Still plugging along with

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I am still engaged with Aurobindo…

One of the things he always writes about is this idea
of an ‘‘over mind’’ a ‘‘Absolute’’ which he calls,
Brahman… which is everything… which is fine,
however, it does avoid the Kantian questions,
''What am I/we to do?" ''What am I/we to believe in?"
“What can I/we know?”

As far as I can tell, this belief in Brahman or all,
leaves us with a Kantian problem…If I am part
of Brahman, and my soul is Atman, which also
means Brahman… ''What am I/we to do?“…
the idea of Brahman does tell us what ‘’ What am I/we
to believe in?” but it gives us no information on
what we are to do with this belief…

Ok, I believe in the Brahman, now what? There is no
becoming because I am already, in soul, Atman, which
is just another word for Brahman…The movement,
which is what this is calling for, this movement from
not knowing that I am Atman, to knowing my soul
is Brahman…or Atman… the movement is not
knowing my soul is Atman, to knowing my soul is
Atman… and going from not knowing to knowing…
what is that process? and therein lies the entire
religious/philosophical tradition of the East…
going from not knowing to knowing…
and thus, the answer seems to be within the
Kantian question, ''What am I/we to do?" to go
from not knowing to knowing… and that process is…

The problem lies within the very beginning of the process…
you must begin with the idea that the goal is to become
Brahman… which is to assume that Brahman/Atman
is actually there… the entire Eastern philosophy relies
on the assumption that there is Brahman, everything
and the soul is Atman, which is Brahman…
you have to start with the assumption and go from there…
without the initial assumption, there is Brahman,
there is no path to achieving Brahman… you make
the assumption and then work toward it…

Which is the exact same problem within the West…
that the assumption is, there is a heaven and god,
thus, we can create or practice the process which allows
us to reach god/heaven…but it takes the initial assumption
for this to work… why try for a heaven which may or may not
be there?

we are at home… and we want to journey to Chicago…
but we aren’t in fact positive that a city named
Chicago actually exists… Personally, I can attest
to a city named Chicago in Illinois, I lived for years near
there and have visited it many times…Great city BTW…
but we have enough evidence, both within the facts
of the city, and in independent testimony…such
as mine… to judge there is a real city named Chicago
and it is in Illinois… a Mid-west state… about 2000 miles
from where I am right now… I can point it out on a map,
and I could, if necessary, travel to Chicago… I know the way…

and many say, there is enough testimony to show that the absolute,
heaven and god, both exist… but it is not on any map and
directions only tell us we must die before getting to heaven…
and there is no evidence that god exists… I can back up
the knowledge of the city Chicago with evidence…
but there is no evidence showing us that either god or
heaven exists…

and there is no evidence outside of Aurobindo, that some
sort of absolute or overmind exists… no evidence that
there is Brahman… or Atman… I can prove without a
shadow of a doubt that the city of Chicago exists,
but you can’t, nor can Aurobindo show us or prove
to us that some sort of absolute or overmind exists…
you have to start with the belief to have evidence
of that belief… whereas I don’t have to have belief that
Chicago exists… it exists regardless, if I believe or not…
but to believe in a god or heaven requires prior belief
from us, to believe in it…

so, in this case, we find that our beliefs to work, we
need to believe in it, prior to our search for it…
we can only find if we believe, not before…

and that leads us back to the Kantian questions,
''What am I/we to do?"… we can only find god
or heaven if we already believe, so, ‘‘what am I/we to do?’’
with a belief that we already hold? a belief that hasn’t been
examined or reexamined… a belief that most likely was
indoctrinated into us as children… and how can we trust
beliefs that we only hold because they were indoctrinated into
us as children… do you still hold to childhood beliefs like
Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny? Why have you lost
those childhood indoctrinations and yet, you still hold the
childhood indoctrination of god and heaven?

the question of ''What am I/we to do?" does have our believes
as its central basis… for if we believe in god or heaven,
then ''What am I/we to do?" is very different than if
we hold to there being no god, no heaven…

''What am I/we to do?" becomes a different statement
in a god universe, then it is in a no god universe…
our beliefs, in a very fundamental way, determines
the Kantian question, ''What am I/we to do?"
so, to know what we are to do, requires us to
examine our fundamental beliefs and decide if
they are justified beliefs or unjustified beliefs…

and how are we to know, what beliefs are justified
and what beliefs are unjustified? we can engaged
in the philosophical idea of epistemology… that of
knowledge… What can we know? and is that knowledge
justified by standards, that we or anyone can follow?
I can reasonable prove that 1 + 1 = 2…
and it won’t take a lot of work… but can I justify
a belief that 1 + 1 = 3… one of the things about
the truth is that it does take work to justify, but not
as much work to justify as having faith in a false belief…
it takes a lot of work to justify believe in god/heaven,
whereas it doesn’t take a lot of work to say,
‘‘there is no god, no heaven’’‘’ that belief, of no god,
is far easier to hold than a belief in a god universe…
it is far easier to justify a no god universe, than a belief
in a god universe…

