A brief summary and a link to the full document may be found here: http://philosofer123.wordpress.com
Constructive feedback is welcome. Thanks for reading!
2 Likes
Thanks brother. Can you post some quotes or paragraphs in here for those of us who don’t click on unsolicited links?
I read your piece and liked it a lot.
We agree on a lot of things and disagree on others.
I’ll add my two cents analysis of it here.
First, I must note that you expressed your ideas incredibly clearly and understandably, so the reader doesn’t need much mental effort to grasp what you’re trying to say. This is good; the first thing that shows someone has something to say is clear and crystalline expression.
Furthermore, you make it very clear from the outset that the essay is about YOUR philosophy of life. Even though a potential reader might agree with your ideas, you’re not suggesting they lower their head to what you’re saying, but simply inviting them to reflect. This is good and demonstrates maturity.
Before commenting on the six essential points of your system, your philosophical positions, that is:
- Atheism (=there is no God)
- Afterlife nihilism (=there is nothing after death)
- Ultimate responsibility impossibility (=we don’t control our actions therefore we’re not ultimately responsible for them)
- Moral nihilism (=there are no moral facts)
- Thanathophobic irrationalism (=it’s irrational to fear death)
- Negative hedonism (=the most important thing in life is peace of mind)
I will first point out my position: I am an egoist individualist, or, if you prefer, an individualist egoist. Which means that my essential concern in life in my own well-being, first and foremost. But I’m not only an egoist or an individualist, I am also, totally or partially:
a) an atheist (=I don’t believe and don’t have faith in God)
b) an objectivist (=the world is out there regardless of my being conscious of it or not)
c) a materialist (not in the sense that only matter exists, but in the sense that it does, that it’s not a creation of my mind)
d) an existentialist (I accept the Sartrian notion that existence precedes essence)
e) a rationalist (I endorse Descartes’ cogito insofar as reason is the only tool we have for establishing any kind of concrete knowledge and dialogue about the world)
f) a rational hedonist (Epicurus, not Jim Morrison style)
g) a humanist (=I embrace what I call the human heritage, and the importance of human culture
accumulated in all past centuries).
I employ all these labels lightly, though, because I’m not a rationalist, etc, stricto sensu, I regognize the limitations of all these systems. I can employ the label, though, to make it clear that if I had to choose, for instance, between materialism and abstractionism (idealism), I’d choose the first. For materialism at least have a palpable basis as its foundation, the physical world, whereas idealism has no basis and no limits, whatever one imagines must be true. YET idealism can’t be rejected absolutely. There is room for it in an essentially rational mindview, but it must be balanced and weighed according to real-life circumstances. Living adrift in the Platonic world of ideas is not an option.
The objective - “peace of mind” - determines the value system…
Classic American.
How can he achieve “peace of mind,” when his starting premises are contrary to the truth?
Why is “peace of mind” even possible?
Mind has evolved to deal with unsettling issues.
How can you cause anything if you declare yourself not responsible for anything you do?
Positive Nihilism = a positive ideal is presented, contradicting reality.
In this case “peace of mind.”
Peace is antithetical to nature.
There is no peace in the truth.
This is why not all men can be philosophers.
If peace is what they seek, then they will find it in lies.
Religion is perfect for them.
These are the kind’s of spirits that are ready and willing to be manipulated and exploited.
Let me try to analyze your 6 positions and see where I agree with you and where we part ways.
1. Atheism
“I define “atheism” as the view that there is no god. There is a presumption of atheism because theists propose the addition of a supernatural inteligence (a god) to what is already known to exist (the natural world). That is, theists make an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And since no argument thus far advanced for the existence of a god is convincing (for detail, please see the recommended reading below), atheism is warranted.”
Here I think you have already presented an excellent argument, one that stands up well without the complimentary points you added (world suffering and faulty design in human evolution). In fact, my main argument for atheism is that God is unnecessary, even if He exists. The natural world continues just fine with or without Him. We have to go on living, each for himself, whether there is a God or not. The laws of nature and physics are self-sustaining, and besides, there are no phenomena on Earth that require supernatural intervention to occur. So, this is a point on which we have no disagreement.
