Is there even anything left to say?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Life is exactly what it is. I wish I could describe it more definitively without making some contradiction or mistakes. Is there even any possible way, to speak in specific words, the specific truths of all life? I know I could definitley say what I thought and I almost know for a fact that at least someone would disagree. I bet the same would go for each and every other person who has or wants to create a post.

So what’s the point if we’re never gonna settle on a truth? What’s the intent of all this conversation if we can’t all agree? It’s sort of like this big race to find the truth of all these little matters when in the end, there is no end. It just keeps on going until a new topic is posted and the old one is totally exhausted, but never resolved.

Is there some sort of broad concept or general philosophy of life that a majority can agree on? A common legislature for a “perfect world?” I doubt it. But if some of you would prove me wrong I would love it.

2

There nothing wrong if someone disagree’s, indeed its a good sign: if we all went around in agreement we wouldnt of got much done. If you agree with someone your just agreeing with yourself, wheres the fun in that?

3

The entire truth of a thing can not be told until every conscious creature gathers together to explain his relation to that thing. Thus is born the philosophy forum. Enjoy.

4

I never said disagreeing was a bad thing. I only mentioned that it always occurrs without exception.

I’m wondering if in our disagreeance, we can at least agree to some best way to disagree. In other words, when is every concious creature going to come out and agree to gather and argue(explain) their relation to the truth of life?

5

There are a few ideas about how to disagree agreeably as it were. The ideas of logic (argumentation fallacies), Robert’s rules of order, the golden rule. I don’t, however, know if disagreement is inherently a bad thing. Many ideas are born, competition, free enterprise, a well-proportioned sense of pride.

6

I have recently created a website http://www.wearesaved.org that I think provides a real answer to the questions you raised. It presents a “retail” application of the explanation-of-human-nature that I offer, but it should soon become apparent to you that it is all based on a much greater depth of philosophical argument. Ultimately, all of the implicit and explicit arguments I put on the site can be traced to a mere willingness to question a few key, universally-embraced assumptions that are so fundamental to our common-sense perceptions, they are not even recognized as being assumptions. In challenging these assumptions, one is led to an entirely new perspective re: several different lines of philosophical inquiry, most notably the foundations of ethical theory.

You will eventually discover that I defend the validity of my counter-assumptions by building on David Hume’s epistemology. Hume, of course, called our attention to the fact that there is very little we can know with absolute certainty. My answer to Hume is to take his argument one step further. I argue that [virtually] ALL KNOWLEDGE IS GUESSWORK. I know with absolute certainty only that I am existing at this moment and that I am experiencing different kinds of sensory input. I do not know with absolute certainty that I will exist five minutes from now. Absolute certainty [about most things] may not be something we can reasonably hope to achieve in this life, but it actually matters little. Our guesses are good enough. Hume’s biggest mistake was to assume that any guess we cannot be 100% certain about must be considered utterly worthless (“committed to the flames”). In truth, our guesses have great value. We may not understand what electricity really is, but our guesses have been good enough for us to be able to find amazing ways to make it work for us. We need to always remember that invalid guesses are not invalid simply because they are guesses.

We find that we are able to invest more confidence in some guesses but less in others. I have a great deal of confidence in my belief (guess) that the sun will rise tomorrow because whenever I’ve embraced that guess previously, it has served me well. It has proven to have predictive value. I know that guess will one day be wrong, but in the meantime, it works. Other guesses—like those made by metaphysicians and cosmologists and even physicists—are much less certain, depending as they do on multiple levels of speculation. The guesses that we have the most confidence in we usually refer to as “facts”, but our confidence in them does not change the [true] fact that they are ultimately only guesses (exceptions noted). It’s probably even okay for us to call a guess a “fact” simply as a way to express the high level of confidence we have in it, but we should always be willing to acknowledge the ultimate uncertainty of these guesses. Still, we should never feel apologetic for embracing a guess that works, so long as it continues to have value to us and no one is able to point out that the guess depends on a logical contradiction. It doesn’t matter if a philosopher cannot “prove” her guess. The only things we need to concern ourselves with are 1) whether or not someone’s guess works and 2) whether or not it creates/solves a logical contradiction. If logic reveals a conflict, then earlier, conditionally accepted guesses must ultimately yield to those that better account for our experience.

Most of the explanations of human nature that I offer are dependent on a particular definition of what a human “need” is. I define a NEED as nothing more and nothing less than that which—when satisfied—produces some form of pleasure or satisfaction, and/or which—when unsatisfied or dissatisfied—produces some form of pain or dissatisfaction. I claim that needs are completely defined by the pain and/or pleasure that arise as a result of them. It is not necessary that a final cause be identified in order for us to state that a human need exists. What end does it serve? It really doesn’t matter. Identifying the object of a need is simply a matter of identifying that which either brings about a “pleasure event” or that which makes a “pain event” dissipate. I claim that the only reason why we become aware that we have any needs whatsoever is because we experience pain and/or pleasure in our life experience. If we actually did “need” something in order to continue to exist, but never experienced any kind of pain or dissatisfaction when deprived of it or any sort of pleasure when supplied with it, then by my definition, the need would not exist.

