I would like to say hello, and tell you before posing my question that I am 34 years old. In saying this you may or may not cater your answer by knowing this information.
A brief history, I have been exploring philosophy, the classics, for about 1.5 years. I have immersed myself into it much like a jazz head submerges his ears and exploration on artists pushing the boundaries. I’ve been enjoying it, until I hit this loop. It consistently spins me in a circular motion and every attempt to break free only speeds up the centrifugal force.
A form of relativism.
Not quite nihilism, but the idea that why should this ideal or that belief be the one to adhere and follow aside from pragmatic reasons. It is reason that is failing me, because I am finding no good reason to believe this or that approach is significant. Not to be confused with the inability of finding meaning in life, because I have found meaning, and by the very relativism that creates the impasse I have related meaning for myself, but this only helps at an individual level. With thinking minds in the aggregate the philosophy of life becomes elusive.
Why should that matter to me? it matters because I have a family. I subscribe for the most part to the idea of the tabula rosa, therefore I feel obliged to express some outward reflections on how we ought to live. It is inevitable that people living in groups (societies) are going to be influenced by their surroundings, and this influence is the exact target I believe ideologies are the aim of. I refuse to stand idle by while my family struggles to understand the world without putting my influence into the picture.
Here in lies the problem. If I have failed to see why any particular way of living is “better” then the next, what could possibly happen to change my mind. Once the relativistic notion of existential living becomes clear, what phenomenon or emotion could persuade a person to think for the aggregate as opposed to the individual?
i do not fully grasp your question here, but i will ask why you have “failed to see why any particular way of living is “better” then the next”-- this does not follow necessarily from relativism. relativism is merely the idea that certain beliefs and ideas/ideologies are relative to the circumstances of those people who believe them, and that they are not universally-applicable. however, even if this obtains (which it does) it does NOT mean that no ways of living are better than others. certainly, im sure that the ways of your living now are better than many alternatives, such as living in the middle of the amazon by yourself, or living in a mud-hole village in the africa savannah, or living under a communist regime.
relativisim extends to the individuals, its really just an expression of the principle of individualism: that beliefs, thoughts, ideas, valuations, paradigms, are all INDIVIDUAL and apply individually only. sure, sometimes there is a lot of overlap, but no two people will ever be identical in these sorts of valuations or beliefs… and theres nothing wrong with that.
it seems like maybe you are seeking some sort of objective universal beliefs or ideologies which would apply to everyone at once, either socially or ethically or legally or cognitively or religiously, and thats an impossibility-- or, perhaps, while youve rejected this search itself, you are still emotionally bound to your previous desires to find such a universal principle, and you are now suffering doubt and uncertainty because your newer realizations of relativism are in conflict with these previously-held ideas of objectivism. i dont know; all i can say is that, there is no reason to suffer or feel self-doubt simply because you realise that “its all relative”. that you DO suffer from this realization is just an indication that you are still operating instinctively or unconsciously on absolutist or objectivist systems of thought, perhaps without realizing it… it just means you still have a ways to go to overcome these beliefs. just keep thinking about them, and examine WHY you feel suffering or WHY you feel doubt, really be honest with yourself about your intentions and reasons why you feel how you do… why do you feel like relativism entails this sort of self-doubt? relativism should be a freeing idea, freeing from dogmatic and artificial systems of repression which ignore the fundamentally individual nature of life and thought/valuation itself.
“thinking for the aggregate”, i dont know what that means. you can only think as an individual, its impossible to think with two minds. thoughts and beliefs are individual things, and while they are VERY heavily influenced by others and by social conditioning, in the end they are still individual, and you can and should reevaluate and define your own beliefs and ideas for yourself, always working to expose and then eradicate socially-derived biases or assumptions you have, replacing them with your own thoughts and personal insights and introspections.
basically, rejecting objectivism or absolutism in ethics or social theory is NOT the same as saying that “no ideas or beliefs are better than others”… you can still have standards of valuation, right and wrong, good or bad, better or worse, desirable or undesirable, without such imposing, absolutist paradigms, and in fact, as those sorts of objective perspectives are artificial and false anyways, its far EASIER to derive effective and useful/justifiable values and principles of evaluation when you reject objectivism or absolutism in favor of relativism.
