Man/Child? Isn’t that still man? We are men, whether you are 2years old or 100years old, man is man.
poor night watch man… ill save you
clockwork orange dude, lets just call him stanley kubrick, is simply saying that having the ability to choose is one of the qualities that he uses to define what a man should be. if you are a robot and let jesus make all your decisions, you do not have all of the characteristics that stanley kubrick thinks men should have.
now stop wasting ilp bandwidth.
Oh dear god… thank you… I personally thought that this was about RussianTanks thoughts, but apparently, some people can’t grasp the idea that a biologically physical male human being, may not be a man by the untangible means. 
First night_watch_man, ide like to thank you again for indulging my hunger for argumentation.
Now, I agree that the people born into Hitler’s new society might consider him a hero. But not the people that know what they lost during the transition. And most likely those people would pass on the knowledge, otherwise, if what you say is true, no revolutions would happen. But we know they do. And the diffirence between Nazi Germany and the US is simple, democracy vs dictatorship. The blame for what America has done wrong could significantly be laid upon the people. While with the dictatorship, all the blame is on Hitler, so he would be innevitably overthrown, becuase as Ive mentioned before, people will always find a way to disrupt those that take advantage of them.
Ofcourse people in our country say those things. First of all, they have a right to think and say that. But they cannot take any action on those words and beliefs. These people are gennerally harmless. Yes there are acts of racism against arabs just like there are such acts against any race. But people will always do “bad” things untill Governments get perfect at policing. So we have to consider the governemnt, not individuals. The values held by our government are far evolved from what they once were, and in general they are moving in the right direction. Personally, I believe we need to legalize all drugs, make any form of marriage legal, basicly open up as many options to human minds as possible. As long as they dont cause pain to others. Thats a long way off, but were getting better in general and as far as the values of the government go, which country has better such values in the world? If there are some, there arn’t many.
Give me some examples of negative after-efects we should correct, becuase as far as I know, weve admitted most of the pain we have caused and tried to do something about it. We even went too far in some cases. Such as Repirations… I disagree with those…
About what we are doing to the world economy, Its really hard for me to argue about that seeing as how I have little knowledge. But isnt it obvious that in capitalism people win and lose? I believe every company in the world whose goal is profit will do whatever it needs to do within the context of laws to get profit. And I dont see anything wrong with that. About economic laws, anti-monopoly and stuff, Ile leave that up to the politicians and economists to decide, they probably know better, and Im sure they dont have all the answers, but I believe their actions will reflect our evolving society and will generaly benefit the world.
All this comes from my belief that getting along is the most logical path. If we are really dirrectly causing horrific pain in the world, I think it will come back to bite us in the ass, such that we stop doing whatever it is. Some might say thats what Bin Laden was doing with 9/11, but I could almost guarentee you that if you were to ask Bin Laden for his reasons, he would be hard pressed to come up with a compelling logical argument. Especially becuase he will always refer back to religion.
Heh, argument? I thought we were simply debating some issues.
Hmmm, you say the blame rests solely on the shoulders of Hitler. I’m sure as you read this previous line, you might already know what I’m going to say. The answer is an obvious ‘no’. Hitler wasn’t the only one who was pro-active in the war, if he were, then I am somewhat inspired by him, knowing that the nonsense of one lunatic could inspire such events. If this fact -were- true however, what do you think the children of the future will think when they read about this current war? If the media catches hold of the truth behind all of this (which some venues do provide), do you think that they too will think that this war was all caused by one man… either Bin Laden or George Bush? I would certainly hope not, because as you can see from what the elections say (fraudulent or not) it appears that half of this country is in support of the war, just as I am sure that a fair proportion of individuals are in support of the war in Iraq, who live in Iraq.
I also find it rather bizarre that you can justify the words and beliefs of certain individuals and still promote the “harm-principle”… or at least what appears to be a system of thinking closely related to Mill’s Harm Principle. I suppose it all depends on how you and I define harm though. You say people have a right to say these hateful terms, but what about those who are offended psychologically by those terms. Do you honestly believe that if you were born in Iraq, moved to America for all the ‘freedom’ that we have, and then face mobs of people calling you a Sand Nigger and not feel that you are experiencing some form of ‘harm’? I then wonder where we begin to draw the line. We are not allowed to spread hateful rhetoric through pen and paper, yet we are allowed to shout it out to the top of our lungs? But perhaps you only meant that we are allowed to do what we may so long as it does not inflict physical harm onto another. Does that then mean that you support hateful literature? You see… where do you draw the line.
You also state that you disagree with reparations. I find that also rather intriguing, coming from a person who believes that we should not harm others. Did the United States not break a law by going into Iraq? Think about how they did this without the approval of the UN, a democratic system. For a country who upholds the importance of the democratic system, is it not being a hypocracy by then not following the very basic and fundamental purposes -behind- democracy? Oh, so maybe it’s ok to be democratic some of the time, and then un-democratic when it suits your needs the best. Interesting logic… rather flawed, but interesting none the less. Reparations? It’s the least of punishment that your country deserves.
About the capitalist society and how it wants to achieve profit, I’m afraid I have proof against this arguement once again. Have you ever heard of a company known as Fair Trade?.. for information on it, here’s one of their websites: http://www.fairtraderesource.org/
They are a foundation, no… sorry… they are a Company who believes that we are able to make a profit while maintaining healthy relations with their manufacturers and labourers. They employ third world companies just like any other company found in the US today. What’s the difference? They provide healthy work environments, unions, fair pay (at least comparable to most other companies, if not all), etc etc… all the things that you and I take advantage of in our countries. So you see, we are able to have a company that is both considered to be capitalist and socialist at the same time.
Finally, would we really stop whatever it is that we’re doing if it was causing harm? Perhaps if we put some action behind our words, then yes, we may. However, we are fully aware of issues such as global warming, pollution, and the exhaustion of resources we are experiencing. Have we taken any great strides to put an end to it, considering that we are aware that the planet is gradually getting warmer with every passing moment, not simply because of what we as a species are doing, but with what the galaxie is doing. Yes, believe it or not, we are going to experience quite the sunburn in the future. Remember how there was an ice age so long ago? Well, as it turns out, things are about to get quite warm. Our Earth will experience an opposite effect of what happened during the Ice Age, due to how our planet and galaxie is moving in this universe. So if this is going to happen anyways, should we not try and keep the earth as clean and protected as possible?.. or maybe we should all just say ‘screw it’ because it won’t happen during yours or my time on this Earth. We must make drastic changes to our consumption of this globe, or at the very least, make plans to do so before we choke on our own filth that we create. 
Yes… Indeed Night watch, as soon as I posted the previous post I realized my mistake of blaming hitler alone. There was no military coup, he just managed to convince the German people of Arian supremacy, which CAN happen in any democracy. Thus I take that back, BUT, there still exists a valid point in my statement. Hitler assumed a dictatorial (if thats a word…) position in the German government. As most historians will tell you, he was only able to do so becuase his government was left in shambles after WW1, and many historians even place equal blame on the way Germany was treated after WW1 and Hitler. Hitler, who was a truly charismatic man, was just in the right place at the right time to turn so many people to his cause. I have to give him credit for being so damn convincing, but the situation his country was left in after WW1 was a very significant factor in his way to the top. Now back to the point… After he assumed power, he had an iron fist on it. There were no checks and balances in the Nazi regime. Thats the diffirence I was trying to point out. No matter what anyone says, the US is still a democracy, and no one will ever, or at least I damn well hope so, be able to assume as much control over the government as Hitler did over Germany. Because of that, if one were to attempt to break free of the opressive force of Germany, they need mostly to concentrate on one man. While, since you made the comparison between Hitler and our past actions, if we were the oppresive force and people were trying to get free from us, they would have a much harder time, becuase that would require overthrowing a whole culture and state of mind. And this is where culteral evolution occurs. We did indeed oppress a whole people, and thought it was fine to do so. Blacks. And as its happend all throughout History, using force and persuasion, Black people did get equal rights, by forcing us to evolve socially.
About supporting hate literature… I dont like it, but I believe it must be allowed. Thats becuase I think we need to draw the line at something as concrete as physical pain. Psychological pain is too relative. Arabs will get offended at being called such names ofcourse, but imagine a religous person who gets offended at hearing the word “evolution.” Should we stop using that word? Who are we to say how much he gets offended. To draw the line somewhere in the realm of psychological pain would be imposible, because of its relativity. Now, this is my ideal. It is impracticle at this point though, this is because to allow literature inciting violence, would inevitably lead to more violence and a harder time for the govt. to police itself. Thus I believe such a line can only be drawn once our govt. gets damn good at policing. Until then, the democratic process and social norms are the only way we can decide what is “Politicly Correct.”
