Replying to Iambiguous’ repeated 4 criteria all over ILP:
1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God, your Kingdom, your spiritual path
He knows you need it to be obvious before you ask. Be careful what you wish for. The evidence is staggering, but this is on another level, isn’t it? And he will meet you where you’re at. You can know all there is to know (intellectually) and still have difficulty trusting it (know nothing).
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods, Kingdoms and spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed…but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
First, because he met me where I was at 9/22/05, and still does. Second, because he makes sense of all the questions. Who else has died to prove he is who he says he is, loves as he says he loves, and rose from the dead and still does wacky junk? Before that date I just wrote, I would’ve been like, ikr? Except nobody said ikr back then.
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual’s belief in Gods, Kingdoms of Ends and spiritual paths
We are incomplete/imperfect. He is complete/whole. Diversity/creativity is good in line with completion/wholeness. His wholeness is love despite our imperfection, motivating us to love each other likewise.
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God, Kingdom or spiritual path
Without the possibility for pain, we can’t learn the “overcoming” sort of love that is the point for which we hunger and which describes God. And with this pain he is no stranger. Count it all joy.
Now I’m replying to this comment in the Harmonic Triads thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 4#p2856480
I did a little work on The Golden Synthesis between character (virtue), conduct (duty), and consequences (teleology) this semester:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=197946 (if anyone wants to discuss just the golden synthesis)
It’s not one of “several principles” – it is the principle of principles. It rightly orders all the others. All the others boil down or add up to it. It is true to God’s nature, and a hunger for it/God (wholeness) is in us - that’s why it is found transculturally (pivot of the dao and all that).
All the different versions of the Golden Rule… platinum, etc… if they’re legit, they’re just the Golden Rule correctly understood/applied. If there is a criticism against the Golden Rule, it is because it hasn’t been fully understood, or is just rejected as it is. Any rule or diversity/creativity that is legit will be in line with it. We are all selves, we are all others, so all of our values, rules, virtues are in question if they are not in line with the Golden Rule. That’s how you bring objectivism down out of the clouds and root it in dasein, because it is centered on the Subject we all are (in the image of). We just talk it out with anyone who would be impacted and smooth off the rough edges until we reach a livable agreement. self/us=other/them
So, to address particular points above:
Iambiguous: “The main criticism that people mention when it comes to the golden rule, and particularly when it comes to its implementation in practice, is the fact that the golden rule suggests that others would like to be treated the same way you would like to be treated, which is not necessarily true.”
Talk it out. Ask what they want. If it’s not something you would want, keep having a conversation about it that treats everyone as a self.
Iambiguous: “This can lead to problematic situations, where one person might mistreat someone else under the guidance of the golden rule. For example, this problem could lead someone to make an overt romantic gesture toward someone that isn’t interested in it, simply because the person making the gesture wishes that someone would do the same for them.”
This is the era of the #metoo movement when everyone is terrified of getting charged with sexual harassment. And everyone is getting released from jail (but there are worse things than jail, if one even goes to jail for that). It was the most cautious of times. It was the most liberating of times. There are moves I would have made in hindsight had I known what was wanted. But…should I have? I’m not talking merely overt romantic gestures. So maybe being blind to it was a good thing. Or maybe my values need reexamining. Until then, no moves. Unless he moves first. Confession. That’s just where I’m at. I never claimed to be perfect. Sadly, he won’t move. And I can’t move on. Good thing I’m too busy to notice most the time. For now. I’ve told myself (and him) I’ll give up hoping at a certain point I am not at liberty to disclose here. I’ve already started giving up hope in preparation. But I’m anchored beyond the veil. Still, I wouldn’t make any bets either way. I’ve got a history. Heh!! TMI, but real.
Iambiguous: “This issue has been described by writer George Bernard Shaw, who famously said: ‘Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may be not be the same.’”
Hence, talking about it to discover their tastes, and make sure they are in line with the Golden Rule before granting wishes.
Iambiguous: “To address this issue, a variant of the golden rule has been developed, which is called the platinum rule, and which denotes that you should treat others the way they want to be treated.”
The Golden Rule is not about everyone/anyone getting whatever they want. It’s about all treating each other as selves/others. All stakeholders on equal footing in negotiations. If how someone says they want to be treated also treats someone else poorly, it violates the Golden Rule. Everyone has to be following it. It’s an iron sharpens iron thing. No one self takes priority.
Iambiguous: “However, this principle has also been criticized, for example because it can lead to issues in cases where it prompts you to act toward someone in a way that contradicts your own values. Furthermore, there are cases where it’s not possible to use the platinum rule, for example when you have no way of knowing what the other person wants, or where the golden rule leads to better outcomes, for example when it prompts someone to display more empathy in practice. As such, the platinum rule is not inherently better than the golden rule, and there are cases where it’s preferable to use the two rules together, or to use the golden rule by itself. Note: the platinum rule is sometimes referred to by other names, such as the copper rule or the inversion of the golden rule.”
I’ve already addressed these issues in replies above. Talk it out. Every self is an other and vice versa. We smooth off our rough edges. If all stakeholders are in agreement, or have been given due consideration in their absence, at the end of the conversation, the deal is good.
Iambiguous: “Another notable criticism of the golden rule is the fact that, in certain situations, its application can lead to undesirable outcomes, when it conflicts with other guiding principles, including both moral principles as well as other types of principles, such as social or legal ones. For example, if someone is convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison, the golden rule would suggest that we should let them go, because we would not want to be imprisoned ourselves. This remains the case even if we use the platinum rule, since the prisoner would likely also prefer to avoid going to prison.”
It is the principle of principles – all other principles that are not in line with it are not actual principles and do not obligate. The Golden Rule would not suggest we let the prisoner go. The prisoner is only one self in conversation with others, and did not consider those others when they broke the law (assuming the law was in line with the Golden Rule). I’m restraining myself from saying something stupid right here. You’re welcome.
Iambiguous: “However, this issue with the golden rule can be dealt with in a general manner, by viewing this principle as one of several principles that we use to guide our behavior as individuals and as a society.”
It is the principle of principles. Principles not in line with it are nihil.
Iambiguous: “Specifically, in the example described above, the golden rule would not be enough to prevent that person from going to prison, because most individuals and societies choose to place other laws and ethical principles above the golden rule, while still taking the golden rule into account. This means that they strive to implement the golden rule whenever possible, as long as it doesn’t clash with the implementation of a more important concept.”
It’s not other laws and ethical principles, and there is no more important concept. All legislation is just further elaboration and application of the Golden Rule, or it’s nihil that does not obligate. Jesus would have a lot of endless ways of doing his “You have heard it said… but I say to you…” regarding today’s laws. But he called the Golden Rule the sum of the Law and the Prophets…which apparently does not extend to things like Moses permitting divorce, which Jesus corrected. He sets the bar higher before he dies in our place to prove he never held it against us. Fricken badass.