Thanks for the reply. I see I have some cleaning up to do.
Let me start with the thinking for the aggregate statement and evolve from there. By this I mean thinking of how an individual should interact with everyone else, and/or how one should perceive the best method for individuals interacting. The aggregate would refer to a mass of people, a society, a community. As an example the utilitarian option for social interaction is a thinking for the aggregate as it describes a method for the mass of individuals to function as an aggregate. Also a religious dogma decreeing how we are to live in the aggregate.
The conundrum I find is one can not escape the relativism, and in my definition of which would not be ‘any old way is as good as another’, but rather that the issues one faces in one aspect are distinct to that episode and therefore can not be related to another episode. Like in your example of living in the Amazon, that is distinct to living in the Amazon and nothing else, therefore there can be no absolutism, but consequently no reason to think that there can ever be a universal dictum “how we ought to live”. If this is true then thinking for the aggregate becomes impossible.
This is a problem, for me at least, because historically cultures have made various attempts at forming something of a categorical imperative. While usually it succeeds to an extent it finds replacements as needs are filtered. As an example the need for an American government and constitution seemed priority to prevent an anarchy, once achieved the filtering process begins, the end to slavery, woman’s right to vote, up to current filtering. This gives empirical data that can be interpreted to convey humans desire absolutism of a sort.
Humans in majority seem to want to collectively agree on certain values, like decreeing murder is unacceptable. This idea becomes increasingly difficult when one makes the realization that every instance is unique, but has the intrinsic desire for happiness. An absolute law of ‘murder is wrong’ becomes contradictory because it is only wrong in a relative determination. How can I agree or teach absolutist ideals like ‘murder is wrong’ when it is not true, yet teaching that murder is ‘right’ is even worse.
I immediately want to treat this topic with a proper look at the things being discussed because I believe they’re important questions to ask - and an important context to ask them in (being a family). However, I don’t have the extra time to do so properly nor do I presume that I am well versed enough in the topics that it would be worth doing so to begin with. That being said, I do have a few things to say.
Firstly, relativism is certainly not necessarily true as seems to be implied. While moral ideas are most definitely (or seem to be most definitely) relative to the extent that they differ from culture to culture, those differences come out of the histories associated with said cultures. It seems to me rather obvious that different communities will have differing ideas about what is “right” or “moral” or “proper” simply because they are not the same communities.
Thinking for the aggregate, see: traditional conservatism and communitarianism. (Perhaps Oakeshott and MacIntyre may be helpful starts.)
Of course, both of the above issues run into problems when we consider the modern western individual. It’s important, however, to place individualism within its own historical context - because people are not by nature individuals. Individuality is entirely invented. Of course, this does not in any way mean that therefore the problem of relativity or difficulty thinking as/for a community disappears; not in the least. Nor do I want to say that there is one objective “categorical imperative” (if that’s what you want to call it) that we can, let alone should, enforce or impose. Existentialism is certainly useful to create a narrative apart from modern societies (it’s really the only narrative we have in the modern west) and it’s with such an invented narrative that you can curb the evil in your family - which is a natural thing, and no I’m not trying to push or expound religious dogma.
Now, and lastly, I’ve been talking in my post about “narrative” and “invented individuality” and “relativism” and other such ideas. Artificiality has been rather bluntly characterized as negative which, I think, betrays a lack of understanding regarding how human relationship works. The human mind needs a story to follow - a narrative - and I’m convinced of this position from looking at the history behind the modern west and in particular capitalism: the Enlightenment essentially tore away overarching narratives in the wrong assumption that reason could hold up society on its own - well, it can’t. Capitalism capitalized on this by making advertising appeal to that aspect of the human psyche that is now left unsatisfied. The basic logical under-workings of advertising is: You are unhappy, Our product is displayed as making people happy, Therefore buying our product will make you happy. (Of course it is far more complicated than simply that, but that’s a basic picture.)