2. Afterlife nihilism
"Afterlife nihilism is the view that there is no afterlife. I define “afterlife” as consciousness after brain death. There is no reliable scientific evidence of consciousness after brain death. At the same time, there is plenty of scientific evidence that all aspects of consciousness (sense impressions, emotions, thoughts, memories, etc.) depend completely upon a live and functioning brain, and that different aspects of consciousness depend upon different neural structures within the brain. Furthermore, general anesthesia or a sharp blow to the head can temporarily extinguish consciousness via their effects on the brain. These facts strongly support the claim that consciousness ends with brain death. Consciousness after brain death appears to require the existence of immaterial souls. But there are effective arguments against the existence of immaterial souls: o On atheism, positing the existence of immaterial souls amounts to an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But no such evidence has been found. A soul that houses one’s essence must be able to interact with the body (and particularly with the brain). But how can an immaterial entity interact with a material entity? First, such interaction would appear to be impossible. And second, such interaction would violate the causal closure of the physical, a principle of which no violation has ever been found."
Here we shake hands, because I have a firm conviction that death is the end of everything for us, simply because there is no more us after our brain is completely destroyed post mortem. You have summed up perfectly well the materialistic take on the subject of consciousness. Scientists are still studying the nature of consciousness. There is no general consensus on what it is. Precisely because there is no consensus, wild theories abound. We have everything, from Platonic belief in the immortality of the soul to bold assertions that consciousness is the only thing that there is. Yes, consciousness is not necessarily consciousness of something, something else, it’s the only reality. What I understand is that consciousness evolved naturally through biology. All kinds of living things display at least a rudimentary form of consciousness. Since it’s obvious that humans are more conscious than other animals, and that the more you go up the evolutionary ladder, the more the species tend to demonstrate a higher level of consciousness, it makes total sense to me that consciousness could be studied in biological terms. The seat of consciousness appears to be the brain, as brainless individuals, or those whose brains stopped functioning, don’t display any kind of consciousness. And the notion of consciousness existing independent of a material support, as in the case of the Platonic (Christian) soul, is obnoxious because it can’t, ever, be demonstrated. If it can’t be demonstrated, only asserted, it’s debatable whether it belongs to the realm of philosophy. So here I really think you got it perfectly.
3. Ultimate responsibility impossibilism
“Ultimate responsibility impossibilism is the view that one cannot be ultimately responsible for any of one’s actions. One is “ultimately responsible” for X if and only if X cannot be fully expressed as a function of factors that are entirely outside of one’s control. When one acts intentionaly, what one does is a function of how one is, mental y speaking. Therefore, to be ultimately responsible for one’s action, one must be ultimately responsible for how one is, mental y speaking—at least in certain respects. But to be ultimately responsible for how one is in the relevant respects, one must have chosen to become (or intentionaly brought it about that one would become) that way in the past. But if one chose to become that way, then one’s choice was a function of the way one was in certain mental respects. Therefore, to be ultimately responsible for that choice, one would need to be ultimately responsible for being that way. But this process results in a vicious regress. Therefore, one cannot be ultimately responsible for any of one’s intentional actions. And one clearly cannot be ultimately responsible for any of one’s unintentional actions. Therefore, one cannot be ultimately responsible for any of one’s actions.”
Here it’s one case where I cannot, absolutely, agree with you because, well, because I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY SINGLE THING I CONSCIOUSLY DO IN LIFE. I take this responsibility and I don’t accept the notion of someone coming to me saying I can’t do that. I admit that you bring in defense of your deterministic position a very tricky argument, though.