We are not born with a knowledge of what our needs are. The only reason we become aware that we have needs is because we experience these pain and/or pleasure events that call our attention to them. All of our needs are externally imposed on us in the sense that they are external to our Will. We do not have the power to create or annihilate our needs by choosing them into and out of existence. If we did have such a power, then our “needs” would not be needs, for they would be optional. If we had the power to create/annihilate needs, we would be utterly without purpose (the source of the anguish Sartre felt, because he assumed that we have such a power). The ultimate truth that we must face is that we are slaves to our needs. We have no choice but to try to find ways to get them satisfied or to avoid their dissatisfaction. (One major implication of this account: our “Free” Will exists only to the extent that we have the power to choose either to pursue a need’s satisfaction or to choose not to. Although this is a great limitation on the imagined powers of the Human Will, the limited choices we do have are still very significant.)

With this basic understanding of the nature of a “Need”, I proceed with an analysis of the purely “emotional” needs that humans possess. What typically causes emotional pain? What causes emotional pleasure? One answer in particular stands out. It is Approval that makes us “feel good” on an emotional level; disapproval is the efficient cause of acute emotional pain. Disapproval need not be actually expressed in order for us to experience emotional need deprivation. If we are able to infer from our perception of otherwise innocuous events that we are unlikely to receive the approval we desire, our need for approval goes unsatisfied and we feel pain. Fearing (expecting) disapproval may not be the same thing as actually experiencing it, but the fear of possible future emotional pain is still painful in its own right.

What causes us to feel the pain of disapproval is ultimately the internal perception that we do not have the approval of others that we desire. But that perception is ultimately dependent on events external to the host (on what others are thinking/feeling). The point here is that human beings cannot satisfy their need for approval by themselves. Giving yourself approval (possessing self-esteem) has value only if it succeeds in persuading others to view you approvingly. If you walk into a social situation thinking about how approvable you are but then find that others consistently think the opposite, it will become quite evident to you that your “self-esteem” is worth nothing. Our internal perceptions are what trigger painful/pleasurable “feelings”, but those internal perceptions ultimately depend on what the “external reality” is that we are dealing with.

I fully expect many philosophers and scientists to be obsessed with questions about the nature of the mechanism that makes the mind “need” certain perceptions, but I submit that however interesting those questions may be, the answers are of little import. A comprehensive understanding of the mechanism that communicates the existence of a need to the mind is not needed in order for the mind to recognize methods by which the need might be optimally satisfied. So although I will have more to say on this topic later, I don’t think it is important enough to bother with at this time. What I find much more compelling (since it is not possible for us to make our emotional needs go away) is the challenge of 1) identifying the needs that we are saddled with, and then 2) finding ways to optimally achieve their satisfaction. I will let others worry themselves over the details of need mechanisms (for all it really matters).

Perhaps the single most important assumption that my analysis challenges is the widely-embraced belief that different people have different emotional needs. By simply embracing the opposite assumption, we are led to an entirely new perspective re: several different topics involving human behavior including motivation theory, ethical theory, social psychology, marriage, male vs. female personalities, etc. Every sort of psychological, sociological, ethical, and philosophical theory needs to be reviewed to consider the impact that this different basic assumption would have on them. It’s quite frankly mind-boggling. For example, the answer to the question, “Why be moral?” becomes “…to satisfy your needs…” Human beings are revealed to be dependent on others for their happiness. Even if you feel instinctively reluctant to embrace the “alternative understanding” I propose, I think you would have to agree that it is intriguing to contemplate the many different implications. What would it mean if it were all ultimately true?

Philosophy may have nothing to offer to humankind if its only “authorized” purpose is to replace the uncertainties of this life with absolute certainty; but if we understand instead that its purpose is simply to improve the accuracy of our guesses, then philosophers still have much to offer. I offer this Alternative Guess as a “more accurate” explanation of our experience as emotional beings. I submit that it is ultimately valuable because it provides us with a clearer understanding of what we need to do in order to get our emotional needs optimally satisfied. In other words, it works.

I guess maybe there are some answers to the questions you asked, Nientilin…

“Gabriel” http://www.wearesaved.org

7

That seems uncannily similiar to your other post here GabrielS.A.V.E.D.

8

I think you have answered my question quite well. Summed up I would say we can only do or say whatever works for whatever we want or need.

You’re representing the “fact” that there exists a weakness in our beings that’ “needs” as a function of it surroundings. We are followers of the way of life as it acts upon us. The only query I have is why you do not attribute any name or specific recognition of the inexplicable. You do not use any concrete thing to scape-goat that which we cannot control. You simply say it is not important to worry about such matters, but rather to address what is practical. And that,

“It is not necessary that a final cause be identified in order for us to state that a human need exists.”