Repirations dont harm the country. The money is still in the US economy, it just exchanges hands. I dont agree with repirations because no one alive now is responsible for what happend then. Though you know what, now that I think about it, any big fortune that was ammassed through slavery should pay the decendents of the slaves. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of punishing, rather then giving the descendants the money that should have been passed down to them through the hard work and pain of their ancestors. Ok, Ive changed my own mind about that. Now to the UN.
A democracy is only as good as its police force. If the UN truly considered what we were doing terribly wrong, so wrong that it deserved severe punishment, they should have gone to war with us. As I believe if any country attempts to do what Germany tried to do again, the UN would intervene with war. But obviously the UN was not fully united on the issue, and they didn’t consider it such a horrific thing. Thus it is perfectly logical that we do what we do. Especially now, if Iraq goes well, I think we will have changed most of the UN’s mind. I can only hope though. What you have to understand is that I dont consider democracy just naturally good. Experience has tought me that it WORKS best. Its not the principle of democracy, but the logic behind it. Thus, it is apparent that the UN is either not really a democracy, or what we did was not really wrong in terms of that democracy. Either way, personally, I believe what we did was the right thing. Forget Bush’s misleading reasons for the war, I took those with a grain of salt right from the moment I heard them. Saddam is a verifyable tyrant, and the people of Iraq are happy without him. Thats what matters to me.
I dont see how Fairtrade proves anything. See, fairtrade has diffirent priorities. They want to uphold their values along with making a profit, and obviously the values come first. Which inevitably leads to sacrificing profit. Im not saying you cant make a profit while being nice, but if being selfish didn’t make more profit, we wouldnt be selfish. That is one company, and they do what they want to. But economics operates under the assumption that we want the maximum at all times. Fairtrade is obviously not the maximum, so companies will still do what they need to to get the maximum profit. And thats perfectly logical.
What do you propose we do Night watch? To change the way a whole society thinks is a long process, but I see the seeds of evolution. The more you and everyone else spreads this environmental warning and backs it up with evidence, the closer we get to evolving. And I see that. Its becoming more and more a hot topic in politics, there are more and more foundations for the environment. So I think things will work themselves out… You cant expect everyone to see things your way right away.
Ah, very true my good man. When a super-power falls it is usually taken up by a dictator or some other form of supressive authority. They then point the finger at some other group and blame them for their problems, as we have seen so many times in our past.
As for the comment that the US is still a democracy, I have to agree. Fundamentally it is, though I would argue that it is slowly leaning towards a transition to a more Fascist aspect… though really I’m not the one who brought up this point. I’m not sure if you have seen or heard it, but a few voices have stated that there are 14 defining aspects to a Fascist society, and some could argue that the US currently falls under all fourteen. I’m not saying this is absolute, but I’ve heard the arguements both advocating and dismissing this information, and frankly I have to agree with those that agree on this fact. It truly does make me gaze in awe at the horror that is “the patriot act” and the “second patriot act”. So many rights are being violated by these legislatures, all in the name of security. Yes, it is one thing to be weary of attacks, it is another to infringe on the basic constitutional rights that your government had laid down in the past, to deem everyone the fair treatment from authority. I’ve read through a few aspects of both Acts, and to be honest, anywhere when you could be picked up by the authorities, held against your will with no fair trial or reason for an indefinite amount of time sounds almost too much like “Big Brother” from Orwell’s books.
As for hate literature, you say that you begrudgingly accept that it is not socially acceptable yet should be allowed. So then do you disagree with the laws currently held in your country on this issue? I know we have this law in Canada, and mistake me if I’m wrong that in the US they don’t have this law, but as far as I knew, it was illegal to distribute Hate Literature. Obviously this causes no physical harm to others, but the government has seen that it can cause problems and so it is restricted. Although this goes against the fundamental right of free speach, it is illegal, and has been entrenched as so, for the betterment of society as a whole. I may be wrong on this issue though.
Also, for repirations, just as a side note (even though you said you agreed on some level): For African Americans, they aren’t asking that individual fortunes be given to the descendants of slaves, rather, that a committee is formed that receives the repirations, and they place the money towards the restoration of Black culture. This way, the money isn’t simply spent and recirculated back into the wealthy pockets of corporations and the government. Instead, it would be placed towards education, aiding those in the ghettos, and put towards “slavery awareness”. If you take a walk in DC, you will see great monuments that have been erected to show America’s past, and displays some of the indignities some have suffered in order to create America as we know it today. However, there are no monuments that tell the story of black slavery. In fact, it was black slaves who built the other monuments that you will find sadly, even the ones dedicated to the injustices that the government had once placed upon people. As far as I know, one area that the repirations would go towards, would be to create a building in DC that is dedicated to all those who had suffered because of slavery to spread awareness of the real history behind it.
As for the situation in Iraq, I have to agree on some levels with you. Yes Sadam was a terrible man, I’ve actually done projects on him and have researched his history and how he came into power. And yes, I believe that the people are relieved to have him no longer in power. What I have to say though, is that in reality, this war should not have been about going into a foreign country and creating a democracy within that infrastructure. You have to realize that the purpose of your army is not to reform the world, but rather to risk the lives of your young men and women if the country is in a state of emergency. Remember when the banner read “Mission Accomplished”. This is where things should have ended. The US was no longer in a state of emergency. And yet there came an age of war, a second Vietnam. If you hear the testimonies from some of the soldiers and their families, you will see that the US no longer has business in the middle East. Instead of Iraq being ruled by the US, soldiers should be training Iraqi soldiers to aid in reform and government. This way, they can be ruled under their own law, instead of being assimilated by the West. This is what the Iraqi people want. And yet, progression is slim to minimal. The US still believes that they have a “duty” to remain in the country when they are not wanted. I say, help Iraq in any way they can to re-create their own country with as little occupancy as possible, so that they can rebuild their lives in their own vision, instead of being told how they should be running their country.
As for Fair-Trade, you assume that we -must- be selfish. Why? Do we really? Fair-Trade has their priorities towards making profit first. As they say, they are not a charity, they are a company. Their interest lies in profits. In order to obtain an excellent reputation, they believe that their workers deserve a good work environment. If you notice, the big companies today are taking a lot of heat. People are beginning to see that we are unjustly taking advantage of other countries, and leaching off of their situation to make money. We are evolving yet again. Just see, companies are beginning to lose ground. Nike, Coke, Walmart… they are slowly beginning to lose favour amongst their customers and consumers because of all of the violations that are coming to the surface. Schools are banning Coke from their institutions, and this is only the beginning. Companies such as Fair-Trade are beginning to prosper because of their good ethics. After all, every human being in this country deserves to be treated well, no matter what your nationality or race, whether you’re in Asia, Columbia or America. So you fail to see how companies such as Fair-Trade are making a difference… I say give it another couple of years, and you will see this movement taking place. The only reason why I see it now, is because I am researching this topic, and I am seeing the hostility these companies are beginning to face.
Do I say we change our whole way of thinking and living? Of course not. I am saying we evolve, as we have always done in the past. The first step is acknowledgement of what we can be as a human race. After all, the first step to solve any problem is acceptance. As soon as we accept our wrong in our actions, that is when we will begin to change.
Finnaly Night watch man, we fully agree.
I have noticed this leaning towards less freedom as well. Apparently mostly perpetrated by the far right wing. But I am confident this is only a trend, and not our evolution as a society.
As for the law, I believe we have this law as well, and I agree with it because it is practical. But as I said before, if I had my ideal way, we wouldnt need it, becuase we would be so good at stopping crime, that no one would dare risk any violent action. Thus we would have pure freedom of speach, no limitations, which I believe to be an important ideal. But at this point, it makes perfect sense, becuase it does incite violence, and we have enough to handle already.
As long as the comitee is a good representation of what the families that actually deserve that money want, Im fine with it. If not, then I believe the money should go dirrectly from the slave owner’s family to the slave’s family. Because it was money earned on the slaves work.
I completely agree with you on Iraq, but I just dont share such a pecimistic view as to whats going on right now. As far as I understand, everyone in our country thinks the same as you, and are trying to do everything they can to make it that way. Just recently the Iraqi interem minister or whatever said that he believes the US will be able to leave the country in their hands within 6 months. As far as I understand, we are doing nothing like occupying them, we are helping them get back on their feet, and we are training their soldiers and police forces by the thousands. We cant leave with an unstable iraq, we must make sure they have their footing. Bush has made it clear that is the ONLY goal left for our forces there. Ive heard that we are well on the way, and ive heard that we are moving slow as a snail, from the right wing and left wing respectively. But I take solace that everyone agrees that is our agenda, so im sure it will get done.
And now for fair-trade. Wonderful logic night watch, truly. My point from before stands. I never assumed we must be selfish, I said as long as selfishness creates most profit, then it will be the norm. But if what you say is true, which sounds so seeing as how ive noticed the animosity as well, then we are upon good times my friend. Maybe fair-trade is indeed blazing the new trail, and planting the seed of culteral evolution. I would love to see less pain in the world as much as the next guy. So I do hope you are right.