How do we break this argument, how do we defend freedom when we know that all our impulses are beyond our control? When our individual will is determined by countless factors that may or may not be known to us, but can never be dispensed with (this would result in Saint Augustine’s “free will”)? Yes, but with each of my actions being explicable by countless factors, I am STILL free! I’m still writing this because I want to, when I could perfectly well be doing something else! How is that? Is my behavior different from everyone else’s? Have I discovered a secret that others don’t know? No, my dear, I discovered something called self-awareness. The notion of knowing what I do. This notion permeates all my behavior, separating me from an animal or a human being whose will no longer resides within them. I’m not unaware of the factors that lead me to act this way or that, but such factors don’t determine my conscious behavior, only my automatic, involuntary behavior. Sleeping, feeling hungry, feeling thirsty, urinating. Sitting here writing this isn’t one of those behaviors, because it involves my CHOICE. I decided to pay attention to you, to what you wrote. Why, some internal motive, a desire to feel superior? This internal motivation doesn’t matter to the outcome I care about in my act, of which I am fully aware and in control. Determinism fails because it analyzes all human actions by their causes, rather than by their effects. You ask, how can we be responsible for anything if even our intentions are determined? The most important question to ask would be: can we be aware of what we do and, more importantly, act differently than what we do? I answer yes, I overcome both determinism and free will by placing the awareness of choice at the core of human action. No matter how many external or internal factors enter the process, you wrote this essay because you wanted to, you chose to share it with others, and if you ignore this comment, you do so by choice. This is how I build an argument for human responsibility.
4. Moral nihilism
“Moral nihilism is the view that there are no moral facts.Therefore, under moral nihilism, nothing is “good” or “bad” or “right” or “wrong” or “just” or “unjust” or “moral” or “immoral”. If moral facts existed, they would be metaphysical y queer. They would have inescapable practical authority, which is to say that they would provide normative reasons for action that are independent of one’s desires and interests. At the same time, they would be non-natural, since moral naturalism cannot account for the categorical quality of moral requirements. On atheism, positing the existence of such metaphysically queer entities amounts to an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But the only apparent evidence for this claim is our (so-called) shared moral intuition, which is plausibly explained by evolution, without invoking moral facts.”
Here I partially agree with you. There is no morality coming from above, from God. Yet, there is morality created by men. Morality is human creation. It evolves from the instinct of self-preservation of the species, which was transformed into the will to survive of the different human groupings. So in a sense there are no moral facts, no obligatory moral commandment for all to follow, and at the same time we could say there is the morality of the group we happen to belong to- family, community, society, nation, humankind. Whether we choose to adhere to such morality is up to us, but if we say yes to it, we can then legitimately say, for instance, that “treat others with due respect” is a moral commandment to us, and therefore a fact in social life.
5. Thanatophobic irrationalism
Thanatophobic irrationalism is the view that the fear of death is irrational. I define “death” as the ending of the dying process—the loss of the very last trace of life. As such, death is virtually instantaneous.
Death is usually harmful for the one who dies because death prevents a scenario that one would usual y prefer—namely, a scenario in which one lives longer than one actually does. The harm of death for the one who dies has two potential components: Deprivation of future pleasant states of mind: Indirect harm from harming those about whom one cares. However, death is not always harmful for the one who dies, as there are cases in which one would truly be “better off dead” (if the remainder of one’s life were virtually certain to be spent with a very disturbed mind). In these cases, suicide is rational—assuming that, for al time periods beginning with the present and ending either when one expects one wil have the ability to commit suicide or in the indefinite future, one’s subjective disvalue of one’s expected future suffering outweighs the sum of one’s subjective value of one’s expected future pleasant states of mind and one’s subjective disvalue of the expected net suffering of others caused by one’s suicide However, a disciplined mind requires little to maintain peace of mind. Additionally, it is quite difficult to predict how one wil feel in the future, people tend to underestimate their resilience, and suicide is irreversible, so a strong bias against suicide is appropriate.
That said, it is irrational to fear death
o It is irrational to fear death because it is irrational to fear either of the potential components of the harm of death listed above."