I’m not saying I disagree with this approach but its rather new. You simply ignored God. You’re describing “IT/HIM/HER” perfectly in those words “a final cause” but it seems like you’re just putting that off as unimportant. I agree with that view but I don’t know if you’re gonna get a lot of other followers or people who agree. People want something to blame for their needs, not an excuse to blame no one.

Our needs are based around just like you said approval, but I would go one step further and say true love. We all want to feel truly loved, that is our ultimate goal. We all want to be needed and wanted on a constant basis without exception.

It almost sounds like you’re starting a new religion. You have very valid points but I think you might already realize that they’re not exactly new. I feel the same as you do but so do millions of fanaticized religious people in their own little way. I think we should be careful with our approach to change people’s views. Most people are not ready for it.

Many belief systems are based off of almost exactly what you have described. The only problem is no one is willing to let go of the words and listen to the hearts of men. We get caught up fighting over the legitimacy of characters on a page when our souls desire the exact same thing.

What you are trying to spread is what I like to call “The Faith.” I believe The Faith comes in many forms; one which you have just described. The others have been spread across the globe randomly and are held in true hearts like your own. I thank you for your reply it was most uplifting. I have another question to ask you though. Do you think the world will soon know the power of The Faith as you have described it? Do you think the time has finally come for us to all recognize a truth? Thanks again!
-Nientilin

9

Hi, Nientilin… :smiley:

I’m glad that you were able to see the value in this Explanation that I can see so clearly.

I wish I had time to answer all of your queries exhaustively, but unfortunately I do not…

To answer your last question first, yes, I do believe the world will soon know the power of “The Faith” as I am describing it. Why now? Why this explanation? Because the explanation I’m providing goes to the heart of some of the deepest fears that human beings struggle with and points to a Real Answer. We have been told that “Love is the Answer” for many, many centuries, but people are still killing each other and hurting each other and fearing each other. The “Love Solution” does not tell people what they are supposed to do if they are ignored by others in a group or if they have become the target of another person’s emotional attacks. What can be done to stop “those people” from hurting you? Out instincts tell us to hurt them back. The Love Solution simply tells us to love our enemies in spite of what they might do to us. It does not explain to us what we are dealing with in a way that enables us to FIX the problem. The answer I’m pointing to does.

I really don’t like the idea of describing what I’m proposing as a “new religion.” It is merely what it is: a more accurate and useful Explanation of human nature that has some very important implications. The points I’m emphasizing are so fundamental, I believe they must be addressed prior to any discussions we might want to pursue about God. Indeed, they are so fundamental, I believe they can be recognized and embraced by atheists, Christians, Muslims, etc. Yes, I recognize that there are some similarities between what I am proposing and what many religious traditions propose and that those similarities are likely to make many people wary, but they are incidental in nature and there is nothing that I can do about it. We NEED to make our shared vulnerability the central focus of our lives and to get everyone to sign on to the effort. It is the only way we are going to be able to fix the problem of human nature…

Gabriel
wearesaved.org

10

I agree with your causes Gabriel but I don’t know if your way is as fundamental as you might think it to be. I myself obviously see your valid point but I don’t think everyone does or will. For example the same way you took my “Love Solution” and interpreted it to mean something different than your system of ideas. My “Love Solution” was not meant to be any different than your solution. I meant the same thing you said simply in different words. The different words are my point. Although it may seem uncannily strange that you have found a wonderful truth that everyone should know, be very wary as to the message that is heard of you and not by you. Everyone will interpret exactly what they see and hear through the filter of their own perception. So if you think your words are fool proof…I would think again. I know your heart is right but I’m warning you, its not hard to go astray in your beliefs trying to salvage your pride in words. Remember its the idea that counts anyway, and an idea can be defined or represented by an infinite amount of words. So I would advise against preaching specific definitions of life, and towards being a living example of your beliefs. In other words, you can’t tell people how it is, you can only point to it at all times and hope they see it.

11

Thats why philosophy has a minor impact on everyday life. I had a lot of questions, so I looked for answers. I found some, and noticed afterwards that there was analogies with the philosophic literature. One simple statement is that you can’t really know the truth (knowledge is guesswork as Gabriel stated). But modern day life is based on knowing things, so there is a conflict. People who try to make certainties in life, and wiser people know that there is not much certainty in life.

With words, we try to make things clear, although what we are looking at, aint clear. And therefore, everybody has his/hers own truth, educated or uneducated in philosophy. Maybe mankind can reach a higher level of consciousness, that surpasses superstition, religion and rationality?

12

I believe that mankind can and has reached a level of higher conciousness which surpasses religion, superstition, and rationality. I believe we all have the capabilities to do such things we simply aren’t willing. We squander our lives in personal struggles so blinded by the moment we barely have a chance at the whole picture.

Life was meant for us to learn and to choose. To live and create. But as the years have progressed we have thrown our own society into so much ignorance just so that we might avoid pain. We have hidden even the chance at truth from ourselves because we’re so afraid we won’t be able to handle it.

I say it is time to bring out the pain again. It is time to realize our existence and face the music. Its time for a little weeding.