Yes indeed, we evolve. The only diffirence between us Night watch, is how good we feel about the evolution that has taken place and is continuing to take place. I for one, marvel at all the changes the society’s of the world have undergone in the last 100 years alone. I see only hope, and good things for the future. Maybe it is just my natural optimism, but I am glad to see we agree on so much. Just another indication that we are moving in the right direction.
Hah, I have to admit, I do take after Marx and Kant a bit too much and see things in a rather pessimistic view sometimes. Don’t get me wrong though, I acknowledge and celebrate the good things that we are and have come to be, I usually just discuss the matters that still carry out the negative aspects more often (Even ask one of my roomates, she tells me the same thing).
I certainly do hope that you’re right about the lose of freedom being entrenched into your society though. I take caution with “temporary solutions” because they sometimes take on permanent positions, such as welfare.
Isn’t that the truth brother. I think reducing violent acts is always a good thing too lol
As for you belief in the justice system and having a powerful police force. As always, this has both positive and negative consequences, and I personally would be a little weary of such a force if it were ever to be created. Perhaps that is just my paranoia getting the better of me though. After all, someone has to be in charge of this force, and I would fear that an oligarcy would come about and someone/a group controlling that kind of force may only wish to create a world in their vision, which brings on a prospect of a dictorship. Obviously we would need a very dependable authority figure controlling such power, which is hard to come by.
Yes, I hope that our economy will evolve with the passing trends as well. Suffering, whether it’s an American, Canadian, Asian, etc. really shouldn’t be tolerated because of a vision of endless wealth.
Thank you Night watch for the wonderful argument/debate.
But now I would like to get back to what this thread was realy about after having gone off on that political tangent. Im hoping some more people can read about my philosophy and tell me their opinions. I am going to now repost my original post to remind yall.
A while ago I posted a response to a thread whose topic was “The charge of relativism.” The post, as I understand, was arguing against relativism. I was arguing for it, but more importantly, I ended up writing a long response that happend to reflect my whole philosophy on life very effectively. No one posted any replies to my post, so I was sort of hoping some of you could read it, and in that way get a good idea of my philosophy. Im hoping to get your thoughts about that post and my philosophy on life in general. Any replies would be greatly appreciated.
Here it is: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=1624506&highlight=#1624506
Ide be happy to further flesh out my philosophy if any 1 has any questions about it.
russiantank,
I too am a man who has a very relativistic stance on morals and the such and so I agree with much of what you say. As such, I want to offer some clarifications for you because with views like these you will face a lot of criticism from both plain idiots and those who find the need to hold on to some shred of a universal idea. Remember that most people don’t like to analyze and having dogmatic rules and ideas gives them more time to think about clothes.
I won’t really say anything about objective reality because I am of the opinion that reality is what is out there. I am more concerned with figuring it out. If it is “real” then I must understand it. If it is a fantasy or a dream, I must understand it all the same. I cannot escape “it” whatever “it” may be.
Now on to morals. You have stated that you are absolutely sure that pleasure and pain are the only conscious reasons for any human action. Specifically, it is the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. I want to caution you against being too wrapped up in using this dichotomy. It makes sense on the surface but someone might approach you with this little speech. “O.K., so the reason that people do anything is to either avoid pain or pursue pleasure, right russiantank? Firstly, this is a hindsight sort of analysis; this being because it is relativistic in nature. We have no list of what is pleasurable or what is painful. There is no objective way of perceiving an event and stating that to all individuals this would be pleasurable or painful. Thus, we cannot predict that any individual will necessarily move towards or away from a particular event. All we can do is observe an individual pursuing an event and then label it as pleasurable. If they try to do it then it is pleasurable, if they don’t then it is painful. What type of reason is that? That type of reason is particular to every individual and must be observed before it can be “known”. Jim might like to smash his balls. Why? Because he finds it pleasurable. This reason amounts to ‘people do what they want do and don’t do what they don’t want to do’. Ahhhhh very insightful. ‘But John wanted to masturbate and didn’t? Why? Don’t people do what they want to do? Yes they do and so there must be some outside reason why he didn’t. Perhaps he wanted to be good. So wanting to be good was what he wanted to do.’ Well, maybe, or maybe for some medical reason John finds masturbation painful. It would be hypocritical to say that John must have some other reason for not masturbating like being raised to think it is wrong. Yes, I agree that it is obvious to me that it is pleasurable, but what is for me is not necessarily what is for others. That is the other problem with this whole ‘after the fact’ sort of analysis, all possibilities must be seen as equally likely. So the reason could be some involved social reason or it could be that John has just had his pennis pierced. Is it the pursuit of pleasure or the avoidance of pain? Who knows. So other than just being fun as a guessing game I am not sure what value this pleasure/pain dichotomy has. It is a reason that must be examined on an individual basis, through observation, and a variety of extraneous variables can alter the vary label itself.”
Now, I was kind of a prick here russiantank only because that is just the type of way someone may attack your idea. I just want you to be prepared.
Now as for morals as a way to dictate to maturing minds what they should seek as pleasure, let’s make a slightly more involved analysis. We might say that Society has the items that many people would deem as “pleasurable”. There are approved routes that people are encouraged to take to obtain these items. They are to become educated and go through the legal channels to make money and then obtain the items they want. A great way to further this control is to not just say that you must act a certain way to reap societies rewards, but you must be a certain way to reap the rewards. Enter the morality system. Who gets societies rewards? Good children. Bad kids may get what they want temporarily, like criminals, but in the end they do not. If you want the best shot at getting what you want, children are taught to be good. This entails being honest, respecting others, sharing, ect. All things which, coincidentally, are great for societal stability but are not necessarily always best for the individual. However, society continues to push and children internalize this good person persona, albeit for the selfish reason of claiming rewards. Eventually, Children just become concerned with being this “good person” having transferred the original rewards to the persona. Being that person is now the reward. Adults will always try to “be a good person.” Why? They don’t know, but who wants to be a bad person? Everyone forgets about the behavioral conditioning that went on in childhood.
Be very careful though with your assumptions about who will and will not live a pleasurable life. We might say that the person who does not rape or steal has less social stress than the person who engages in these activities, but it does not logically follow that they will most likely live a more pleasurable life. If following the rules were all it took to live a pleasurable life, there would be a lot less crime russiantank. Many things can happen to “rule followers” making their life far more miserable than the rapists. Jail is no fun, but many times, neither is life.
Also, let’s not be so quick to judge the person who does not steal the million dollars because of their morals as a “sad person.” You say that this person with the prohibitive morals is “at a great disadvantage at achieving as much pleasure in life as me.” This is where you must stick to being a relativist. Why is the person at such a disadvantage? This would only be the case if having a million dollars would automatically lead to having pleasure. You cannot push your idea that money leads to pleasure. This is as silly as the moral person telling you that you should not steal the money because it is wrong. We must remember that perhaps the moral person gets far more pleasure out of sticking to his morals than he would ever derive from a million dollars, even if it were guilt free. What we can appropriately say is that the moral person is more limited than the non-moral person because their morals prohibit them from engaging in certain actions. So we can say that in the pursuit of pleasure, the non-moral person might have a greater advantage simply because they can engage a wider variety of actions. It would make sense that the more actions an individual can engage in to pursue pleasure, the greater their chance of achieving it. The one exception to this was mentioned before. If what brings the person pleasure is following their morals than the non-moral person’s advantage obviously disappears.
You are right russiantank, there is nothing inherently wrong about rape. We must vilify it in society because it is so detrimental to its stability. Rape is just an individual making a decision that is both “right” and “good” from their point of view. I guarantee you the rapists sees themselves as a “good person.” Still, rape is unpleasant. I would prefer not to be raped myself. So be careful in congratulating someone who has gotten away with rape as achieving the number one goal in life. This will make people very angry. And do we really want to say “You raped a girl, way to go man! Congratulations.” I understand why men rape both women and children. They are not horrible monsters or villains. They are men who made decisions that were in their best interest. But I still am personally against rape. Further, If a man ever raped any woman or child I knew I would take them to a cabin and the police would not even find teeth left to identify. You do not have to be on the same side as someone to abstain from judging them. You simply must understand their perspective, even if it is not the one you choose for yourself.
I will only briefly comment on what you said involving world leaders and oppressors. People oppress and enslave and murder other people. This has always happened and I see no cue that it will stop happening. All that changes is who is screwing who. My best advice in regards to that is try not to be part of the group currently being screwed. This is why I always like any sort of talk of equality. When in the history of the world has their ever been equality? I guarantee you that whatever group is in control will oppress whatever group is not. No one remembers, but we used to be awfully prejudiced against Irish people in this country. Now its saint Patrick’s day and lucky charms. Obviously being black about 50 years ago was no picnic and that is slowly improving. It seems the group being screwed the most recently is Mexicans. Honestly, I feel kind of bad that they happen to be the oppressed group du jour. However, if it was not them it would be someone else, and that’s my point.