I gotta say, If you’ve truly solved this problem, my friend, your life on earth is half solved! Because this is one of the essential problems of existence and the raison d’être of religion itself: the fear of death, “thanatophobia.” For a long time, this tormented me. I’ve long known Epicurus’ maxim (when we exist, death is not present, and when death is, we no longer exist), which is also a strictly materialistic point of view. But that doesn’t mean it’s easy to deal with the notion that the entire universe, everything I do, everything I love, will disappear after I die! The fear of death, as you say, entails the fear of missing out. It’s a totally irrational fear, because after we die, we won’t miss anything, because we will no longer exist! But I’ve caught myself countless times thinking about how absurd it is that this world exists here, we pass through it and die from one moment to the next, and the world simply disappears! It took me a long time to come to my senses, to start enjoying life while it lasts, and to free myself from the eternal expectation of disappointment. My ideal is to arrive at the moment of my death, whenever that may be, prepared. Whether I die at 50 or 80, I want to die satisfied with myself. That’s why I developed the theory that either I’m free and happy now, at this very moment, or I’ll never be. If I’m well at any point in my life, fully satisfied, death can come at any moment. It stops being something to fear and becomes something to desire! An end to a well lived life, the closing of the curtains in dull time.
6. Negative hedonism
"I define “negative hedonism” as the view that the best way to go about living wel is to aim for the achievement and maintenance of one’s peace of mind. Negative hedonism is supported by the conjunction of Theses 1, 2 and 3 below:
Thesis 1: “Living well” is equivalent to “living in accordance with the preponderance of one’s ultimate motivational considerations.” “Living well” is living how one has most reason to live. On moral nihilism, the only normative reasons for action are those that are dependent upon one’s desires and interests. And one’s ultimate motivational considerations comprise the foundation of one’s desires and interests;
Thesis 2: Optimizing one’s state of mind over one’s lifetime is the ultimate goal that best fits al plausible ultimate motivational considerations. “Optimizing one’s state of mind over one’s lifetime” may be roughly interpreted as “feeling as good as possible for as much of the time as possible." The combination of atheism, afterlife nihilism and moral nihilism eliminates all plausible ultimate motivational considerations other than self-interest in this life and concern for other sentient beings. I find this true by introspection, and it may be supported by a plausible evolutionary account of human motivation. Optimizing one’s state of mind over one’s lifetime is the ultimate goal that best fits the ultimate motivational considerations of self-interest in this life and concern for other sentient beings.With respect to self-interest in this life, all prudent goals ultimately reduce to optimizing one’s state of mind over one’s lifetime (by repeatedly asking and answering “Why does one want X? For Y. Why does one want Y? (etc.)”). Empathic/sympathetic feelings (if one has them) incorporate the welfare of other sentient beings into one’s own state of mind. And the greater one’s concern for a particular sentient being, the stronger one’s empathic/sympathetic feelings for that being. Therefore, optimizing one’s state of mind over one’s lifetime usually takes into account adequately both one’s concern for other sentient beings and one’s different levels of concern for different sentient beings;
Thesis 3: The most effective way of which I am aware to optimize one’s state of mind over one’s lifetime is to aim for the achievement and maintenance of one’s peace of mind. I define “peace of mind” as the absence of significant negative emotions, while stil retaining one’s mental faculties. I define “negative emotion” as any emotion that feels uncomfortable. Examples may include distress, fear, frustration, anger, boredom and regret, among others. Peace of mind is the minimally self-sufficient state of mind, so aiming for anything less would be unsatisfactory. Peace of mind is a self-sufficient state of mind because it precludes the need or desire to feel any better. This is because such a need or desire would cause frustration, thereby disturbing one’s mind. Peace of mind is the minimally self-sufficient state of mind because if one does not have peace of mind, then one wil desire peace of mind, which precludes self-sufficiency. Peace of mind is the best enduring state of mind to which one can reasonably aspire, so aiming for anything more would be unrealistic and/or counterproductive. Peace of mind is the best enduring state of mind to which one can reasonably aspire because (1) eliminating all negative emotions is unrealistic, and (2) positive emotions are temporary in nature. I define “positive emotion” as any emotion that feels pleasurable."
This last position is the most interesting of them all and I think it deserves a more indepth analysis. I will return to this topic soon.
previously, you stated:
Plato is before Jesus’ incarnation. Are you saying that some of the Platonic writings were recorded/copied so late that Christians influenced it? You don’t think they had the same source for the conclusions you consider similar between them? What do you make of the resurrected body? Do you understand that Plato was not gnostic, and the gnostics were not Christians?
As the individual (soul) interprets vary frequency electromagnetic energy waves emitted from vibrating matter which contain unique binary code data characteristics specific to the matter type then it can be demonstrated that the metaphysical soul exist.