13

Nientilin:

You are wise, Nientilin. And your words are well-taken. I hope you didn’t see my comments about the Love Solution as belittling or dismissive. Of course you were correct when you said that we were talking about the same thing. I use the word “approval” to describe what it is—fundamentally—that we need instead of “love” because “love” is a type of approval but “approval” is not a type of love. When you start to review every sort of human behavior as I have, the distinction begins to matter a great deal.

And yes, I’m quite aware that not everyone will understand the words I’m using or be receptive to them if they do. (Gadfly’s response provides plentiful evidence of just that.) But I still have a great deal of faith in words and in the power of logic. It’s not that I believe I can produce a magical collection of words that will immediately inspire every person who reads them to embrace a profound hope, no matter what their circumstances may be. What sustains my faith in this ideal vision is my understanding of human nature and group dynamics and advertising principles.

Most people are natural “majoritarians.” When they first encounter some new idea, their first instinct is to look over their shoulders to see what others think because they typically do not trust their own judgment. Any social Movement that grows from very tiny roots must take advantage of this natural human tendency. Advocates must make sure that they always “have the numbers in their favor.” What is the likelihood that a single individual (a stranger) could present a new idea (that actually has merit) to a group and reasonably expect that it would be warmly received? If the group has a “culture” that views all new ideas with suspicion, the odds are great that each of the group’s members will race each other to be the first to ridicule the new proposal.

But if the same idea is presented to a single individual by two or more people who express enthusiasm and conviction for the new idea (and no cynics are present), that single individual will be encouraged by his instincts to be more “open” to the possibility that is has merit. Why? Because it is safer to do so. The risk of experiencing disapproval is smaller; and there is at least the possibility of experiencing a reward (approval) if they find that they agree. Of course, the larger the group of supporters, the safer the individual will feel. But even as small a ratio as 2:1 makes a big difference in how receptive an individual will be to a new idea. If a single individual tells you about some new idea you’ve never heard about before, your instinct will be to view the new idea as “just an opinion.” But if you are introduced to a new idea that has merit via an encounter with two people who are discussing their enthusiasm for it, you are far more likely to give it serious consideration.

I’m quite confident that Emotional Honesty will one day become the central focus of our cultures if those who want to see it happen are savvy in their efforts to disseminate it. Politicians and advertisers are acutely aware of at least certain aspects of this social dynamic. Surely idealists with a good heart ought to be able to employ the same understanding of human nature to pursue their worthy goals. The end that Emotional Honesty seeks is purely virtuous. No one gets exploited; everyone benefits. The goal is not to mislead people, but only to take away one of the obstacles that makes it difficult for people to see a hidden truth. If those who embrace Emotional Honesty always make sure that the numbers are in their favor, their success is guaranteed. People just need to be reassured that they have nothing to fear. If they use their “numbers” wisely, a very small group of idealists can work together to effect a great change in the world that will end up benefiting everyone…

Real Hope…

Gabriel
wearesaved.org

14

Universal progress and mass forward movement are good things to hope for, but I think the focus should be on the journey, not the end.

I dont believe we’ve had any convincing proof that we know what the ultimate aim is for humanity. (As the original topic said, the end of the repitition)

But there is certainly value here as we move from place to place, idea to idea.

15

I was definitley not offended by your words. I just meant to point out the ambiguity of words. Even though you reviewed every sort of human behavior and have found distinctions, those distinctions will be subjective to your understanding of the words and also subjective to the words you choose to describe what you have ascertained.

I too have studied all sorts of behavior and my word for this undying need still stands as “love”. For in my distinction between approval and love, approval does not explain all the specific situations that love does. The distinction matters a great deal to me. But after pushing my ideas out into the public I have realized that language is such a bane on our communications. Even though those distinctions are necessary they’re definitley not as universal as we think they are. You REALLY have to listen to a person to know what they’re trying to say, and vice versa.

I’m also quite confident that honesty will be cause of peace. I just don’t see how everyone is going to suddenly be honest with eachother. I can see how easily it could be done in certain individuals, but for a human race as a whole? That’s gonna take a long time.

Even if most people DO start being honest, there will always be some ignorant population I believe. At least one devious soul that rebels simply because they desire to be rebellious. How do you accomodate for a person that doesn’t want things to get better because they’ve already given up to the “dark side?”

My solution is not to preach to the masses or to tag up on people for a bandwagon approach, but simply to live life to its fullest as a perfect example of our own beliefs. To stand behind what we believe in, willing to believe in anything as long it is true in our hearts. I have no confidence in any logic or words. I simply have faith…a real, honest, hope for the best. I will not stand behind the words, but I will stand behind my faith.

