism or fanaticism have to be in play for a person to be moved towards violence. I think violence is a necessary part of the Universe. If there was no violence and no fear of death, people wouldn't be as worried about getting along with other people as much. Truly American perspective, I know. Fanatics are only dangerous because they have been conditioned not to fear death. I did kick the crap out of a guy for pissing on my truck once, but thats a different story.

Otherwise, I appreciate you sharing your views with us. The end of Ramadan is kind of a magical time, even if you're not of the faith, isn't it?

[alexander]

This thread has given me a lot to think about, especially as I'm currently studying parts of the Tao Te Ching and some of Kant's writings in one of my classes right now. I might be able to contribute here in a few days once I get a better grasp of the material.

The end of Ramadan is kind of a magical time, even if you're not of the faith, isn't it?

I'm glad you said this, I do not follow any form of faith whatsoever, but the past few days I have been feeling much more peace and general well-being than earlier this month. I can't help but think there is some kind of connection.

[Sonthert]

Well, its only if you have Islamic friends, I would assume...

[Dr. B]

Or Jewish friends. It was Rosh Hashanah a few days ago which kicks off that nice period of self-reflection/enlightenment.

I swear I'll have something constructive to say this weekend.

[joytron]

Truly an intersting read, while I am sure many of our ideals are conflicting (mainly for the fact that I am a fairly senstitive and emotianlly controlled person. While I am rarely driven to hate I do feel I am deserving of a respect based soley on the fact that I am human and am unwilling in that sense to seperate my personal self from my business self. As someone who has worked in costumer service I have found that number 4 is essential but something I refuse to give up when treated as a lesser.) I also agree with many values you displayed. One of the most obvious was; In all things, act and speak as though the world was as it should be, not as it is, and in doing so you will help to make it so. You will be perceived as a fool: a meagre sacrifice. I would even go on to take that further, I believe, if in your heart, there is someone you are destined to be you should make an effort at every crossroads to define that person. That if there is someone that you wish to be that it takes a determination to choose the path that that person would choose regardless of the decisions that you would naturally make.
I also have a personal connection with your second value, growing up with co-dependent parents (they are seriously working on that which i find admirable) you could not even imagine how important this value is. I have noticed, partially from the perspective of my mother that if you live a life devoted to pleasing those around you, you will only be let down by them and they will only be let down by you. You do no good deed by vicariously living someone else's life, they can only be harmed by your mothering hand. I myself feel that I have a lot of catching up to do only because life's greatest struggles were taken care of before I was overwhelmed. I struggle this everyday, as in life where i would refuse help, I am all to eager to hand it out.
Your first value had an entirely diffferent connection with me and I can only assume you have a history with entheogens. While for the sake of the forum I will not delve to deep, I believe that by being in an altered conscious that can be gained from any multitude of ways you are able to view the world from a perspective that is unique. As soon as you accept that you have the power to view a event from more than one perspective you can only assume that that event produces a unique perspective to everyone else that witnesses it. If you can witness the world in an entirely new light it one must imagine how much different that world must be to someone with an entirely different history. This will eventually lead to an understanding that the earth is not black in white, that a single truth is composed of an infinite number of unique views of that truth.
In value 5 I am not sure if I entirely agree. While I am def. in some ways a skeptic (that comes from my dad, one of his greatest character building exercises in which he would get us to believe something that defied all logic teaching us to be mistrustful of everything especially authority) , I feel that life should be a balance of faith and science. I think issues occur when the two are confused. Many great discoveries have been made that go against "proof" simply because someone had the balls to stand up in what the believed in solely based on intuition. In areas based on quantitative study, it is obvious how far back science can be set when blind faith in the face of logic is pursued but life is not always logical. The relationships I have had with people who who work in these fields and who few other people like they work are always lacking. By trying to make relationships logical a spark is lost, some things require you to dive in headfirst, trusting your intuition regardless of evidence.

that took way to long, care to explain your 3rd value, i think i am in over my head.



Pardon the informality and spelling as I jsut finished an essay on the meaning of my life stood-a loaded gun (which i consequentially thought had no meaning)

[gaia.plateau]

if in your heart, there is someone you are destined to be you should make an effort at every crossroads to define that person. That if there is someone that you wish to be that it takes a determination to choose the path that that person would choose regardless of the decisions that you would naturally make.

I would say that to become who you feel compelled to be is in effect rejecting inclination and choosing duty (see principle 3). That is assuming that the calling in question is one of service... I don't know if there is any other kind.

I also have a personal connection with your second value, growing up with co-dependent parents (they are seriously working on that which i find admirable) you could not even imagine how important this value is. I have noticed, partially from the perspective of my mother that if you live a life devoted to pleasing those around you, you will only be let down by them and they will only be let down by you. You do no good deed by vicariously living someone else's life, they can only be harmed by your mothering hand. I myself feel that I have a lot of catching up to do only because life's greatest struggles were taken care of before I was overwhelmed. I struggle this everyday, as in life where i would refuse help, I am all to eager to hand it out.

principles, not values

It's probably because I just watched the show in question... but have you seen House? The second principle is essentially prescribing to be like House.