The issue mainstream cognitively biased atheistic science has is it’s starting philosophy is wrong.Philosophy preceded ALL science and DICTATES a science.Science does not dictate to philosophy.There was a time when science never existed.Philosophy has always existed.
We all know mainstream science presently claims that there is no God with out proof (very arrogant) even before it starts its science and claims that good is bad and bad is good and no moral absolutes or rules/laws exist.
So it’s starting philosophy is +=- and -=+ because + and - are two unknowns without definitive proof.
It then makes the foolish claim, again without definitive proof, that the 4 off attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force interactions NN,NS,SN,SS that exist between ALL spinning objects and particles at both the macro and micro levels cancel out which is impossible according to Newton’s 3rd law.What it does is try to claim that an N and S pole is the same because these poles are part of the same electromagnetic field.NN,NS,SN,SS electromagnetic force interactions have got absolutely nothing at all to do with electromagnetic fields however.
As mainstream ATHEISTIC science makes false claims about the 4 off electromagnetic force interaction ABSOLUTES!!! NN,NS,SN,SS it doesn’t acknowledge that these force interaction absolutes are balanced out by the formula N/S=N/S thus confirming that the correct starting philosophy for everything is +/-=+/-
They need to be balanced out in order to hold all matter together so that varying frequency electromagnetic binary energy waves can be produced.The spin speed of the particles determining the frequency of the vibratory interactions and thus the amount of electromagnetic energy emitted.
It’s these varying frequency electromagnetic binary energy waves which the physical body sensors receive.The binary processing biological machine bot.interface between the physical and the metaphysical then converts this binary data software into a language that the individual (soul) interprets.
As the individual (soul) interprets processed varying frequency electromagnetic binary energy waves emitted from vibrating matter then the individual (soul) is neither vibrating matter nor varying frequency binary energy waves.
The metaphysical (soul) is SEPARATE from the physical.
All of the physical either produces lifeless binary data or computes that it exists and doesn’t exist which is true because it needs to exist to compute that it doesn’t exist and it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t possess life because the physical is not the SEPARATE metaphysical (soul).
Lol WHAT? Plato’s theories have shaped Christianity in many respects. But why on earth did you bring this to this discussion?
…because you said:
…but note:
…what (where/when) is the material world “in”? Because that’s what you’re really in. We need them both in order to instantiate anything that matters. So you’re not just a spiritual being, if you think that means you are not substantial, and the material (or physical) world is—or vice versa.
Returning to the critique of your system, let me talk about the best part of it, that is the peace of mind thing.
Hedonism for you, in a clearly Epicurean way, has everything to do with equanimity, tranquility, living and let live. Something summed up in the famous maxim:
Not what we have, but what we enjoy, constitutes our abundance.
To achieve such an equanimity, you have envisioned a clear course of action which involves, among other things, in:
a) taking physical care of oneself;
b) cultivating self-sufficiency;
c) cultivating friendships;
d) living a simple life;
e) living in the present;
f) eliminating envy;
g) recognizing the emotional effects of physical discomfort;
h) focusing the mind on thoughts that crowd out or counteract negative emotion;
i) conquering boredom and loneliness;
j) cultivating a benevolent disposition toward others;
and many other examples. Essentially, you mix a bit of Epicureanism with some healthy Stoicism. You understand all people are related and interdependent in this world, so the well-being of one interfere in the well-being of others. You do not advocate blind conformism or sheepish behavior, instead a mindset centered on reciprocation- what others do to me I can do to them. I see a bit of Camus in your words too, despite your not mentioning him as an influence. Camus had a worldview similar to yours, he was an atheist and he thought there’s nothing after death, yet he believed humans could act ethically towards others- for the simple reason that they need each other to live in this cold world. Such an ethics doesn’t come from above, from heaven, from God, but from a logical deducton about our situation, as a species, in this world.