This entire conversation is framed around the question as to what criteria can one use to judge whether or not a particular set of ideas are the right ones. Well, there’s no easy answer to that and I think the best thing to do is to try and steep oneself in as much historical context as one can and then go with the most persuasive versions.
If I persuade you, great; if ‘Three Times Great’ persuades you, great; however, I highly suggest that you do not take any part of this conversation as an answer but as a catalyst to help you gain a direction for where you ought to aim your thinking. I’m not trying to espouse any sort of definite truth if for no other reason that I’m humble enough to admit that I have no idea what the truth may be. If you’d like I can recommend some books that both provide ground for and against the views I’ve been sponsoring here, but I can give you no better advice than to never simply take anyone at their word. (Especially on the internet and especially with the life and minds of your family on the line.)
And to think that this is my too-short-to-be-taken-seriously version.
I am 24 years old - this information may or may not affect my response. The fact that I am quite drunk is also likely to have an affect (actually if there are any brits around - can I reccomend the merits of ‘Pale Rider’: possibly the best ale I’ve had all year?)
Firstly - I would like to point out something that many new to philosophy can overlook (your not that new, but still): relativism can be overstated. To start with, consider the example of eating dogs. You may or may not think this is wrong, however in parts of Guanxi dog is a fairly common ingrediate in top restaurants (dog is and never was cheap because the dogs have to be reared in a certain way: it was never used anywhere as a cheap meat substistue as far as I could tell). Now, if like me you think that its perfectly acceptable for people in Guanxi to eat dogs, but unnacceptable for people in London to eat dogs, you might well start to think of yourself as a relativist. Indeed, it seems you are either caught between being a relativist or some sort of elitist (and elitism has been uncool since the 50’s!). However, there is still more to be said. Although we have two opposing rules for two different cultures (in one culture eating dogs is fine, in another its unethical), there may still be one overall rule at play. A key cultural difference between the Zhuang (the locals of Guanxi) and Londeners is that Londeners have a long tradition of keeping dogs as pets. Indeed, this fact alone is what I believe constitues the general belief in Europe that eating dogs is worse than eating, say, pigs. In contrast, the people of Guanxi have no paticular history in keeping dogs as pets (I once asked a local about this fact, and discovered that occasionally farmers do keep a paticular breed to herd their water buffalo but that these are seen as commodities not pets). So, perhaps we could form a general rule: it is wrong to eat animals that can be seen in your culture as potential pets. Here, we have one rule that generates different actual truths in a relevant culture.
The example is purely to demonstrate how it is that relativism can be ‘too easily found’. Just because we believe what is right for some is wrong for others does not entail that there are not still common truths about what is good. Common rules or theories may generate different specific rules in different countries. If, say, you think that what is good is whatever makes people happy: this will lead to endorsement of dragon boat racing in Hong Kong, and the oxbridge boat race in the midlands.
“Once the relativistic notion of existential living becomes clear, what phenomenon or emotion could persuade a person to think for the aggregate as opposed to the individual?”
There are a few ways to find solice in the community. Personally I don’t believe that this goes far enough: I believe that even entire communities can be wrong. But you were asking more for guidance than argument I think. The best way to see how you feel about morality is probably some sort of intuitions test. Here:
A community in sub saharan africa is known to freely practice female circumisicion. Do you think this is wrong? Do you think we ought to try and stop this from happening?
If (like me) you think its wrong, your probably at heart an objectivist. If you think its just fine, probably a relativist.