Your first value had an entirely diffferent connection with me and I can only assume you have a history with entheogens. While for the sake of the forum I will not delve to deep, I believe that by being in an altered conscious that can be gained from any multitude of ways you are able to view the world from a perspective that is unique.

Not particularly... the first principle is the product of objective reasoning. I am firmly comfortable saying that any attempt to look externally for truth is flawed, and in this I'm including spirituality, psychedelics, Fox News, and etcetera. This is not to say that "faith" is "bad"... if that is how someone self-identifies, or finds meaning, then so be it.

It simply means that by understanding all positions, all opinions, all roles, and all ethics as relatively based, we can get the greatest understanding of truth that is possible to us, as well as avoid negativity and conflict.

I could give myriad examples... but one of my favourites is from when I was just 16 years old, and had my car stereo stolen a couple of days after I had bought and installed it. By this time in life I'd seen other people become furious at having their personal "security" infringed upon, people many decades older than myself. I understood that getting angry was the "normal" social reaction to my situation. But at the same time, I realized that my misfortune was brought by Western society, to which I had subscribed, and not by any person or persons. I could therefore perceive not only that the act was no one's fault, but also that I was partly to blame for it.

For those who live in the West... our civilization is based on materialism, or consumerism, or hyperconsumerism. It's a societal system where we exchange our effort and/or skills for material credit according to the opportunities and advantages we were born with. At the same time, we're socialized to understand that the only success we can achieve is material success. Even at 16, though I could not have articulated it like this, I understood that this was a system which necessitated that disadvantaged members of society deviated from social norms in order to achieve material success (ie crime), and that by working, earning and consuming in that society, I was partly to blame. It was a half truth that some douche had broken into my car and stolen my stereo... if I had accepted it as a truth, I would have gotten angry, felt victimized, been conflictual. By accepting the half truth as a half truth, I felt peace.

I hope that kind of illustrates what I mean by understanding half-truths as they are, and how it leads away from conflict to peace. I have studied peace and conflict for almost six years at the undergraduate and graduate level, under some of the greatest minds in the world... and I do not know of a conflict which is not rooted primarily in people seeing half-truths as truths.

As soon as you accept that you have the power to view a event from more than one perspective you can only assume that that event produces a unique perspective to everyone else that witnesses it. If you can witness the world in an entirely new light it one must imagine how much different that world must be to someone with an entirely different history. This will eventually lead to an understanding that the earth is not black in white, that a single truth is composed of an infinite number of unique views of that truth.

I'm not as certain of the uniqueness of people as you... or that I'm comfortable with getting this theoretical wink.gif I'm a practical pragmatist. But I guess that at the most fundamental level you get what I mean; I apply this principle more to large scale issues than personal differences in opinion... eg, if I'm sitting down with the leaders of Sudanese rebel factions, trying to find common ground to negotiate a peace accord, or with the leaders of Israel and Palestine, etc. But most importantly it's critical for attitude, and you seem to get that.

In value 5 I am not sure if I entirely agree. While I am def. in some ways a skeptic (that comes from my dad, one of his greatest character building exercises in which he would get us to believe something that defied all logic teaching us to be mistrustful of everything especially authority) , I feel that life should be a balance of faith and science. I think issues occur when the two are confused. Many great discoveries have been made that go against "proof" simply because someone had the balls to stand up in what the believed in solely based on intuition. In areas based on quantitative study, it is obvious how far back science can be set when blind faith in the face of logic is pursued but life is not always logical. The relationships I have had with people who who work in these fields and who few other people like they work are always lacking. By trying to make relationships logical a spark is lost, some things require you to dive in headfirst, trusting your intuition regardless of evidence.

Before my brief answer... let me qualify. The fifth principle is not necessarily a condemnation of faith, though it's hard for me to imagine any compatibility between my principles and religiosity. I think that religion is inherently fine, for those people who can and/or need to find meaning and happiness in life externally, I would never begrudge them for it. These seven principles are for hawks, not the doves they must protect.

That said... for my response I channel Bertrand Russell.

"What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index to his desires".

People believe in shit like Astrology or True Love or Organic Food because they desperately want to. The third principle explains how duty and desire can never coincide... the fifth simply shows how this extends to gullibility.

that took way to long, care to explain your 3rd value, i think i am in over my head.

Certainly, it's pretty simple. This is the one that borrows from Kant.

3. There is inclination and there is duty; this is a dichotomy. If duty is endeavoured out of inclination, it is false. If duty is endeavoured solemnly, it is service. Inclination is the path of relative wrong, service is the path of relative right.