The main intent here seems to be to cultivate a general positive mindset, avoiding negative feelings like the plague. One can’t have peace of mind if one’s constantly bickering or worried about people being like this or like that, so let them be and concentrate on what you do, on what you feel, on what’s important and works for you. Your tips to generate positive emotions (friendships, music, outdoor walkings, reading, meditation, etc) are actually good. I actually relate to this part, because after a long time trying to fight what looked like inevitable depression, I realized I needed a focus, I needed to concentrated on what really mattered to me to avoid falling into an abyss. In pretty much the same vein as you, I came to the conclusion that negativity doesn’t add anything to my life. So I try my best to avoid it. I try to clean my mind from negativity. One thing that I could add to your list is writing. Writing, even silly, amateurish things, is a good way of passing the time and also of employing one’s energies well, focussing the attention in productive creation instead of simply wasting every minute of one’s time.
Your text reads a little like Epictetus’s Enchiridion, his famous Manual. I do not follow strictly any kind of manual, a collection of rules I can’t ever break, but I think I do need some discipline in life. I have talked about it in another topic, so I’ll simply quote myself here:
“What I’ve realized is that there’s a level of unpredictability in life that can’t be contained or predicted in a manual, regardless of its origin. So you need to be psychologically prepared to deal with the different circumstances that will arise, whether you like it or not, and whether you want them or not. You talk about first memorizing the rules, then internalizing them so that they become second nature to you. In your case, the ultimate goal is to instill in your mind a moral duty of compassion, that is, solidarity, toward all living beings—the path of the Buddha. In my case, I can’t adhere to a system as restrictive as Buddhism in its mission, even though it’s so far removed from the dogmatic rigor of traditional religiosity. I could never firmly adhere to a system, even Stoicism, which among all philosophical systems is the most coherent, the most down-to-earth, I couldn’t fully embrace and proclaim from the rooftops: “I’m a Stoic!” A system I could follow completely would be one that perfectly suited my life circumstances, and that’s not possible, because no man can have a complete understanding of those circumstances except myself. But I don’t think it’s right to impose an indisputable system of rules on myself, because I know that at any moment a new circumstance, a new contingency, will force me to break one of those rules. Take, for example, your own rule of compassion, solidarity. Such a rule seems profoundly human at first, but you can’t take it literally, like those ascetics who refuse to even eat anything alive, so as not to cause suffering to anything in the universe. A compassion encompassing all beings—such a thing may even seem possible, but it’s not humanly possible to achieve it; you cease to be a human being and become something else. So, in practice, the rule becomes: “I will try my best to be compassionate, knowing that this won’t always be possible, and I have no reason to crucify myself for it.”
So, if I’ve internalized some basic rules of life, yes, I certainly have. One of them is to leave others alone as long as they’re not getting in my way. I don’t torture myself thinking I can achieve a degree of perfection in any sense, whether in the stoic sense of becoming a perfectly impassive guy in the face of life, or in the Buddhist sense of freeing myself from the bonds and illusion of self. Not completely. That will never be possible for me. Although I am somewhat detached, I always have been, but feigning total indifference to things is something I will never do. And so the reason I need my personal discipline is to keep my mind in place, keep my expectations in place, stay serene, lucid, without demanding too much of myself, without expecting of myself what is not humanly possible. At the same time, I seek points of contact with others, not completely alienating myself from them, which sometimes collective ignorance seems to want to force us to do.
Discipline involves more than mere rules of conduct. It involves knowing what I eat, how many hours a day I sleep, how to balance work and entertainment, how to stay focused on what I do, how to make the most of my leisure time, how to read, how to learn, how to write, how to avoid getting carried away by my thoughts. All of this takes into account my own well-being. For example, in the case of food, I’m slightly overweight, so I need to monitor myself regarding excess of fat and carbohydrates. I’m gradually changing my diet to avoid reaching 50, significantly overweight and with a host of health problems due to eating junk food. It’s all geared towards my own well-being, and I think your discipline also serves your well-being, though you see things from a different perspective, you are a part of a larger whole that needs to be healthy so as not to contaminate that whole, not to become a burden to others. I understand this perspective and respect it, but in my case, discipline works in a more egoistic way, I need to protect myself because no one will do it in my instead.”
All in all I truly appreciated your text and I really hope you’re living your philosophy of life to the fullest, wherever you are.