Russiantank, you are a tolerant person. But more importantly, you understand that people have reasons other than yours. Just be careful in how you word it because people get upset awfully quick. I will take a stand with you on relativism and challenge anyone who reads this to step up if they think something said here has been in error. I know Judah the lion made some biting comments to your previous post. Perhaps he has something to say.
HAHAHA… martin of the club, you have little idea of the glee I felt after reading your post. It is an immeasurably pleasurable feeling to have my ideas so powerfully reinforced. Truly, you are the first to take such an exhausting look at my ideas and actually agree on such a large scale.
Now lets see… Fully agreed on the objective reality. Next…
The Pleasure and pain dichotomy… You mention many situations that I believed I adressed… But let me further flesh out my view. Our concious drives us to act, does it not? When one makes concious decisions, there is always some concious drive, otherwise its subconcious or instinct or whatever. What other drives exist in our minds other than pleasurable (good), or painful (bad). Thats the only way we distinguish the quality of one situation over another. How good it feels… Not just physical pleasure, but just overall feeling good. All other qualifications are arbitrary, and not grounded in empericism. We FEEL good and bad, pleasure and pain. Everything else is a construct, such as duty, morality, religion. Im sure everyone knows what it is to feel good or bad, but many dont know the blind drive of duty or religion. The relativity of pleasure is adressed, I have said how people obtain pleasure depends on many things, and its true that we can only classify an act as pleasurable or painful after the fact. But it still seems most logical that the only absolute councious drives we have are pain and pleasure, becuase they are empericly evident.
“It would be hypocritical to say that John must have some other reason for not masturbating like being raised to think it is wrong. Yes, I agree that it is obvious to me that it is pleasurable, but what is for me is not necessarily what is for others.”
This was your quote, I dont see how its hypocritical. Maybe because I said it was obvious its a pleasurable act. If in fact he got his penis pierced, than its obviously not a pleasurable act. I was assuming that specific act caused physical pleasure to make the point that some people knowingly give up obvious physical pleasure in persuit of intellectual pleasure. And persuit of pleasure and avoidence of pain are the same thing as I see it. When you feel less bad, dont you feel better too? Get it?
I completely agree with your involved analysis on morals. But surely it makes sense that following the laws is statisticly more lucritive than being a criminal. Lucritive in terms of pleasure. How many people do you think get away with serious crimes such as rape and murder. I think an educated guess would be a VERY small percentage. If I am wrong than my argument falls apart. But I very much doubt when one commits a crime they intend to get cought for it. Thus only a small percentage come out on the reward side of the risk/reward decision. If you live your life not taking such a huge risk as being a criminal, then that absence of risk already greatly enhances your chances of being happier than a criminal. You say many things can happen to the law abider that makes them more miserable than the rapist. What things? Losing an arm in an accident, having your family blown up? These are unexpected occurences that your concious thought process has little bearing on. Thus the chance of these happening to a criminal and a law abider are the same. While the chance of ending up in jail, which is an expected, well known consequence that criminals are concious of, is very high for a criminal, and miniscule for the law abider. So the chance of life being no fun is the same for everyone. But by the very nature of probablity, the less risks you take the more probable your chance of more pleasure than the risk taker. BUT! IF the risk taker comes out on the reward side of his risk, he has much more pleasure than you… Thus, life is one big risk/reward function, Risk being pain, reward being pleasure. Im wondering if you know much about poker, becuase if you do, I can explain it real good in terms of the game. Ive found that poker is actually an incredibly accurate microcosm of life itself. So if you do know poker well, please tell me, and if you would like to further hear my explenation, I will be glad to put it in those terms.
Goodness, I love that you said what you said about not being so quick to judge the guy that doesn’t take the million dollars. Becuase this same critique was made by my very smart cousin not so long ago, and it made me really dig into religion vs. rational. I ended up analyzing what it really meant to live by these absolutes, such as “no stealing”. Now, to explain this, let me substitute money for physical pleasure. That was my intention, becuase in this day and age, money does happen to lead to material/physical pleasure, wouldnt you agree? So to not take the money is to give up physical pleasure, in return for another form of pleasure, right? Okay, listen here.
What is it about abstaining from physical pleasure that is pleasurable??? I believe it is the achievment of a goal. There is nothing innately pleasurable about abstaining from physical pleasure… For example, imagine a religion, and one such as this does exist, that promotes physical pleasure, say, sex. They believe the “right” thing to do is to have as much sex as possible. Just like the christian believes the “right” thing to do is to abstain till married. These are two goals, and intelectual pleasure is obtained from achieving either of them. How much pleasure either ideology provides is completely unknown. They are X factors. But wouldn’t you agree it is the same intelectual achievment, and there is no reason to assume one ideology provides more intelectual pleasure than the other; as long as both have a blind faith sort of drive to achieve the goal. Thus, say you had no preconcieved notions about the universe, but you knew, as all scientists know, that having sex causes physical pleasure by releasing whatever chemicals. And say you had to decide on one of these two ideologies to teach to a newborn. Choosing the ideology that promotes pleasure is by FAR the more likely to yield a happier person, all things being equal. Its so simple. Both ideologies have the unknown X amount of intelectual pleasure. For all we know the ideologies could yield unhappy lives. But my ideology has that innate physical pleasure “P”, doesn’t matter how much, it is a positive value, becuase we know orgasm feels good. So if you had to choose, which one would it be, X, or X + P. P being any positive value, and X being random. Any rational person would choose X + P becuase it is statisticly much more likely to produce a higher value. This higher value of pleasure is indeed the desired outcome because as I have stated before, it is inevitably the desired outcome by our very human nature. I also believe everyone automaticly has that X in them. I have the X. I am convinced pleasure is “right” and pain is “wrong”, and logicly so. Thus my goal in life is the persuit of pleasure. Whenever I achieve that goal, I feel as though I am acomplishing something, just like the religious guy. I am reciving pleasure from that X factor. Only im having sex and stealing 1,000,000 dollars in the process, which provides me with the added physical pleasure. So you see, I am following my “morrals” as well, and achieving the same form of pleasure as the guy who achieves it by not stealing. Only im actually stealing it. I believe in pleasure is whats “right” and pain is whats “wrong”. Not the other way around where: “That which is right brings pleasure, that which is wrong brings pain”. So pleasure and pain are the absolutes, not absolutes are the harbingers of pleasure and pain.
Voila, I have proven why accepting pleasure and pain as “right” and “wrong” in fact yields the highest potential for pleasure. At least I hope ive proved that, comments anyone???
I fully agree with whay you say about rape. I was just making the point of reletivity by seeing it from the rapists perspective.
You dont believe it will stop happening? But have you not noticed the upward trend in societies? I sure have. Seems to me we have much less suffering than once was, and it is a pattern. There have been regressions, but the pattern persists throughout history. It is directly related to our advancement intellectually. I believe once we have overcome religion we will have another level of prosperity and pleasure. But my point is that the pattern is moving upward towards more pleasure and less pain. Thats the way I see it.
Anyways, my philosophy has two main conclusions. One is that the most potential for pleasure lies in the acceptance of persuit of pleasure as the main goal in life. The other conclusion I have rarely mentioned in detail. It is my proposition that there is a set of laws that will create the max potential for pleasure for a society living under those laws. A utopia one might say. Its not to say that everyone will be 100% happy, but I believe I can prove one set of laws over all others to produce max potential pleasure. Thats a story for another day though. For now I would love to hear from you martin about my supposed proof above.
russiantank,
O.K., I will continue my critique and if you can make it throughout my nit picking, I guarantee you will have a strong theory.
First let us address the pain and pleasure dichotomy. You said the magic word empiricism russiantank and so I am going to hold you to that. As such, what we talk about needs to be observable. We FEEL pleasure and pain? Remember that you must describe to me what you mean by that feeling. In other words you must operationally define it. (this is a psychology term) I have no idea what pleasure feels like to you and who knows if we are talking about the same thing. (I obviously disagree with “I’m sure everyone knows what it is to feel good or bad.” Shame on you russiantank. We can never afford to lazily assume that everyone shares a similar definition of a term. Take the extra step or someone like me will come along and call you out on it.)