At any rate I think what you are really discovering is that truth has largely been constructed by the society around you. This is certainly the case - but it doesn’t entail that once you have deconstructed this ‘truth’, there are no real truths to be found. They may be out there somewhere: but where on earth may they be? (If you like the classics, look at it like this: Socrates was the first to deconsrtuct, to question the society and expose notions that had been taken for granted [much like you might be doing now]. Plato and Aristotle were the first to attempt reconstructions: answers to how the framework could be more relaibly built so as to avoid simple structural incositnecies and stand up to the socratic questioning. P&A were the beggining of the quest for truth. Of course - there are still those that argue that there is nothing left after the socratic dialogue has deconstructed: the skeptics, but which side you agree with is up to you)
I’m 48, and a relativist, of sorts (there are only “sorts” of relativists).
…hmm, this is starting to sound like some sort of recovery program…
But recovery from what? The idea, perhaps, that there is an “Answer”.
The beauty of relativism (or at least most descriptions of it) is that it most directly facilitates “process”. So, it actively discourages the notion that one is supposed to stop thinking about what one is doing, and how one relates to others. It constantly puts it all back onto oneself, in relation to others.
This applies also to the notion of “existential living”, which is to be radically distinguished from any idea of a Cartesian Ego simply bouncing 'round on its own. The existential life is inextricably a life with others, and moments of self-definition are principally concerned with that reality. That is, the sense of “relation” should not be lost when discussing relativism. It is this factor of relativity – of the tension between ends, which is to say, the “meaning” between persons – which gives relativism its import.
So, insofar as relativism seems inescapable once one witnesses its perspective, the question should shift from the matter of its “grip” to the transference of its “strength” into one’s dealings with others. One’s relationships no longer rest on predefined strictures of belief, but are always held in tension, the question of their meaningfulness unavoidably active, and one’s own question of responsibility in relation to them unresolved. One lives the process, or “quest”, rather than swearing against it in the name of some belief or other in absolutism. No one is in control.
One might think this process is begging one into fatigue, but it’s really not any different when one has a non-relativist position… one simply (insofar as one cares) expends one’s energies defending the dogma in that case, and one thus looses one’s grip on the relativity of one’s reality. Or so I say today.
…sorry for all the “one’s this” and “one’s that”, too many ones …
Please list any works you feel necessary to the conversation.
Your preconception of “evil in your family” is not only incorrect to my circumstance but faces the trouble that I do not believe in a conventional definition of evil, nor do I think something analogous to evil can be curbed. Likewise, the bizarre digression into a diatribe against capitalism doesn’t seem relevant to the conversation, but I will consider the ramifications of capitalism within societies for another thread. I do subscribe to the idea of a narrative, but it is the content of these narratives I want to discuss, not exactly the fact of their existence. Thank you for your response.
ALPHA-OMEGA
I gather from this that your conception of growing up is contingent on understanding a certain aspect of one’s self, but I see no reason to believe that the idea of growing up is something that can be quantified, nor qualitative. I hold the position that one understands the relativity of themselves through every waking hour of their life, but it is not until they make the bold leap into thinking for the aggregate that they must remove themselves from their independent understanding and make conscious decisions which will affect other lives. It is this I question, it is this that creates a dichotomy between what “ought” and what constitutes an “ought”.
Thank you for your response.
BREVEL_MONKEY
Right and wrong are meaningless to me in this example, it is whether the person being circumcised rejects their circumcision or not, and if they do and seek help, it is then I would make a personal decision to find it right or wrong and take action. Of course if a person pleads for assistance when being circumcised against their will, I deem their violation of liberty as “wrong” and would choose to assist if I could or desired. If they can not find it in themselves to decide against their impending mutilation, there is nothing I can do for them but deem the act “right” for them.
Thank you for your response.
OUGHTIST
If I were to site some sort of previous condition as my “recovery from” your perception of my question can only change and be jaded, so I will say there is a recovery from X. In doing so we recognize that I held previous convictions but no longer do so. I appreciate your idea of manipulating it into a strength but that only seems to change the context of how I perceive the problem, not address the problem in itself. Ultimately there is an absolute or there is not. if there is, how do we authenticate it (to which there has been no authentication satisfactory to me) and if there is not, then there is still the fact of human desire for absolutism in the aggregate that need be addressed.