Max, thank you so much for your detailed critique of my document! We have much in common. If you have any questions, or if you would like me to respond to any particular criticism of my philosophy, please let me know.
1 Like
Hi man
Wasn’t even sure that you’d read my words.
I really liked your piece very much. Kind of an oddity in this place, someone bringing a positive outlook on life for a change.
I am the one who has to thank you.
My pleasure, Max!
If you want, we can discuss some points in your text next week. I think the determinism part is kinda contradictory in relation to the rest. I know you state you’ve no absolute conviction from the get-going. So it seems you’d not object theoretically to a deeper analysis of the ideas you defend in your paper.
Also, if possible, I’d like to know if you’re being successful in applying the philosophy in your day by day life.
I have been living by my philosophy for over 15 years. I have been largely successful in maintaining peace of mind during that time, except that sometimes I worry about specific problems. I use the techniques in the document to eliminate any particular worry temporarily, but in many cases the worry returns.
Please note that I am not a determinist. I am agnostic as to whether determinism is true. The argument in the document for ultimate responsibility impossibilism does not assume or require determinism: the functions mentioned in that argument could be stochastic functions (that is, they could include an element of randomness).
I would be happy to discuss further.
That’s the lot of each man in life. I admire the way you compiled any and every possible source of worry and also how to eventually react to them. How to build resistance. It’s like a psychological armor where you are protected from most things except those absolutely unpredictable occurrences.
Ok, but please explain to me how you can propose this:
In situations in which one doubts that aiming for peace of mind would be in accordance with the preponderance of one’s ultimate motivational considerations, one may appeal directly to those considerations. When one’s ultimate motivational considerations conflict, one simply takes the course of action that exerts the greatest motivational pull, as there is no further standard that one can employ to adjudicate between different ultimate motivational considerations
when you also believe this:
When one acts intentionally, what one does is a function of how one is, mentally speaking. Therefore, to be ultimately responsible for one’s action, one must be ultimately responsible for how one is, mentally speaking—at least in certain respects. But to be ultimately responsible for how one is in the relevant respects, one must have chosen to become (or intentionally brought it about that one would become) that way in the past. But if one chose to become that way, then one’s choice was a function of the way one was in certain mental respects. Therefore, to be ultimately responsible for that choice, one would need to be ultimately responsible for being that way. But this process results in a vicious regress. Therefore, one cannot be ultimately responsible for any of one’s intentional actions. And one clearly cannot be ultimately responsible for any of one’s unintentional actions. Therefore, one cannot be ultimately responsible for any of one’s actions.
I understand the two points of view, the call to action and the notion of ultimate irresponsibility, but how are the two views reconciled? In one moment, you’re saying we’re not responsible for anything we do, in the next, you’re prescribing a course of action, a choice, something that one can “simply” do. You’re telling the person she can choose to alter her state of mind, but her state of mind is, in many respects, what she is in the world- how she lives, how she expresses herself, how she deals with others, almost the entirety of her existence in this world. We can most certainly change our essence, what we are as beings-in-the-world, because that’s a process, a long process that begins when we are born and only ends in death. That’s not something static, as the old concept of Christian soul suggests. Existence precedes essence. My identity, my being, what I ultimately am, is not only a creation of this world- of course, I am animal too- but also, and mainly, my creation. This is a notion defended by Stirner, Sartre, Camus, and some others. The set of actions and attitudes that constitute my identity, all of this is what represents my reality, my being-in-the-world (Dasein), and all of this cannot be outside of my control, because it is only through my perception, through my action, that anything about me becomes reality. Anything outside of this is not me, does not concern me, is pure mechanicism, animality, things that I have already overcome by the simple fact of being a thinking being: Cogito, ergo sum.
Hope this does not sound confusing.
Indeed I am. One can make choices, but the argument for ultimate responsibility impossibilism establishes that one cannot be ultimately responsible for those choices. That is, all of one’s choices can be fully expressed as a function of factors that are entirely outside of one’s control.
If you are going to refute the argument for ultimate responsibility impossibilism, you will need to either show that one or more of its premises is not true, or show that the truth of its premises does not entail its conclusion. Can you do either of these?