Your predicament is that what you are trying to define " a feeling" is not directly observable. Thus you must make an assumption that connects some observable behavior to an unobservable feeling. You can state something like "People have a drive for pleasure as evidenced by their pursuit of activities that they would characterize as pleasurable. We would state that they find the activity as pleasurable based on some statement by them to the effect of ‘This is an activity I find pleasurable’. It is assumed that some brain process must be responsible for this pre-meditated act and that brain process will be called their ‘drive for pleasure’. This at least clearly defines everything and stops annoying questions such as “How do you know that they find it pleasurable?” But here is the problem with this. Your assumed process, the “drive for pleasure”, must accurately account for all observed behaviors that the “drive to avoid pain” does not. I believe it is too big a chore for these two dichotomous terms. For instance, I feel that sometimes people do what others want them to even when they feel they should not. This is exemplified by a boss telling his subordinate to fire a fellow co-worker. If we asked the subordinate if he would do this of his own volition he would state “No I would not.” Now the subordinate does indeed fire his co-worker. So what drive motivated his behavior. We can’t say it was his “drive for pleasure” since there seems to be no pleasure present in this situation for the subordinate to pursue. So it must have been his “drive to avoid pain.” Still, firing the co-worker undoubtedly caused the subordinate pain. We say "but wait, it probably would cause the subordinate more pain to disobey his boss and so he still was driven to avoid pain. He just needed to do some utilitarian calculation of which course of action would lead to the least amount of pain. But say that the subordinate states to us "I did not fear my bosses reaction, I just fired my co-worker because that is what I had to do. I believe you do what your boss tells you to do. “aha!” we say. So to go against your belief would cause you pain, no? “Not really”, says the subordinate, “If I had really liked the guy, I might have disobeyed my boss.” Then we might say he was pursuing pleasure, but in this case we might just say that he is following orders. I might say that his sense of duty (another indirectly proved mental function) is a more appropriate label for this particular behavior.
This is my point russiantank. You can go ahead and label all behaviors as being resultant of one of these two conscious drives so long as you define them. However, I just don’t know the use of it. They are not the only mental processes that are “empirically evident” as you stated. Don’t believe that your assumption between the observable action and the mental process is a causal tie. Remember that you don’t even know what a “drive” is. The only definition you have is the behavior. Your label is just some arbitrary term that you have assigned to mental processes that you believe are responsible for the behavior. But no one actually knows what you or I or anyone else is feeling. So, I think that there are many situation in which an explanation involving duty or the desire to be in a group or any number of psychological terms would be more appropriate then the blanket “drive for pleasure” or “drive to avoid pain”. But that is also the problem with getting into the sticky business of trying to explain behavior. You don’t really have the information that is necessary, only neurologists do. And they are a far way off from explaining anything. What is supposed to come of you stating that X behavior is a result of a drive for pleasure and me stating that it is a result of a sense of honor. So long as I have appropriately defined my assumption it amounts to differences in labeling. You call it a “truck” and I call it a “vehicle” and that is pretty much the end of the story. So then the task is left to you to clear up your labeling of every conceivable behavior with every person that comes along and says “Oh yeah russiantank, well what about this scenario…” Is that really some thing you want to do just to be able to convince the person to use the label truck. I have already explained that because of having to use the label “after the fact” it has limited application. I actually spent time working out certain innate “goals” or “drives” that people have as well as the “goals” of society. It was rather complicated but entertaining and I realized that that is all it could ever be, entertaining. Explanations about behavior are “fun” to talk about but they can never be “proven” in even the most rudimentary sort of way. Best not to waste too much time on it.
Now on to criminals and statistics. I don’t like statistics russiantank. Mainly because I believe that saying “there is an 80% chance it will rain tomorrow” boils down to stating “it will rain or it will not rain tomorrow.” In case you hadn’t guessed, I like my information presented in a definite way. Even if there is an 80% chance, you need to tell me “It will rain tomorrow” for me to listen. If it does not, then you were wrong is all. No big deal, work out your calculations and try to be right next time.
The first question “How many people do you think get away with serious crimes such as rape and murder.” Yeah, I guess it is a relatively small amount of the population. So is that what were defining a criminal as? Someone who commits rape or murder. Because I think that a large percentage of the population gets away with committing a crime or two in their life. But the main crux of this discussion lies with the fact that the criminal has more of a risk of going to jail which gives the person who is the law abider a greater likelihood of being happy. Yes, I suppose this would be the case if all other variables were equal. Unfortunately that would be what could only be described as an “insane oversimplification.” The chance of something bad happening to the law abider and the criminal are in no way equal. In fact the chance of something bad happening to two law abiders is not equal. Now we have not even defined what we mean by “bad” or “an unexpected occurrence” but you know what? It doesn’t even matter. If I am never around cars then the chance of me getting into a car wreck is not quite the same as the man who is nascar driver. A person’s emotions, job, friends, hobbies, habits, vices and many other personal demographics play a role in the chance the have of “bad things” happening to them. Losing an arm in an accident is far more likely to happen to John the Chainsaw juggling wonder who likes to drink before performances, than to Jim the rapist. This is why I don’t like statistics. You can say that people who commit crimes are more likely to go back to jail than those who do not based on jail census numbers. But that would only be the case if the most dominant trait among those entering jail was that they were a previously convicted criminal. Many other factors might also come into play including socioeconomic class and scores on an anger management test.
Here is my point russiantank, the chance of ending up in jail is not high for the criminal and miniscule for the law abider. You cannot determine the chance a law abider has for going to jail. There are too many variables to consider. Even just “rationally” looking at the situation you should see that many other factors are involved in who will go to prison. So many in fact that no body can accurately predict who will go to prison.
As you can probably guess, I would have even more of an issue with stating that the law abider has more of a chance of attaining pleasure than the criminal. Just what is pleasure? Well we have discussed the difficulty of defining that already. But it is not something that has a greater chance of being obtained the less risks you take. Life has a funny way of bringing you both regardless of how many risks you take. We might say that some pleasure and pain seems to be tied in to risks but certainly not all. And why would the risk taker have more pleasure than me just because he takes a risk for the pleasure and achieves it. This is an assumption that pleasure derived from a risk is more somehow than pleasure derived from no risk. This is my other problem russiantank, you seem to have this imaginary way of weighing pleasure that I am not aware of. I hate to refer back to our difficult definition but, ahem, there it is. So until you have a pleasure-o-meter I don’t really think we can say that one group has more pleasure or would have more pleasure than any other.
Also, I am afraid that I would have more than a few problems with your poker analogy. The use of statistics and cards is fine because there are a fixed number of cards and you have a very defined action. (that of drawing and dealing cards) Plus you have a definite way to define risk and reward, ie. loosing or winning the hand. This is very different from the multi-faceted difficult to define behaviors of life. So you can explain the analogy if you wish but I have a feeling I’m going to think it is flawed.
Your discussion of the pleasure and X+P is well done. What you have basically shown is that there are two kinds of pleasure, intellectual pleasure and physical pleasure. Intellectual pleasure can be known by all those with an intellect and physical pleasure can be known by those with a normally functioning physiology. As you stated, no we cannot say that a Christian would have more intellectual pleasure derived from the attainment of his goal then the believer who follows his goal of having as much sex as possible. This is where you cleverly pointed out that the addition of the physical pleasure will undoubtedly lead to more pleasure as it is an addition, however small it may be. (X+P) So it would seem that you, like the Christian, get the benefit of the intellectual pleasure of following your morals as well as the physical pleasure of the sex and the money. However, I would hold off on the Viola. You see, as you stated, the amount of pleasure derived from intellect is unknown. Thus we cannot say that the Christian has more pleasure than the man who believes in sex all the time. However, we cannot also say that they are equal as well. Unfortunately, all we can say is that it is an unknown. It makes no sense to say that the addition of the (P) physical pleasure will undoubtedly lead to more pleasure. (especially not statistically, because honestly russiantank, I know that you do not have any actual statistics to back this up. I think your just saying it because it sounds good. If you use little tricks like this, you always put yourself at risk of being called out on it.) Particularly what makes this not work is the fact that the X amount and the P are the same thing, pleasure. So you cannot say “ I have an undetermined amount of liquid in jar A. I have another undetermined amount of liquid in jar B. I will add a cup of the liquid to jar B. So it only makes sense that, in most cases, I will have more liquid in jar B. What? That does not make sense mathematically, in the jar scenario, or in the case of an indeterminate amount of intellectual pleasure with the addition of an amount of physical pleasure. I suppose you could again state that this would be the case in a scenario where all the factors that controlled the amount of intellectual pleasure in the individuals were equal. This is a modified version of the phrase you used “all things being equal.” So if you can find me two individuals where you can show their factors as equal then I will agree in that scenario. ( And remember that the things that lead to intellectual pleasure are likely to be more complicated than lame demographic information such as two unmarried twenty something males.) The factors that lead to an individuals intellectual pleasure are never “equal” or even “equal enough” to warrant the phrase “all things considered equal.” They are an unknown factors that lead to an unknown quantity of intellectual pleasure.
Your main idea that the pursuit of pleasure should be the main goal in life is complicated and needs more work. What type of pleasure seems to weigh in more with people, intellectual or physical. Anytime you pursue pleasure you must make some concession as to what pleasure you will pursue at a given time. Do individuals have a hierarchy of physical and intellectual pleasures? Is it possible to pursue all intellectual pleasures simultaneously? After all, they are not subject to certain time and motion limitations that physical pleasures are. How does someone specifically evolve their system of “right” pleasures, both intellectual and physical. Is their any interaction effect in the development of intellectual and physical pleasures? Which develops first? How do you know?