16

I hate to jump in here, but if someone’s gonna mention me, then they better expect a response. Gabriel, you said in another post that the chasm between our perspectives is too great and that you would be back another time…yet here you are back again talking to someone else and referring to me in a negative light. A tactic that is very contrary to the purpose and aim of the website you founded, but I guess I’m misunderstanding or not being receptive enough to what you website offers. What’s worse is that you mention me as having provided evidence of how one misunderstands or isn’t receptive to your words - yet you have said NOTHING about what evidence there is, nor have you done anything to show how I have misunderstood. Now what you meant by receptive, I assume is “Ready or willing to receive favorably” (dictionary.com), if so - I direct you back to my first post responding to you (the one you lashed out on afterwards) so that you will reread and notice the number of times I said I agreed with you, the number of times I said I partially agreed or partially disagreed with you, and ofcourse there are things on which I completely disagreed with you on.

Gabriel stated:

What’s even more disturbing is that in the above statement there isn’t even the option or suggestion that YOU may be wrong about what you are trying to say. You assume you are right, you assume I am wrong, and you assume that I am wrong because I have either misunderstood you or I am not receptive to your words. Once again, something contrary to what I imagine someone would say who is a believer in the values your website proposes. So I’m here to make you aware that it is also possible for someone to disagree with you, and for their disagreement to be correct and you to be wrong (I am not however trying to insinuate that that is the case between you and I).

Gabriel stated:

I’m not trying to say you are wrong, nor am I trying to make you look stupid or to just be picky at your words - but I would like to ask you a question “What reasoning, rational, evidence, or sources have brought you to believe that people’s first instinct is to look over their shoulders to see what others think before they make their own judgement”?

Gabriel stated:

Well I guess it is safe to say that ILP doesn’t have a culture that views all new ideas with suspicion, especially since you are a single individual here (a stranger) and the only person who has criticised your ideas thus far was me. There has been no race to ridicule your proposal, not even by me. I merely wished to correct you on Hume and to speak with you on a deeper level on some of the other issues you mentioned. In fact, as it stands a greater majority of ILP members are advocating your view as opposed to mine.

Gabriel stated:

So if I have understood the above correctly, the majority of people are followers?

Gabriel stated:

I agree. Key words for me in the above are “you are far more likely to give it serious consideration”, as opposed to saying “you are far more likely to do as they say or accept what they say” which is what the other quote above this one appears to be saying.

Gabriel stated:

Just curious, when you say Emotional Honesty, do you simply mean people being honest about their emotions to each other, or do you mean something more complex?

Gabriel stated:

I’m not sure I follow. If by emotional honesty you simply mean people being honest about their emotions, I don’t see how this logically follows to saying no one gets exploited. In fact, many would argue that they are not emotionally honest for the reason that if they were then people would simply and quite easily exploit them. Exploiting them need not entail those exploiting to be dishonest about their emotional states. If this was a criticism put against your argument, what might we say to defend your stance? I ask only because I find your view on Emotional Honesty to be admirable and I only wish to see that it could work in practice.

Gabriel stated:

Numbers? Do you mean the majority of people relative to the situation are in favor of their emotional state? Doesn’t this cause the problem of being defined by what others think? What happens to individualism, self knowledge and admiration? When you say ‘success’ what exactly do you mean? I ask because different people view the term in different ways, some see success as being happy with yourself and with what you do, if that is the case then I disagree that numbers will guarantee success - it may, but it also may not. If however we define success as what people see as success, then success becomes that which people want to see from you, what they want from you, and what they think your life should be like - is that what success should be?

Gabriel stated:

I honestly wish I could agree. The kind of people you appear to be talking about are ‘good’ people. In my experience good people are screwed over at every (exageration) turn, stop, and movement whatsoever. Doing good takes time, effort, and caring. The majority, in my experience, only care for things that take as little time, effort, and caring as possible with as high rewards as possible. Which is to say that they will step on anyone to get what they want. On another note, I would be curious to learn more about what you think would be great world change and how it would benefit everyone…if you are willing to share it with me and be reassured that you have nothing to fear.

What’s your take?

17

Just a quick response here…

Nientilin:

I look forward to answering the questions you raised and to a more thorough comparison of our conceptualizations of the centrality of love vs. approval. Unfortunately, I have very little time over the next 48 hours to spend on the response so it will have to wait until maybe tomorrow…

Gadfly:

I appreciate your efforts to pursue a discussion in a more “sensitive” way and want to reassure you that I am not at all reluctant to respond to each and every point/argument/question you have raised. I am simply forced by time constraints to pass on those discussions where the dialogue becomes especially difficult, at least for the time being. At present, I am forced to spend a good deal of my time earning income in order to meet my financial obligations. Maybe the WE ARE S.A.V.E.D. project will one day inspire some individual with resources to subsidize my efforts, but until that day comes I will be struggling with time allocation decisions.

I did think that I might have time this morning to explain what I mean when I refer to Emotional Honesty. Yes, my concept of Emotional Honesty is more complex in that it is not an individualistic prescription. By Emotional Honesty I am not referring to the practice of being honest with others about your feelings/thoughts. I am referring to the proposed practice of being honest with others re: your great need for approval and the profound vulnerability it establishes within you. The “event” of Emotional Honesty that I refer to is therefore an idealized state of affairs where everyone is admitting his/her emotional vulnerability to each other and because they are, none of them fears each other. In such an environment there are no risks faced and no victims created.