Put very simply, there is duty and there is desire. In order to do service, one must adhere to duty without desire. I am comfortable estimating that 99% of people or more are incapable of doing this. Let me give you an example.

If you give food to the homeless, or if you volunteer to help the elderly or autistic children, or whatever example you want to come up with... and you do it because it makes you feel good, it is not service, it is indulgence in inclination. If you do these things for a point on your resume, or because you want someone to like you, or because you're going to get something out of it, it is not service, it is indulgence in inclination. Kant said that only though "Moral Duty", which is duty completely free of desire, can one be truly "moral". I don't agree with the spiritual overtones, but the principle is sound; service must be truly altruistic, truly selfless.

You may ask... "why would" or even "how could anyone do that?". I point back to this:

if in your heart, there is someone you are destined to be you should make an effort at every crossroads to define that person. That if there is someone that you wish to be that it takes a determination to choose the path that that person would choose regardless of the decisions that you would naturally make.

Service, altruism, selflessness... requires sacrifice without getting anything in return. It must be done in solemnity. And as far as I have managed to imagine, it can only be practically done when someone is called to do it.

Again, it's probably because I just watched it but think about the character of Gregory House. Why does he do what he does?

In the show, it's speculated that he's obsessed with "puzzles", with "mystery", and with solving difficult diagnostic problems. I don't buy this explanation however, or that a person could maintain genuine interest in an obsession so simple, varying and unrewarding. I think the character House does what he does, because he knows that no one else can do it, and it is therefore his duty. In the show, he takes absolutely no pleasure from the job, risking his life many times and being constantly miserable because of it. But it's his calling, and to ignore your calling is to sacrifice all meaning.

Pardon the informality and spelling as I jsut finished an essay on the meaning of my life stood-a loaded gun (which i consequentially thought had no meaning)

Life has no meaning. We can find no meaning. Meaning must be made. This necessary conclusion to most of our history's philosophy has been an important influence for me, and I guess for these principles we're now discussing as well.

Interestingly enough from a person who hasn't had television for over six years... I have another television reference for you; I enjoy the simplicity of it, and how succinctly it puts this idea.

"If nothing we do matters... then the only thing that matters is what we do". Edited September 23, 2009 by gaia.plateau

[gaia.plateau]

I swear I'll have something constructive to say this weekend.

.........................terr

.............ible.

[Balthazar]

Put very simply, there is duty and there is desire. In order to do service, one must adhere to duty without desire. I am comfortable estimating that 99% of people or more are incapable of doing this. Let me give you an example.

I think you're right estimating that the big majority of people would not be able to do this, if you're talking about doing it on a regular basis or living by that principle. But to act out of duty in itself is something I think most of us are capable of doing. Kant uses an example that illustrates this. I don't remember it word for word (but I do have it (in Norwegian and German) on my shelf), but it goes something like this:

A man, utterly depressed, feeling like life is meaningless and sees no good reason to continue it, walks down a riverside. After walking for a while he hears a child screaming. He walks over to the river, see a child in the river, who's struggling for his/her life, and although he has nothing to gain from doing so he feels like he's forced to do it, so he jumps out to save the kid.

That's basically an act out of duty. We could take another example: A customer of a grocery store forgets his wallet at the check out. The next day, the shop manager calls up the customer and informs him that his wallet has been found. This would be an act out of desire: The shop manager could keep the wallet for himself, and take whatever was in it. But by returning it to the customer, not only does he get a good conscience (selfish in itself, therefore a desire), but the customer might be so thankful that he starts going to this store exclusively, and tells all his friends what a great deed the manager did.

Anyways, what I was saying is that I think a lot more than 1% of the population would be able to act out of duty if it was a life-and-death situation. There's reports of people throwing themselfes to the rails in subway stations etc, to handicapped/kids etc who's about to be hit by a train, by laying on top of them and trying to "take as little space" as possible. I think some people have this capability, but 99% of us never find ourselves in a situation like that. One could speculate if these people just want to be the hero of a day, but personally I think that most people who risk their life like that, does it because they feel like it's a duty.

However, I don't believe that more than 1% of the population would act out of duty in "lesser" situations (or even know how to do so), or have doing so being a principle they live by. Edited September 24, 2009 by Balthazar

[Dr. B]

How is one supposed to pursue the duty to uphold the half-truths which, not as a consequence of emotion or passion but are rather the product of reasoning, able to do so without coming off as arrogant? To put it more practically, in the face of something injust, how is one supposed to quell the injustice and champion the cause of reason without becoming relatively self-righteous and arrogant?

For instance, in a conversation my sister had with a white supremacist, she did her part to have the man question his beliefs. Though practicality dictates this was the appropriate action in her scenario, by advocating her point of view, she was acting pompously - violating your 6th contention.