These are some questions you can answer. But let me remind you that the major gaps in understanding that we discussed will still hold. The answers you come to will make your theory more tight, but it will not save it from being entertainment.
I’m sorry russiantank but you will not come up with a set of laws that will create the max pleasure for a society living under them. I do not mean to be blunt, but you will never do this in your entire life. I have spent many years investigating words and the way you communicate those laws simply will not be sufficient to bring the universal pleasure that you want. By all means, give it a try, and know that it is by no deficiency on your part. It just can’t be done.
Briefly: no, I have not noticed an upswing in society. Of course, I have only been alive for 26 years and so I really have not seen that much of it. All I know is that it would be silly of me to say “I think poverty is getting better.” Who knows what “better” means, but the fact is, there has always been poverty in society. I do not know what “suffering” you are referencing but I still see plenty of suffering around and I don’t know that there is any less than there once was. Again though, I wasn’t alive then so if you know anyone from the middle ages who can make that evaluation, I would love to hear from them.
Well that was kind of a smart ass way to end things and I hope that I have not been too glib or harsh throughout this critique. As I said before, I am behind your basic stance. So I will be as rough as possible with you so that you are ready for what you might face. When your ideas are not the norm you must be a strong debater.
Imagine an infant who has no preconceived notions about the world. It only has its 5 senses, and the perceptions of those senses are the basis of empiricism right? Well what happens when this infant touches a very hot stove or a sharp object. The sense of touch activates and sends information that is perceived. This information is what tells us that the stove is hard and smooth, and the sharp nail is rough with rust. But along with these sensations, the infant also feels something else…Pain. You are right; I cannot describe pain like I can color or texture. Those things can be pointed out. Pain is internal. And yet it exists in EVERY healthy human being. Any scientist will tell you that. The evidence of its existence in this primal form is more than significant. Overwhelming I would say. Any healthy human being will admit to having a specific sensation when bodily harm comes to them. English speakers will call it pain. It is scientifically acknowledged as an evolutionary measure to indicate situations that are detrimental to your health and thus survival. Now think about the infant. Is it not reasonable to say that once the infant touches the stove or the nail he will inevitably shy away from such things in the future? Maybe he will not learn this lesson on the first try, but the association is there. Is this not then a drive to act, to avoid such a situation, such a sensation as pain? For a drive to choose certain situations over others to exist, the infant needs to be able to differentiate between situations. He needs some way of attaching a quality to moments in his life. If avoidance of pain is the apparent drive, is it not safe to say that pain is a negative (to be avoided) qualification for moments in life. I believe so. Dictionary.com’s definition of pain is “an unpleasant sensation…†Their definition of sensation is “A perception associated with stimulation of a sense organ or with a specific body condition… The faculty to feel or perceive…†Is this not the very meaning of empiricism? Is the fact that pain is as prolific in an infant as in any stage in life not evidence that pain is just a natural absolute? Can you imagine an infant acting because of duty, religion or morality?
Pain is a natural part of our chemistry. It, along with pleasure, is our qualifier for the world’s situations. The same argument can be applied to pleasure. Pleasure is the opposite qualifier. It is an evolutionary measure to indicate situations that are beneficial for the survival of the individual and the species. Eating causes a natural release of pleasure chemicals, in the youngest infant. Sex causes great release of this same chemical. When the infant first feeds, he will know pleasure. Pleasure and pain are not some unknown sensations that are relative in all of us. They are a very specific and defined pair of feelings that are natural and present in all of us. I believe science will back me up on this one.
Do you not notice that parents often bait their kids into doing what they want by using their inbuilt drive for pleasure or avoidance of pain? When the kids do something “wrong†they get punished, when they do something “right†they get a treat. The association is created and thus the drive becomes the pursuit of right and wrong. This is the nature of my relativism. A corruption of logic. Take sharing for instance. Parents imbue the idea of sharing by manipulating the child’s circumstances and making it seem as if sharing always brings pleasure, usually through rewards such as treats. Thus the child follows this logical thought process: If I share, I get pleasure. I shared. Thus my brain creates pleasure. I’m sure you recognize moddes ponens. For some reason the conclusion is perpetrated by the brain if the association exists. I will back this up later. The corruption lies in the first premise. This is a very circumstantial premise in reality, but the parents make it appear as though sharing always produces pleasure by giving the child a reward every time he shares. This corruption varies in degree. I for one have very little corruption, because I was grew up questioning absolutes, probably because my dad was a hard core atheist. Some people’s corruption is so complete; they are lost in their world. Some people are corrupted, but not to such a massive extent, and thus are able to eventually see through the absolutes.
Since Pain and Pleasure are opposite qualifications for moments in life, I consider them like a number line, starting in the negative, moving right, eventually reaching zero then going into the positives. Thus, avoidance of pain and pursuit of pleasure are the same. Going from -5 to -3 is the same as going from +3 to +5. Don’t you ever want to eat when you get upset? When I get upset, I love to get something tasty to eat. Pain and pleasure cancel each other out. Thus it is one drive. Always pushing us in one direction.
You are right that the subordinate chooses the lesser of the two “evils.†But if he was a rational person he would understand the reason behind obeying his boss. He would understand the statistically probable consequences of disobeying his boss: getting fired or being passed over for that promotion. But, if he had some knowledge of the boss, say that he was a pushover, and wouldn’t care either way the subordinate chose, he should choose to disobey. If he felt bad about firing a co-worker, knew his boss didn’t care either way, and yet still did it out of a sense of duty, that would be irrational. Though I have to acknowledge that just like in religion, he obtains pleasure from accomplishing his duty. This is his corrupted logic: If I do my duty, I get pleasure. I did my duty. My brain makes pleasure. Except that pleasure is in contention with the pain he felt from firing his co-worker. This is the problem with these corruptions. My logic goes like this: If I obtain pleasure, I obtain pleasure. I obtained pleasure. Thus my brain makes pleasure. Plus the pleasure I obtained. X+P baby!
How can you say you don’t like statistics man??? You really disappointed me there. All we have are statistics. What evidence do you have that the sun will come up tomorrow? Well, the fact that it has come up (a big number X)/X times throughout recorded history. Yea, the sun comes up for a reason, it follows natural laws of physics, but what evidence do you have that those laws will apply tomorrow? Same argument as above. Statistics and probability is evidence, the most important kind, if not the only kind. Example: If I hear a bird make noise Z once, is it safe to assume it will make noise Z again the second time? Since it made Z 1/1 times, the chance that it will make a different noise G the second time is 1/2. So it’s a 50% chance, that’s not a good assumption to make. Now, say we observed longer. The bird made noise Z 100/100 times. Is it safe to assume it will make Z again next time? Well the chance of it making a different noise G is 1/101, which is about a .0099% chance. Thus this is a much safer assumption to make than the first one. Statistics are a reflection of our perceptions on probability. Probability is how we provide evidence.
I only comment on rape and murder because their penalties and chance of getting caught are so severe. If you are making a decision for yourself whether or not to be a criminal, then all things ARE equal. We are only concerned with the effects of this decision on the chance to obtain pleasure. The decision to be around cars is for another time, and thus has no bearing on the current decision. So now that all the variables are equal, you agree choosing to be a law abider has a greater chance of happiness. That was my only point. The risk factor of being a criminal is determined through empirical statistics only. “I have noticed that a tiny percentage of rapists and murderers get away with it. The rest of that statistic goes on to have miserable lives in jail.â€
Let me clarify my definition of risk. It is the chance of facing the consequence of pain, the opposite of pleasure. Thus if the risk is high, your chances are high of moving DOWN that pleasure line. Thus you are probably going to end up with less pleasure as a result of taking that risk. Decisions are risk/reward functions. The pursuit of pleasure drive drives us to seek the reward, that being pleasure. How much pleasure we end up obtaining in life depends on how good we are at accessing the risk vs. the reward, what risks we are comfortable with taking, and luck. Just like a poker game. And the risk taker does derive more pleasure if he succeeds. Assumption? No. Science. Read this article about dopamine. The first conclusion is that higher risk breeds higher reward. The second is an affirmation of my corrupted drives argument from above.
http://money.cnn.com/2002/09/16/pf/investing/agenda_brain5/
Taking the second conclusion into consideration, it makes my X+P argument all the better. If I have associated obtaining pleasure with obtaining pleasure, then my brain will make extra pleasure whenever I achieve the goal of obtaining pleasure. I will never have pain conflicts such as the subordinate firing his co-worker because it’s his duty, even though the boss doesn’t care.