The salient question that both you and Nientilin raise (at least implicitly) is, “How do we get from here to there?” I will answer that question just as soon as I again have the opportunity.

Until then…

Gabriel
http://www.wearesaved.org

18

To All:

I thought you might be interested in a discussion I’m having with “Kevin” on the Examined Life philosophy discussion forum:

By Kevin on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 10:37 pm:

Gabriel: Sort of interesting. How does it differ from, say, the pragmatist argument that all our truths are provisional (ie, not absolute)?

Also, if philosophers could actually improve our guesswork, why don’t gamblers hire them and bring them along to Vegas or the racetrack? But maybe all gamblers are philosophers, of sorts. They need to be when they’re on a losing streak.

Which suggests what most people really want philosophers for–not to improve their guesswork, but to provide consolation.

By Gabriel on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 08:53 am:

Hi, Kevin…

Re:

Quote:
How does it differ from, say, the pragmatist argument that all our truths are provisional (ie, not absolute)?

I would suggest that the pragmatist’s claim that there are no absolute truths, but only provisional truths, is not accurate. I would suggest, rather, that while there is Absolute Truth, our “access” to it is limited, dependent as we Perceivers are on biological data-collecting machines that are limited. The “absolute truth” about Martian geology is still unknown to us, but our machines have been able to collect some data that has improved the accuracy of some of our previous guesses. Our relationship with the truth is such that it is external to us. The guess that I embrace is that the Truth—the absolute truth—exists independently and separately from our perceptions [of varying accuracy] of it. Our perceptions, our guesses, do not determine in any way what the truth is. They are only perceptions. (The Allegory of the Cave comes to mind…) Our abilities to conceptualize the truth are, as Kant suggested, “pre-determined conditions of our existence.” I will allow for the possibility that the pragmatist’s claim that there are “only provisional truths” may not ultimately conflict with my description of our situation depending on what they really mean by the words they use. But even if it does not, the choice of words they’ve used is unfortunate because it has led many to believe that truth is subjective. That I utterly reject. Perceptions are subjective; the truth is not.

It probably wouldn’t make sense to try to characterize philosophers as Guessing Experts who have valuable speculations to offer to every sort of individual. Their guesses are specialized and quite noble, in my opinion, because they take on the “ultimate” questions that can be asked about our existence. They are not easy questions to answer, but I do believe that the accuracy of philosophers’ guesses can be improved over time. Consider the amount of intellectual energy that was invested in efforts to “prove” (establish the absolute certainty of) the existence of God. Skeptics uncovered the fact that it is not possible to eliminate all uncertainty about our guesses about God’s nature/existence/etc. Unfortunately, many of these skeptics made the mistake of assuming that any guess about God’s nature/existence is utterly worthless unless it can be embraced with absolute certainty—an equally invalid guess. Correcting the errors of these perceptions enables us to embrace our guesses without abandoning our continuing desire to improve their accuracy…

Gabriel

By Kevin on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 09:52 am:

Gabriel: Wouldn’t a belief in Absolute Truth be a guess?

That’s what pragmatists would reply. Pierce thought that all of our “truths” might, in the best of circumstances, lead us closer and closer to some Absolute truth, even if we never reached it. James thought it was perfectly OK to take intellectual or moral holidays, as he called them, and believe that there was an Absolute Truth from time to time, although when it came to what we could actually verify, he felt that all of our beliefs should be considered provisional because some day, some how, any one of them might be disproven.

So far, what you seem to be saying is not really very different at all from what pragmatists have said. Pragmatists don’t hold that the truth is merely “subjective”; they think that true beliefs are those that work best, and that the beliefs or statements that work best tend, on the whole, to be the ones that we can verify objectively. Certainly a person can have unverifiable beliefs, or beliefs that would fail various verification tests. And some pragmatists allow that if we do have beliefs that work for us, then there must be some measure of truth to them, regardless of whether they can be verified by present scientific standards. But any of them, including those we have already verified, could be unverified if we develop different, better standards of verification. Thus, what we take to be true can evolve just as our standards of verification change. But the question is, are they evolving towards some “Absolute Truth” or are they just evolving?

By Gabriel on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 07:04 am:

Hi, Kevin…

You asked:

Quote:
“Gabriel: Wouldn’t a belief in Absolute Truth be a guess?“

Yes, of course.

And then:

Quote:
“…what we take to be true can evolve just as our standards of verification change. But the question is, are they evolving towards some “Absolute Truth” or are they just evolving?”