and to hold as Aurobindo holds that there is overmind,
Brahman, Atman… requires much prove…
it can’t be taken on faith that Brahman does exists…
that belief has to be justified in some manner…
and there is no way we can logically or rationally
justify the belief that there is such a thing as Brahman
or Atman… how are we to prove such a thing?
one can only believe if one already holds that belief…

the question becomes, in reading something, what
standards are you using to see the truth in that reading?
I would use two such standards, one is the Kantian
questions, the other, does that belief useable as
in living our lives by that truth?

In other words, can I live my life by the truths
we find in the Aurobindo, about the absolute,
or the Brahman/Atman… How do I live out
my truths, as in a way of life, within the
knowledge gained by knowing the Brahman/Atman…
this is the second question, how do I use that
information, as a way of life? for that is the point
of both religion and philosophy… how am I to
use that information as a ''way of life?"
How do we use religious information or
philosophical information, as a ‘‘way of life?’’
As the ancient Greeks used philosophy, as a
‘‘way of life’’ in a way we can’t even imagine today…
nor do we use religious information, as a ‘‘way of life’’
As the Christians did for over a 1,000 years…
for that was the point of early Christianity…
to use it as a ‘‘way of life’’… it wasn’t just about
theory, but about how to take that religious
information, there is a god, and use that
as a practical ''way of life"

So, we have two points here, one is using our
knowledge, as a ‘’‘way of life’’ and how do we
use the idea of Brahman/Atman, as a ‘‘way of life?’’
and two, would be the Kantian questions,
''What am I/we to do?" given we have this information…
be it a god universe, or a no god universe…
we have to apply our information in terms of
either the Kantian questions or the using information
as a ‘‘way of life’’… what do you do?

Kropotkin

2

…the Golden Rule.

3

This is a very deep and thoughtful reflection.

I think it starts with epistemology, “How can we know anything?” One might say “But faith is necessary; you don’t need to know in order to believe.” But then I can counter: “But how do you know that? What can we know about faith?” So we end up in a position where reason is necessary, and faith may or may not be justified, according to what reason can tell us. Otherwise, you have no concept of what to have faith in or why.

I see the question “How can I know there’s an external world?” as a warm-up for the question “How can I know whether there is a God?” If you can justify the first, you have some idea of what to look for in the second: the most factually consistent explanation of your experience. There are dozens of arguments for God, and thousands and thousands of testimonies, and we must decide “Is this evidence enough? What is this evidence of?”

You might say that the whole point of inquiry is to contribute to a (good) way of life, and surely there is something right about that. But epistemology, logic and metaphysics come first to me because you cannot know anything about a way of life without having an idea of what exists and what can be known at all. The relevance of the God question is a perfect example. What is metaphysically the case can make all the difference for ethical conclusions. If we are to be happy, or virtuous, are we aiming for happiness or virtue in this life, or the next, or for millions more? Is there something divinely revealed to us, or isn’t there?

There is a lot of appealing to authority in spiritual circles. Someone will ask a guru a question, the guru will give an answer, the questioner will ask a further question, and at some point the guru will stop answering, and the guru and their followers will make out like the questioner has inferior understanding and just isn’t as profound or experienced as the guru and the followers. But to me, the questioner, like yourself, is the one pursuing the truth, and those who refuse to answer are simply resting on their assumptions. Spiritual gurus rely on metaphysical beliefs, even as they downplay thinking and deny rationalism. Are they wise, perhaps - but what is wisdom? And when is it wisdom to believe what someone says without understanding why they said it?

Think for yourself, I say - and many gurus agree.

4

Self=other and +=-, Keter. That’s all you need to know to live a rich and fulfilling philosophical life.

5

@abc1231 … BriBri is mocking you.

In his previous manifestation as zoot allures, we had this GR discussion …

6

The Radiant Rule is reduce the net amount of suffering in the universe while increasing the maximum happiness in the universe. Radiant Rule supersedes the golden and platinum rule.

Zoot adequately explained the flaws of the Golden rule, I did not even need to click the document since he already won the argument by the thumbnail preview.

7

I thought that was called the principle of utility.

Three of the big contenders in normative ethics are:
-Utilitarianism (à la Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill: maximize every sentient being’s happiness, minimize their suffering).
-Deontological ethics (à la Immanuel Kant: Do that which you can rationally will to be a universal law).
-Virtue ethics (à la Aristotle: Develop your character to the utmost by finding the middle ground between extremes).