Of course choosing X+P will not undoubtedly lead to more pleasure. But I have proven it is more probable to provide more pleasure. And as I have said before, probability is significant evidence. So to choose against my logic is nothing but stupid. Just think about it in the way I ended up putting it to my cousin. My Golden Door Argument. You are faced with two doors. All you know is that there are random values of money behind either door. But the right door has a pure golden handle that you know is worth some value of money in the world economy. The other door has a regular wooden handle worth nothing. You get to keep the handle of the door you choose. What door do you choose? Your goal is money. My cousin responded quite funnily by saying the wooden door. He explained that the golden door seemed like bait to take that door, because the bigger cash prize was behind the wooden door. I had to explain to him that there was no host in this scenario and to not be so pessimistic about the world.
We are born with a natural evolutionary drive to help us survive. That drive is physical pain and pleasure. Through association and corrupted logic our brain produces intellectual pleasure as a result of a cue instead of the gain, like in the article. Thus if your cue IS obtaining pleasure, you will be generating your own intellectual pleasure from obtaining physical pleasure. This ideology has the highest chance for highest potential pleasure, logically. I stick to my utopian set of laws idea, though I have nothing of that to share. I know most people think like you, and this is by no means a logical conclusion of mine. Just a theory that I am working on. I am very optimistic about it though.
All right russiantank. I want to try to clarify and understand more just what your points are. Firstly you talk of the infant and his understanding of the world through pleasure and pain. So:
All people have pain and pleasure as qualifiers for situations. Specifically, in the case of the infant, the pain and pleasure were derived from a physical stimulus. Both are evolutionary measures to signal which activities would be of benefit to the individual and which ones are detrimental. These universal signals are the driving force for behavior.
Often someone in control of the individuals rewards and punishments can skew their understanding of the world. This is what happens when a parent misrepresents how often sharing will be reinforced by pleasure.I do not actually disagree with anything in this section. Most of the ideas are basic behaviorism and I will even agree that they probably have an evolutionarily beneficial purpose. What I would like you to clarify is the difference between physical pleasure and pain and intellectual pleasure and pain. Let me offer an ostensive definition of each. Physical pain= being hit in the head by a frying pan. Physical pleasure= sex. Intellectual pain=remembering what your ex said when they dumped you. Intellectual pleasure=reflecting and realizing that you achieved a goal. Now all intellectual pleasure/pain has some sort of physical origin because it is based on some experience you had or an imagination of experiences you had. The main difference is that the stimulus for the physical pleasure/pain is observable. The stimulus for the intellectual pleasure/pain is not. Is one type of stimulus likely to generate more pleasure or pain? How can you ever know how much intellectual pain/pleasure is being generated by a person’s thoughts? (i.e. how often they replay events and words in their heads) It seems this is paramount in the understanding of depression and other mental illness. If I receive physical pleasure from something like a comment from a friend and then I realize later, after reviewing events, that they probably lied, how much of my original pleasure is diminished? Can so much be diminished that I am in the negative(pain) Most troubling, if I am driven to avoid pain, why do I subject myself to intellectual pain like the above mentioned? Why do I not just stop thinking about an event that is bringing me so much intellectual pain? Why do people continue to ruminate on events and bring themselves intellectual pain such as depression? I think you must address these issues as they are integral to your premise.
Also, you stated “Pleasure and pain are not some unknown sensations that are relative in all of us. They are a very specific and defined pair of feelings that are natural and present in all of us. I believe science will back me up on this one.” I believe that pleasure and pain are unknown in the sense that they have no scientific definition. They are “known” in the way that love is “known”. It is a shared cultural sense but in no ways specific or defined. Look at the definition you got for pain " an unpleasant sensation…" What is “unpleasant” about it? What does unpleasant mean? “An unpleasant sensation” sounds like a pretty general definition to me. The reason scientists must use such cutsie phrases for neurotransmitters like dopamine is because they don’t have a good grasp on just what pleasure and pain are. As far as they have gotten is that dopamine is “involved” in the feeling of pleasure and so it is the “feel good” chemical. So I would very much like science to back you up on this.
Let me review my first two charges:
I charge you to answer some of the questions about physical/intellectual pain and pleasure. If you do not want to dissect them in that way then you must come up with another definition that takes into account the phenomenon of mental pain and pleasure.
I charge you to give me the specific scientific definition of pain and pleasure. Something to the effect of “Pain is the interaction of an average of 20 milliliters of seritonin with a counter effect of an average of 2 milliliters of dopamine.”
I only want to make one comment about what you said involving the co-worker example because I believe that much of what you stated will be addressed in other comments. You stated “He would understand the statistical probable consequence of disobeying his boss.” I have talked to you about this before and so now I am going to ask that you either furnish me with the statistics that support the probability statement or admit that you are incorrectly using words for effect.
I don’t want to get into my problems with statistics at this juncture because I believe it will severely derail the specific conversation we are having. Although, I would be more than happy to discuss it at a later date.
You also spoke about making the decision for yourself to be a rapist or not. I agree that the individual uses the thought process you have described “I have noticed…” I did not realize that the emphasis was on the individual making the decision. It is a different thing to say that “the law abider has a greater chance of being happy than the criminal.” That is an omni potently viewed sort of statement not based on the individuals decision and perspective, but on an analysis of all facts.
Risk/Reward: I have no contention with this although I would like to add that it is the individuals appraisal of the risk and reward. There can be no objective appraisal of who or what a “risk taker” is. A “high risk” for some which translates into massive pleasure may be “no risk” for others. No big point here, I just wanted to add this for clarification.
Now on to your X+P theory: You stated “If I have associated obtaining pleasure with obtaining pleasure, then my brain will make extra pleasure whenever I achieve the goal of obtaining pleasure.” I will assume that the pleasure that you are talking about obtaining is physical pleasure. If not, then please clarify for me. I wonder though if this actually happens. If I have the goal to have pleasure and then I have sex, which is pleasurable, then is my sexual pleasure enhanced by the achievement of my goal? Is their a pleasure threshold that would make the original x quantity and the additional p unimportant. Do I even think “I’m achieving my goal” at the point of orgasm? I don’t expect you to answer these questions but they do show that the subject matter we speak is lacking in the factual department.
This all leads to your golden door analogy. First let me say. I would choose the golden handled door. Why? because the golden handle represents guaranteed money. Perhaps the sums of money are less than the value of the golden handle. I don’t know. This then also leads to a very important distinction that I am going to need you to make russiantank. In my liquid container analogy the point was that we cannot know which amount is more and so the addition of a known amount of liquid in no way defines the greater amount. This was all under the assumption that we were looking at it from a detached third party omnipotent view. When you are talking about your “X+P” theory are you stating that “It is more likely that the unknown quantity X will result in less pleasure than the unknown quantity X plus the known quantity P.”? This was the type of statement that I said was something that we just cannot know. My original complaints still stand if this is what you meant. An unknown quantity is an unknown quantity and the addition of some known quantity in no way determines the amount of the unknown quantity. Again I will need some statistical equations to show how this can work out.
However, your golden door analogy seems to indicate that you are speaking from the person’s perspective. This would be something to the effect of “Since the quantities of X are unknown, logically the person would do well to pick the alternative with the known quantity P.” This would be stating that a person should choose the X+P route. In this sense I understand what you are saying. After all, I stated that I would choose the golden handled door. However, in the golden handled door scenario you had no previous experience with the doors or the sums of money. So, (and I believe you stated this in an earlier scenario involving a baby) if you have no experience with pleasure or pain of the physical or intellectual variety it makes sense that you would want to pick the “X+P” route as your way to go. But then what if the person finds that some physical pleasures that they pursue are counterbalanced by intellectual pain. This would not even have to be because of the violation of a code (in fact it couldn’t be since they would not have one) just circumstances. After all, not all physical pleasures can be satiated simultaneously. Perhaps the find that, for them it is best to adopt the code to “tell the truth.” This code prohibits the active pursuit of certain physical pleasure much in the same way that the young Christian man’s code does. You advocate that it would be silly to adopt such codes and limit yourself but what about this person. I am not saying that many times parents and society don’t manipulate physical pain/pleasure and situations to force the adoption of certain codes. But I do believe many modified versions of moral codes exist in individuals because they have found what works best for them. So if this is advice you are giving, who is it to, babies? If you want to tell them that they should adopt X+P by default because that has the best probability for pleasure than I guess go for it. Or perhaps you would like to advocate that parents teach X+P. But certainly parents cannot teach that the pursuit of pleasure can be had at all costs. I am not so sure that I would tell a child, “Steal the cookie or my wallet if that’s what brings you pleasure, just make sure that you have fully understood the risks and rewards.”
If your intention for X+P is advice I need you to answer these questions:
- What do you say to those who have worked out modified moral systems that prohibit the pursuit of physical pleasures as a response to past intellectual pain.
- How are parents or other leaders supposed to imbue their children with the X+P philosophy? Certainly some concessions have to be made because we all live together. What rules or morals will preserve a peaceful coexistence while allowing the maximum pursuit of X+P?