It is, of course, impossible to embrace any answer to this question with absolute certainty, but that does not stop human minds from “leaning” toward one guess or another. Generally speaking, we can’t help but make a guess in the face of absolute certainty, for there is at least one part of the human brain that is not able to passively accept ultimate uncertainty. Many times, if we continue to speculate about a certain fearful possibility for a while and we are not able to conceptualize a more pleasant possibility, the brain eventually begins to accept that which is feared to be the reality it is dealing with, even though there is no way to be sure that the scary guess is true. So how might we best decide which guess to embrace? Well, there is one other thing we might want to consider when deciding which one to embrace. It turns out that there are specific consequences that we are forced to deal with when we contemplate many of the either/or questions in metaphysics. Here’s an example:

I may not have much confidence in the popular guess that God is a “person” who has needs and feelings because I don’t understand why He wouldn’t know how to get them satisfied. But I do have great confidence in the fundamental guess that we—as minds—continue to exist after corporeal death. In fact, I have as much confidence in that guess as I have in my belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. Why? Ultimately, it is because of the consequences of making the choice. First, it is simply impossible to assert with absolute certainty either that we will continue to exist after corporeal death or that we will not. The only thing we say with absolute certainty is that we don’t know. So in the absence of that uncertainty, people make a guess. If we make one guess, we are punished with pain/fear. The programmed part of our brains becomes very upset at the prospect of futility and it recognizes that if we cease to exist upon corporeal, then nothing that we do in this life has any meaning. If we knew with absolute certainty that corporeal death = non-existence, then upon death, none of it ever happened. What difference would it make if you were a good or a bad person? Why not experience every forbidden thing there is to experience? What difference would if make if you ever loved or if you ever were loved? It never happened. If you were utterly convinced that corporeal death = non-existence, then it would make no sense to ask the question “Why?” or to seek to understand anything because it wouldn’t matter if you found out. (So any scientist who claims to believe that there is no afterlife is living a life of hypocrisy, since none of his efforts to expand human understanding, or just his own, makes any sense.) It is nothing more than logic that leads our brains to these ultimate perceptions of futility. If, on the other hand, we embrace the assumption that we do continue to exist after corporeal death, then we are rewarded with the perception that our lives actually do have meaning and the reassuring feeling that it is okay for us to embrace the meaning we perceive in the things that we do in this life. We can enjoy loving and being loved.

It is because I recognize these consequences that I embrace the guess that we experience an afterlife and that there is a continuation of meaning between this life and the next. I can see that it is equally valid, or equally invalid, to embrace either guess. So why choose the guess that punishes? What is to be gained from such a choice? If it ultimately turns out that my guess is wrong and we actually do cease to exist upon death, then at least I was happily deluded while I was living on this earth. If, on the other hand, my guess is that death = non-existence and that guess turns out ultimately to be wrong, then that means that I suffered the pain of perceived futility during my life for nothing. I suffered needlessly. Why would anyone want to assume such a guess? (I have an answer for those who “assume the worst” because they can’t conceptualize how it might be possible for the mind to survive death) If we can get to where it makes sense for us to assume a rational existence, then it becomes equally valid for us to embrace the guess that our “needs” (that punish us with pain/fear when they are not satisfied and reward us with pleasure/contentment when satisfied) can be depended upon to guide us to a sure understanding of (confidence in) at least the parameters of the Absolute Truth. It “feels good” to believe that we will continue to exist after death, that what we do in this life “carries over” into the next life, and that there is Ultimate Justice (i.e., we can’t “get away with anything” in this life because it will cost us some “satisfaction” that we would otherwise be able to experience in the next). If you press me for details about God or the Afterlife, I cannot help you, but those details are not necessary in order for one to benefit from making the “right” choices re: the most fundamental questions.

How does this relate to your question? I find that it “feels good” if I embrace the guess that the “potential truths” we come up with are evolving toward THE Absolute Truth, that THE Absolute Truth itself is not evolving. If the Absolute Truth is somehow “fixed”, then the evolution of potential truths is not random in any sense. Somehow, believing that the Absolute Truth is merely Today’s Truth provides little satisfaction, and I am depending on my externally imposed mental needs to tell me which among equally invalid/valid guesses I should choose. {I claim that we have not only 1) “purely biological” and 2) emotional needs, but also 3) Other Higher Needs, e.g., the need “to understand”, the need for logical consistency, the need to perceive that our actions matter.} So once again, my Need Theory comes into play. In the world of scientific speculation, guesses that “work” are ones that account for the physical world phenomena we observe. In the world of metaphysical speculation, guesses that “work” are ones that satisfy our mental needs.

Does this address your question, Kevin?

Gabriel
wearesaved.org

19

Gabriel stated:

The irony is that my last post here was more antagonistic than the one which you called my bilious prose. Gabriel, something you should learn about me is that I focus strictly on the words, their logic meanings (semantics as well as syntax), and I try to find the truth within them using an inference to the best explanation. You aren’t the first to misunderstand, label, judge, and lash out at my method for attaining truth. Much like Plato was lashed out at for his method. In fact, Thrasymachus is one of my favorite characters for the reason that he strikes me as the most realistic response Plato would get, a very aggressive and vehement disagreement. Since, in my opinion, most of the characters are too willing to agree with Plato throughout the dialogues. Life, well dialogue specifically, just doesn’t happen like that. Simple things like asking people a question to which they know I already think I know the answer strikes them as antagonistic or condescending, instead I ask questions to things I believe I already have the best answer to because I am very open to the fact that I may have things wrong and I want to build as much of a concensus on the question as possible - and not just a concensus but I also want to understand peoples reasonings for their conclusions regardless of whether I agree or not. You need not cover all my points within my posts in the present or future, but I would like you to cover all my points to the post you called bilious prose.