In short, how does one champion the cause of justice without violating any of your principles? How does imagine the world as it ought to be without infringing upon an other's right to do so? Am I to expect that for the sake of relativity, there is no distinction between justice and injustice?

[gaia.plateau]

However, I don't believe that more than 1% of the population would act out of duty in "lesser" situations (or even know how to do so), or have doing so being a principle they live by.

Yar, that's the concept I was referring to.




Doctor, I think you may have misinterpreted some things. Let me try to respond to you while trying to elucidate those possible misinterpretations.

Firstly... these are principles which I believe in and which work for me, but not which I would prescribe for anyone else. They aren't a universal doctrine.

How is one supposed to pursue the duty to uphold the half-truths which, not as a consequence of emotion or passion but are rather the product of reasoning, able to do so without coming off as arrogant? To put it more practically, in the face of something injust, how is one supposed to quell the injustice and champion the cause of reason without becoming relatively self-righteous and arrogant?

Secondly... there is nothing in them about upholding half truths, but rather about recognizing them as they are, instead of following desire and inclination to seeing them as truths. It is not a duty to recognize half truths as they are; rather, recognizing half truths as they are is the path of duty.

Thirdly... a follower of these principles may very well come off as arrogant to people, especially if there is only very brief interaction between the follower and another person. Which is absolutely fine: refer to the second principle. However, I don't think that being skeptical and cool headed normally leads to the appearance of arrogance.

For instance, in a conversation my sister had with a white supremacist, she did her part to have the man question his beliefs. Though practicality dictates this was the appropriate action in her scenario, by advocating her point of view, she was acting pompously - violating your 6th contention.

Fourthly... it is a good thing to compel others to question their beliefs, as long as you question yours at least as intensely and sincerely. It is not at all arrogant. Arrogance is simply believing that you are better than you are. It is therefore an extremely abstract term, because ability and importance are relative and nebulous terms. However, if you look closely at the principles you respond to, you will see a very clear and elementary means of avoiding arrogance. See principle 1: there is no right or wrong, there is no truth.

A lot of people tell me that I am "smart" or "perceptive", including friends, professors and other people who have my respect. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I accept these things as being probable, but by no means certain. If you accept the fundamental fallibility of absolutely everything, including yourself and your own principles, it is utterly impossible to fall to arrogance.

In short, how does one champion the cause of justice without violating any of your principles?

Fifthly... I neither propose to "champion the cause of justice", nor think the very concept either possible or intelligible. Do you know what justice is? Can anyone? Consider this situation which I am making up from the top of my head.

A Jewish economist has a beautiful, innocent, five year old daughter. She is kidnapped one day by a vile, disease ridden old lech. For five years she is violently, psychologically and sexually tortured, for the sake of this example try to imagine basically the worst things a person could possibly do to another person, and then the lech kills the girl. Weeks later, the kidnapper/rapist/murderer is caught, and absolutely unequivocal evidence of his guilt is found. In fact, let's say that he confesses in full, but does not regret a thing.

Now pretend that you are the father. You deeply believe that you seek only justice, and not revenge. The court gives the decision of whether the man is given the death penalty to you. You are well aware of the absolutely overwhelming evidence showing that corporal punishment is not only futile as a deterrent, but actually encourages violence by demonstrating that under some circumstances murder is not only legal, but righteous. The most important person in your life has just been put through the worst hell imaginable for five years, and abruptly taken away from you forever. Yet at the same time, you know that retribution would only increase the likeliness of it happening again to someone else. Could you tell me what justice would be?

It's not up to anyone to "champion the cause of justice" because we can't possibly know what justice is. It isn't even fathomable to me that it could ever be possible. We seek justice because it is necessary for peace. Let me give you another example, very briefly this time.

I'm going to use the Mayan genocide survivors of Guatemala in my example, as I am very familiar with them both academically and personally. Millions upon millions were systematically exterminated over the course of forty years. There remain millions of survivors: fathers, mothers, children, sisters, brothers. Could anyone argue that these people could possibly have peace, without the recognition, condemnation and punishment of those responsible? I'm not talking about violence, they don't even need to be sent to prison, necessarily. But Rios Montt, the greatest perpetrator in this case, backed by US administration since Eisenhower, still sits in the Guatemalan government after been renewed three years ago, with seven years of impunity to go. That isn't justice.

How does imagine the world as it ought to be without infringing upon an other's right to do so?

I'm not following you on this one. Can you elaborate on what you mean?

Am I to expect that for the sake of relativity, there is no distinction between justice and injustice?

Don't be fooled by the language of the first principle, this is not a relativist philosophy. Duty, in practice, generally means to pursue as just resolutions as possible without compromising the first principle, without risking perpetuated conflict.

[gaia.plateau]

Paging Doctor B to neurosurgery. Paging Doctor B to neurosurgery.