8

–off topic but-- I like the avatar change. Very escher-esque.

1 Like
9

If happiness is dependent upon anothers’ suffering, which I personally suspect to be the case, then all these “moral ethical rules” are an absurd nonsense. The most utilitarian position would be to reduce suffering BUT NOT INCREASE PLEASURE, under your presumptions and position.

It’s absurd when morals can’t differentiate between artificial and natural origins in the first place though…

10

John Stuart Mill tried to get around this problem by distinguishing between “higher and lower” forms of pleasure. Happiness gained at the expense of another’s suffering, on his account, is a very low form of happiness that should be given basically no weight at all (in the ‘calculus’).

His famous way of putting it was: “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”

Whether that explanation works, well, that’s for us to decide.

11

And how do you determine higher/lower pleasure? You golden rule it.

12

Well, he was wrong…

If pleasure is a negative state (release of anxiety / stress, which is positive pressure), then you can’t.

Furthermore the “Golden Rule” doesn’t take into account individuals’ pain tolerances. Some people are stronger (spiritually) than others. That’s why Christianity (LORD Christ) exists.

13

A tensionless state does not lead to pleasure. We need some eustress. Not all tension is distress.

What else do you think is ruled when you treat the other/self as you would want (consent with pleasure) to be treated if you were them?

you’re doing it wrong

…because we keep losing the thread? Exactly right.

14

In Mill’s book Utilitarianism, Ch. 2, he says: “Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference… that is the more desirable pleasure.”

But in the same chapter, he also says: “In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbour as yourself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality.”

You find the Golden Rule in a lot of places. Just for a start:

Tradition Golden Rule Formulation
Christianity “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (Luke 6:31)
Judaism “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor.” (Talmud, Shabbat 31a)
Islam “Wish for your brother what you wish for yourself.” (Hadith)
Hinduism “This is the sum of duty: Do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you.” (Mahabharata 5:1517)
Buddhism “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” (Udana-Varga 5:18)
Confucianism “Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself.” (Analects 15:23)
Zoroastrianism “Do not do unto others whatever is injurious to yourself.” (Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29)

And a few dissenters: “Do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you—they may have different tastes.” -George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

Kant, in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, called it “trite”, and made the same point Zoot did: “a criminal would argue on this ground against the judge punishing him.”

Kant preferred this principle: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.”

(I know I’m not making my own arguments; I’m studying logic right now, I will come to ethics in due time.)

15

It is found in every major culture in history because there would be no culture without it.

Treating every person as an end is the Golden Rule, restated. If you aren’t taking their tastes into account, you’re (again, like with pain tolerance) doing it wrong. Folks just don’t think it through.

1 Like
16

Congratulations, you missed the point again.

17

Your point? Maybe you’re the one who missed the real point that isn’t your point?

First, tell me what your point was. Then, tell me how it is or isn’t the real point.

18

Because if a Universal moral principle is based on reducing negative pressure (ie. Pain and Suffering), then enduring that pain (Passion of the Christ) would be the highest moral principle possible and imaginable.

So your casual dismissal of pain differences exposes that you don’t actually understand the underlying moral principles of Christianity, let alone “The Golden Rule”.

19

You have it in your mind wrong. I’m not sure how it got in there that way.

So we need to start over.

Can you point to anything I ever said (post-2005), or perhaps quote from a biblical author, which/who communicated that treating the other how you would want to be treated is strictly about reducing pain/displeasure/pressure/tension?

Reminds me…

Compare translations of “unfulfilled duties” (Matthew 6:12, Luke 11:4) at BibleHub.com for the Matthaean (Matthew 6:9-15) and Lucan (Luke 11:1-4) versions of the Lord’s Prayer (or the Our Father). Scroll down to the Greek in each case. Can the debt of sin be caused by both harmful violations of duty (sins of commission, such as maliciously lying), and failures to do good (sins of omission, such as maliciously withholding the truth, as in the case of consent that is improperly gained because it is not properly informed) (see Romans 13:8)?

Next.

If pain is considered evil in itself, enduring it would also be considered evil… would it not?

Next.

I did not dismiss pain tolerance levels, and YOU know that, because you can read. Go butt a stump.

20

Religious commandments regarding doing benefit and favors for other, revolve around Duty. They are OBLIGATED to “Do Good” to others. It is forced, not a choice.

Pain itself is not Evil. It is about how inflicting pain upon others, and why, is Evil. This is something Utilitarian (((Secularists))) have wrong about Morality; they don’t understand that Pain / Suffering are not “themselves” Evil, as if Evilness could be separated out of the feeling and endurance of Pain.

Regardless, you didn’t understand the point.