What’s your take?

20

Hi, Nientilin…

I agree with all of your points about the difficulties of using words, Nientilin. I have long avoided using the word love when I can think of more precise words to use simply because people do not readily know what you mean when you use the term. It has so many different meanings, depending on the context. When people use it casually, as a verb, its meaning is usually synonymous with the verb value. To say “I love chocolate” or “I love football” or “I love my mother” is to say “I value [chocolate/football/my mother].” In every case, that which is valued is valued because it is perceived to be a source of need-satisfaction (i.e., pleasure). But when two people who have “fallen in love” with each other use the words “I love you” for the first time, it means so much more.

Yes, it says “I value you” but it also expresses a request. It says, “I want something from you. I want you to perceive me as the most important source of need-satisfaction in your life. I always want to be your first choice as a sex partner, your preference, given all of your other options. I want to be able to rely on your essential approval of me, always. I want the security of knowing that you will always be there for me. Because this would satisfy so many of my deepest needs in an ultimate sort of way, I pledge that I will always regard you in the same way. I want to be the primary source of need-satisfaction in your life (approval needs, sexual needs, security needs) in the hope that you will value it as much as I do and will want to provide me with the same.” It is a declaration of need, a revelation of hope that exposes one [potentially] to the tremendous pain of rejection. For those who have been fortunate enough to fall in love with someone who has fallen in love with them, the words, “I love you” are so inadequate to express the meaning, the desire, the hope, and the gratitude. If they rely on those words to communicate all of those feelings/hopes/desires to each other, then when they then turn to someone else outside of their primary relationship (like their mothers, fathers, friends) and say, “I love you” the difference in intended meaning becomes glaringly apparent. And then, of course, there is agape love…

I think that is why I have eschewed the use of the word love when I can be more precise using other words. Immediately one is thrown into a discussion of what exactly one means by the use of the word. As you pointed out, Nientilin, one can successfully communicate using such words only if the one hearing them is really listening. (Is there some way I could read more about your expanded ideas on this topic? The ones you shared publicly? I would be very much interested.)

One thing I am not counting on is everyone “suddenly being honest with each other.” As you pointed out, there are only certain individuals who would/could be receptive to the idea of Emotional Honesty. As everyone who visits this website with serious intent knows, the vast majority of people in the world depend on others to tell them what is important. They are, as Gadfly put it, “followers.” They can be approached directly, but only if the voice they hear appears to be coming from a “majority” source that they have respected. Argument and reasoning means less to them than “what everybody else thinks.” These people will be brought on board in the latter stages of the Emotional Honesty campaign, when it is possible to begin heavily advertising the virtues of Emotional Honesty. But before that day can arrive, the movement will depend on a smaller group of educated advocates who have some courage in their willingness to challenge the majority.

Displays of courage always “get the attention” of the otherwise disinterested majority. Such displays were certainly a big factor in the early spread of Christianity. It wasn’t just that the early Christians were willing to “die” for their faith (although that certainly did affect people); it was the fact that 1) they were willing to courageously declare what they believed was true (and risk being perceived as “foolish”), and 2) people began to see that the Christians were good people. One other characteristic of the early Christians that stayed in the minds of soon-to-be-converted-non-Christians was the irony of their behavior, e.g., they would “love their enemies.” (What you said about the importance of being a living example of your faith is quite true, Nientilin.)

It is also important to understand that most people “change their minds” only gradually. The first time they encounter a new [merit worthy] idea, they are likely to reject it outright. Even if they “sort of” agree, they still need to get comfortable with it for a while before they are able to actually speak out in favor of it. So an initial rejection or disinterested response should not be interpreted as evidence of the idea’s failure. The more they continue to hear about the new idea and see that it hasn’t fallen by the wayside, the more receptive they will become. Persistence matters because it really does mean something to observers.

There will definitely be “devious souls” who will feel threatened by a new initiative that takes them out of their comfort zone, but these people can be easily led to “see the light.” Those who come to see the truth about The Need and The Vulnerability inside of everyone else will find that they can confidently present themselves to any number of skeptics with total conviction. I know that I can easily expose the emotional vulnerability of any skeptic because I know what is there inside of every person. If you “have the numbers” it is easier to break down resistance, but even if you are in a minority you can still express with absolute conviction what you know to be true about the inner life of any cynic. Ultimately, this display of courage opens up eyes.

Well, there’s more to say on this topic, Nientilin, but I have to end it now. More later.

Gadfly, I beg your patience as I have once again run out of time. I intend to answer your queries at least somewhat thoroughly over the next four days or so. Thanks for your input and your palpable dedication to the truth. You can never be faulted for that…

Gabriel
http://www.wearesaved.org