It is quite clear that people have chosen to strive toward an absolute, (derived from the bottom up or the top down) and it is only individuals that have not subscribed to an absolute. We seem to want to know that solipsism is not the case in our existence, and it is my opinion that societies and their rules are created to defy solipsism as well as ease the burden of individual existence (food production, defense…) but the rules made within the context of the individual do not apply to the aggregate. Likewise, there is no absolute imperative for how we are to live, yet generation upon generation has manifest some new creative way to bring an absolute into being. However, once the guise of absolutism is demolished at the individual level by the relativism an individual can understand about the world, it makes these quasi absolutes impossible.
Self interested motivations do a good job at a pragmatic level, but they are only as successful as absolute top down designs, IMO., as they leave no room for egalitarianism. I do not think egalitarianism is a necessary, but it is the thing that has historically been ascertained. In self interest you create an ideal where you suppose the other you are interacting with seeks self interest and in doing so you can calculate their motives, and this becomes an equivalent to what I have been referring to as the quest for an absolute, but even then, there is absolutely no reason to believe the motivations you think of the individual you are interacting with are such and such a way. Very much like Russell’s chickens.
what exactly is the individual meaning you have found?
And what exactly is your worry for your family?
how can you tell which approach is better if you are uncertain of the goal?
What event or emotion could persuade a person to think for an aggregate? it happens very simply. people just instinctively react or consciously choose, either way works.
As for your family, you shouldn’t worry unnecessarily, people have ways of adapting, and even if they do not share all your values, one bonus is you get to a least try and cultivate them.
I’d suggest that to “change the context” of the problem changes the problem, and thus addresses “the problem itself”. The question, “Ultimately there is an absolute or there is not”, is not the problem. If one is in the grip of relativism, questions of ultimacy are discounted. I confess to moments of absolutism, and periods of claiming I know what I am talking about. But on reflection, I post-confess my catholic residuals, and re-enter the flux. Your question, as I understand it, is ultimately a moral/ontological one. My claim, in that regard, is that, as Socrates led us to entertain, we are hopelessly ignorant (barring mystical insight, which I’ve had occasion to consider, but, well, let’s not go there right now…), and must live with what we know. If you can hypothesize the reasonableness of “knowing” that you will not have the “absolute” revealed to you, then why dwell on issues of ultimacy. Live relatively. Live as you occur, and allow others to occur accordingly. Nothing, believe wise, is excluded in this process. You’re free to have your absolute moments, too. :-"
Everything is relative to something else. I think that’s the gist of relativism. It might be true. Most people think that at some level it is. But what about this… you might make yourself the thing to which all things relate, and insofar as you have consistency in your definition of “yourself” you have an objective standard by which you can make all those horrible shifting relativeness-laden things hold still for long enough for you to consider the way you feel about them. It’s ok man. Relativism doesn’t mean that there’s no truth, or that there is truth, or that there is or isn’t a god or anything like that.
I wasn’t using the conventional definition of evil - but I also didn’t make that in any way clear, oh well. I don’t in any way want to suggest some external devil character that is the embodiment of evil but our natural inclinations/temptations to do “immoral” things according to whatever presiding narrative we have: to steal, for instance. (And you can’t in good faith presume you don’t have to deal with that in some form or other.) But if it’s not a problem for you then it’s not; I certainly don’t want to pass judgment on you or your family, just explore some ideas.
Capitalism plays a role insofar as it’s essentially what controls any form of narrative in the modern west (at least in North America, at any rate) and it’s what you’ll have to fight against for your family. An easily accessible example is the sexualization of young girls (and getting younger) in fashion. Capitalism is the reigning economic structure presently and as such provides a large part of the present context you’ll have to consider. To make the diatribe perhaps more bizarre, I’m not against capitalism in the least, but I do think it’s important to understand the dangers of it. After going on about the importance of being aware of a historical context for where you’re drawing a narrative from, it would be a complete lack of integrity not to put at least some small information about our own historical context. But leave capitalism out of it, I was just trying to provide that context to appease my own caution than to provide you with information as to how I think you ought to fill your narrative.
The aim of my post wasn’t simply to show that narratives exist, that point should be obvious. I had made vague arguments for specific sorts of narratives over others (or at least over relativism). Even if you’re looking for a list of content for a narrative, I’m not interested in trying to explain what you ought to do because I believe it’s your responsibility to figure that out, I can only honestly point you in a direction that I believe is worthwhile.
However, after reading some of your other responses I think I have a better grasp on what you’re looking for. I think it’s disadvantageous to look at the “ought” problem through Kant’s categorical imperative because he entirely avoids the question you’re asking: what content should one put into their narrative; where is the “correct” starting place for constructing a moral narrative. Again, I think that the most important thing to do is read and piece together what is most persuasive to you. The most accessible place to start is a religion because it’s all very straightforward, but I assume you’ve probably already considered this and find it to be insufficient. That being said, I think it would be too early to write-off religion entirely; you don’t have to follow the doctrine to exploit the moral ideas/teachings and adapt them to your own narrative. I don’t want to go on for too long without getting some more feedback from you, but I do want to point out one Christian virtue that I think is incredibly important that I’ve borrowed from Christian teachings.
It’s the virtue of humility. I believe this would be an important principle to pass on in the context of a family because being in relationship with other people we have to humble ourselves to them all the time - at least if the relationship is going to be successful. Compromises are made, arguments laid to rest, points heard/considered and ideas respected hinged on whether or not either party is able to be humble. As important as it is to have control over the narrative in your household, you have to make sure that your children are able to be receptive enough to it that they will themselves be persuaded to follow your narrative even when you’re not around to enforce it. In order to do that they need to be humble.
I wouldn’t be able to write up a complete list of the books I think relate in an important way to the topic at hand, but I’ll list a few that I think are particularly useful off the top of my head:
After Virtue - Alasdair MacIntyre
The Sibling Society - Robert Bly
The Abolition of Man - C.S. Lewis
Escape from Freedom - Erich Fromm
The Minimal Self - Christopher Lasch
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life - Erving Goffman
Great Ideas/Grand Schemes - Paul Schumaker
These are all fairly easy reads (although the Lasch/Goffman stuff is kind of outdated, I think they’re accessible introductions to the ideas presented at any rate - perhaps other members here will say otherwise).
The will to power. Well, actually, this does not persuade me to think for the aggregate as opposed to the individual, but reconciles the two for me instead. By enhancing the power of the aggregate, you enhance your own power over the universe.
Ken Wilber describes the Witnessing (or Observing) Self in the following terms:
‘This observing Self is usually called the Self with a capital S, or the Witness, or pure Presence, or pure Awareness, or Consciousness as such, and this Self as transparent Witness is a direct ray of the living Divine. The ultimate “I AM” is Christ, is Buddha, is Emptiness itself: such is the startling testimony of the world’s great mystics and sages.’
He adds that the Self is not an Emergent, but an aspect present from the start as the basic form of awareness, but which becomes increasingly obvious and self aware ‘as growth and transcendence matures.’ As Depth increases, consciousness shines forth more noticeably, until:
'shed[ding] its lesser identification with both the body and the mind … in each case from matter to body to mind to Spirit… consciousness or the observing Self sheds an exclusive identity with a lesser and shallower dimension, and opens up to deeper and higher and wider occasions, until it opens up to its own ultimate ground in Spirit itself. And the stages of transpersonal growth and development are basically the stages of following this Observing Self to its ultimate abode, which is pure Spirit or pure Emptiness, the ground, path and fruition of the entire display.
I want to start here with my alternative understanding of ‘growing up’ as we are using it. I disagree, I put forward the idea that we are not growing up, which may imply a distinct passage passed some predetermined growth destination, and an arrival to the apex of that destination. I will offer a ‘growing through’ concept.
I believe one is always aware of his/her purpose in relation to objective reality. Any supposed plateau reached where a distinct realization is made of the certain objective reality is reflective. As an example, a child is fully aware of his/her relation to objective reality by being cognizant and pursuing activities in the world. When the child reaches puberty that reflection of passed experience is going to be different when the child becomes older, a parent, a widower, a terminally ill person. This awareness of purpose is going to be relative to every situation reflected on, making purpose not a thing in itself, but a constant faculty of being. My point being that no one comes to know their purpose in relation to objective reality, they experience it in every moment, and it is reflection that offers a categorization of ones life, making it appealing to throw the idea of growing up (in your definition) into a quantifiable event.
TRIV-
I suspect at some point you will want to pass judgment on me, not when you are neutral to how my evils affect the world, but when my evils seem dangerously close to negating your happiness. I hold this suspicion due to the history of people and how they have reacted to evil. This is where I am trying to make my point, if we aim at a standpoint where we must understand the terms of events according to their relations, eventually one event will correspond with another event, involving two or more people, and will alter the positions they previously held, but in doing so changes any secondary relation in a wholly separate event that one never wished to change a position on.
This happens, and there is not much to stop it, however, this is the reason (and I will use Kant’s categorical imperative as a model for the example, not as any specific goal I desire for humanity) there have been attempts to create absolute morality. If one holds the conviction that an absolute cannot be obtained, then there becomes problems in identifying how we ought to live amongst ourselves at the nuclear family level, which has been the foundation of absolutism (imo). Why should this matter? Because absolute morality is intrinsic to nuclear families, and if one is to decide for themselves that this style of life is good for them, it contradicts the original philosophy of knowing there can be no absolute.
Again, imo, a topic for a separate thread. Not that I don’t think economic structure plays a role, but because it does play a role, and since it does it is subjected to the same scrutiny, are we to assume some other economic structure won’t stimulate the sexualization of young girls? I have no reason to believe so, therefore it becomes a constant in the analysis, meaning economic + X,Y,Z structures play a role so consider the posterior influence it has. I feel that we are examining something independent of these factors, as an analogy, color, seating, and luxuries play a role in how you feel driving your car, but driving your car in itself is independent of these factors.
OUGHTIST
This is a good description of the conversation. This pair of statements highlights the very problem of having an intuitive sense to crave absolutism while coming to understand knowledge about the world as relative. I would guess those moments of absolutism are when you are thinking for the aggregate, as in thinking the oughts of how your loved ones should behave, perhaps the oughts of how your rights are to be established if you are to be under a ‘social contract’ or a citizen of the community, or whatever. But those oughts have no basis for being an ought, yet it seems imperative for the sake of loved ones and your rights established in your society, to be an ought.
WONDERER
That would be a lengthy post
Not so much worry, see post to oughtist above for a description.
It might not be a matter of “better” in the approach, its more a matter of creating values that cannot be defeated argumentatively. In other words, I have no reason to keep value X or value Y other than how it benefits my existence. If I get pleasure from altruism my values will be very egalitarian, same goes for self interest in profit or pain, I choose those avenues, but the method is identical,in each instance, my pursuits. The problem is in creating values for others, (as in the nuclear family, or in the social structure), that impact ones relation to that structure. In the relativist perspective there can never be a basis for making such values (it seems to me).
That was a good read. It had a convincing description of how behavior presents clues on how people come to understand their specific identity within their realities. I enjoyed the conclusion, understanding self is not a singular effort, it was insightful and enforces my own opinions on “the self”.
I will say it would have been most helpful to express the initial statement clearly and distinctly, rather than choose a phrase that carries far too much semantic baggage. replace
“If you properly understand the relativity of yourself you have already begun to grow up.” with
“If you properly understand the relativity of yourself you have already begun to progress in the levels of self awareness.”
This is an outlier of the problem I am trying to pose. First, in response to the linked article, there was no information that suggested attaining these levels informs the person of objective reality.
If progressing through an understanding that there are layers of knowing objective reality, and coming to understand or becoming aware the purpose or place of self in the unfolding objective reality is not a singular process and is contingent on others developing the reality with and for the growing person, then self awareness must not be a singular event and so people growing to self awareness are not becoming self aware but self actuated. I mean to say that self awareness in this concept explains growing people learning to activate themselves in a pluralistic environment. They become self aware through awareness of others suggesting they are a self. They are treated as a self, by some of the experiments listed, they are deliberately exposed to the sensation of their identity through mirrors, they get assaulted with the fact that everyone (other then themselves) is treating that growing person as a self.
The consequence of this, imo, is that we may come to expect the decisions made by this self aware person to be made not at a singular level, rather decisions and choices will be made multilaterally. I think this does happen, I think it is very possible decisions made to act in a certain manner are based upon how another conscious being would perceive one’s acts (as in acting in a way where you imagine another watching you). I challenge this idea because every volition I make at every moment has a duality, the things I want to do and the things I reflect on doing. I won’t imply there is a duality of spirit or consciousness of some kind in a Cartesian or Freudian way, rather that our self is present from birth, we are aware of this self, and what is being learned is to become self aware within the aggregate. Self awareness in this articles definition is a forced manifestation of a new self, one that can interact with others. This is a the dualism problem since the initial self, the one born unto us all, the one that we notice as our passions or desires, our primal instincts, it can be defined in so many phrases, is the self. The other thing is the tool used to interface with other sentient beings. These levels and this progression, is all steps taken to identify or understand not the self, but the aggregate, that is other minds.
This of course is the conclusion I have come to and only relative to my experiences of existence. Much like trying to understand or fully attain knowledge of objective reality, the same goes for other selves. Just like progressively unfolding reality, which can not be fully known, understanding others is a project the self takes on with great enthusiasm and to such great lengths that a second self is created to try and understand other minds, only this second self has become misconstrued as that self aware self. Language is the tool developed to understand objective reality, and the self aware self as described is the tool to understand other people.
So what does this mean for the discussion? It means that if humans are going to continue on the route that has been shown through history, meaning better understanding of objective reality, then certain values will be a necessary part of understanding each other, and becoming aware of other selves. Absolutes are extensions or advancements to the awareness self (I will call the self as described in the link awareness self, which I have described as an interfacing tool of the self). Absolutes are going to be necessary for the awareness self to continue its investigation into objective reality. This investigation is contingent on other minds, since one who rejects the awareness self comes to live in seclusion (I can explain this better upon request), but this is my problem as posted in the thread title. If one realizes the self is relative to objective reality, it must use absolutes to investigate objective reality, but this is done knowing absolutes are not a possibility. How can one escape this contradiction, because if absolutes are taken as a possibility, then they must adhere to the self, and this brings one into seclusion. If absolutes are used by the awareness self nothing can really be learned, as you have indicated, objective reality is not fully known so the depth of understanding purpose is going to be progressive.
I sometimes find myself resolving my relativism through the idea that humans are (potentially self-reflective) “processors” of conscious experience, itself being an epiphenomenon of biology, being an epiphen of physics, naturally, and that the phenomenon our – and, hey, let’s include the chimps & dolphins too – processing is (in the effect of) creating is something on the stage of producing a dimension of divinity capable of creating this very same universe… and insofar as we fail in that, our universe collapses (there’s more to this, of course). Thus, for instance, Yahweh is but a chromosome in the broader production of a divine presence, and all relativities participate in the natural selection of celestial components. Do I have anything radically backward in that regard?
…