Perhaps this is something like what you were speaking of with your laws. Although laws are something different than internal moral rules or goals. Still, advice is a tricky thing. I am not sure how you can tell anyone older than a baby to follow X+P. It is likely that they have had to develop some sort of code that prohibits certain pursuits of pleasure and so what can you say to them? How many people have had to do this? It seems that the X+P philosophy is most applicable to those with little to no experience. If so, then you need a plan to tell the parents, leaders or babies. I think I have been clear on my contentions and requests. I look forward to hearing your response.
Ok, physical pleasure/pain is the inherent evolutionary response in all of us. Intellectual pleasure is a consequence of associating pleasure/pain to situations, only possible through corruptions of logic by misunderstanding observations. These corruptions are perfectly natural, and are the very basis of relativity. If we didn’t grow different through our separate experiences this world would be very boring. I have these corruptions as well. For some reason I associate Guns and Roses and Trance music with pleasure, such that whenever I hear them I get a euphoric feeling. This is the nature of taste and the difference between people. Indeed, only physical pain is observable. As such we can only know of our individual intellectual pleasure. How much pain/pleasure people get from their thoughts? Maybe science can answer that by observing chemical levels or whatever, but I don’t see why this is important for my philosophy. If one obtains pleasure from hearing a comment, and pain from finding out it was a lie, only the individual knows the final pleasure output. Some people do exactly as you say; they stop thinking about associations that cause them pain. Some people, for whatever reason cannot. I for one am a natural optimist, thus I try only to think of things that make me happy.
The important conclusion is that the intellectual pleasure happens through the process of association I have mentioned and is mentioned in the website I posted. Accepting this will allow one to take advantage of this process by perpetuating pleasure. Maybe a great way to raise a child is to associate everything with pleasure for him. In that way you will eliminate all intellectual pain, and he will just believe every moment in life is good, even physically painful moments. Though if this drive is fully satisfied, he will still be driven to pursue physical pleasure. This might be a very effective ideology, because one should realize that learning as much as possible about the world, abiding by the law, and being a nice person statistically and probably leads to the highest chance of obtaining more physical pleasure. The only argument that I can think of against this ideology is this: always being in a state of intellectual happiness might reduce the drive for physical pleasure compared to my ideology where not obtaining physical pleasure actually causes intellectual pain. Thus in my ideology you pursue physical pleasure more arduously and it might be the case that physical pleasure is worth more than intellectual pleasure as a fact of nature. This is all conjecture and theory, but one conclusion remains: Promoting physical pleasure in ones ideology increases the chance of obtaining more overall pleasure.
I cannot give you a scientific definition. It is true it is still a weak science. But there is evidence from observation, more so than other theories.
First let me ask you, from your experience, does disobeying your boss make negative consequences in terms of your job more or less probable?
Yes, I do believe sex is enhanced by the intellectual pleasure from the association. No, I do not believe there is a threshold. More is more. I don’t think there is a maximum. I have no reason to think this since I’ve never felt it. Maybe that’s love?
Here’s the math behind the golden door. You have the two doors, or the two ideologies. The golden handle represents some unknown positive quantity. Behind the doors are random numbers, lets classify them as A and B. B is the golden handled door. There are only three possibilities in the relationship of A and B. A>B, A=B, A<B. In A=B, choosing B results in more pleasure, because we add the positive value. In A<B, we obviously choose B. So choosing B will result in more pleasure 2/3 times. This is not to mention the fourth possibility where B is still the better choice when A>B. If the innate physical pleasure is greater than the difference between A and B. So the chance of obtaining a higher pleasure value choosing door B is somewhere above 66.66…%
Obviously, people in the world are going to teach what they believe is the best way in life to their kids. But promoting physical pleasure has more than a 2/3 chance of providing more pleasure. That’s all that needs to be said. And obviously you wont be able to teach a kid that “steal a cookie as long as you understand the risk/reward” and expect him to make informed decisions. I guess just try and not associate absolutes to pleasure and pain. Make the child aware that you are manipulating their circumstances, so they are aware of the relativity. So when you teach them not to steel, don’t say “stealing is wrong, so I will punish you for it”, say “I don’t want you to steel, so I’m going to punish you if you do it.” That’s perfectly true, and when they grow old enough to question why you want them not to steel, you can explain the risk/reward issue. The person that limits his physical pleasure is unknowingly reducing his chance of obtaining more pleasure. If he understands my explanations, he should conclude to promote physical pleasure in general. He can still manipulate his kid’s circumstances if he finds one type of pleasure causes him more pain than is worth. Just make the relativity known so it doesn’t stick as an absolute.
Indeed, that set of laws I have been speaking of is the one that will maximize the X+P ideology’s pleasure. We don’t need internal morals or values, we only need to be aware of the external factors on our pursuit of pleasure. Even now, in the US legal circumstances, X+P is in effect. I guess you can say the US applies selective pressure on my pleasure drive to make is so I enjoy being a “good” person. But I see problems. I believe doing what we want with our bodies is a fundamental right, so I think drugs should be legal. Luckily democracy allows for change, and so I have concluded that attempting to change US policy is a pleasurable goal. So I sit here writing my philosophy, testing its integrity, so that one day I can present it to the world, and hope I change the world to my liking.
Well russiantank I think we are just about getting to the end of this discussion. I first just want to say that I have been impressed with the tenacity of your debating. Many people give up or loose interest in hammering out the details of what they say. You have hung in there and defended each of your points. Well done.
First, I concede on the golden door analogy. Thank you for the statistical proof. Using that as the marker I see why it makes sense. I guess then you would say that the same choice holds for the two types of ideologies X and X+P. However, I will still bring up the fact that there are mixes and, in life, people do not usually just have a total pleasure seeking ideology and then an ideology with an utter lack of pleasure seeking. I still do not think you answered what you say or how you address those with a modified moral code that prohibits some pleasure and not others. Just what P do you advocate in X+P? How much P should one pursue?
To your “disobeying boss” question: That really depends on a lot of things. Sometimes disobeying my boss has not lead to negative consequences if they were incompetent or unaware. I suppose that, in my current job, disobeying my boss might lead to negative consequences but it might not if my boss was in the wrong about a company wide policy. O.K., but let’s not turn this into me answering questions about this. You still need to furnish me with the statistics, as in the golden door analogy or admit that you stated it for effect.
I have been going out of order but I will now address the first item you spoke of, intellectual and physical pain/pleasure:
I do not understand why intellectual pleasure is only possible through corruptions in logic by misunderstanding observations. You say that these corruptions are perfectly natural and are the basis of relativity. But I do not see how that is intellectual pleasure. The phenomenon that I call intellectual pleasure is when you are thinking of something and those thoughts either cause pleasure or pain. There is no observable physical stimulus. This is not taste. It is not you hearing a Guns and Roses song and felling pleasure. That is physical pleasure. Intellectual pleasure is you either remembering a Guns and Roses concert that you went to and getting pleasure or imagining the concert that you are going to and getting pleasure. How is that based on some sort of corrupted logic. It can only be based on memory if you like. Example: I eat a chocolate doughnut. That brings me physical pleasure. Later that day I think about the chocolate doughnut that I ate and smile. That is intellectual pleasure as the stimulus was something created by my mind. (Also, if you think this is a improbable scenario, I can tell you that I have actually done this) Still I am not sure where the corrupted logic comes into play. I was just imagining the doughnut. How did I misunderstand the observation? The intellectual pleasure can also be reviewing certain actions you have taken and realizing that you have accomplished your goals. Or, conversely, realizing that you have not. These cannot be explained by taste. Please explain this to me as I believe it to be a major roadblock in our communication. Further, I’m not sure that “for whatever reason” is an acceptable response as to why some people seem to pursue intellectual pain via ruminating thoughts. If this is true than it does not support your whole idea of the “drive to pleasure” and “drive to avoid pain” idea. Again, I think this will be answered when you fully define intellectual pleasure and pain…
As to the “science can answer it comments.” I realize that there are certain things that you cannot answer and perhaps, as a philosopher, believe that you should not have to answer. I have always been interested in science and am of the opinion that philosophers should be working with the sciences. Science tends to narrow your thought process and so on the theoretical front, a philosopher with a grasp of the basic principles can be instrumental in asking questions and helping to guide creative research. Often I have noticed that Philosophers tend to section themselves off with the attitude of “Well I don’t know any of that technical stuff, that’s for the scientists or psychologists to worry about.” But each group has a very important part that they bring to the table. Science employs the appropriate methodology and philosophy employs the appropriate thought process. Philosophy is the idea and science is the execution. Oh well, this is tangential and for another discussion but it is why I will not address your response that you do not know many of the answers to those questions. I understand your point but I think you should at least admit in your philosophy the things that you cannot answer just to be more complete.
I would be interested to read a final, polished form of this philosophy of yours. From all I can tell you advocate teaching the child the pursuit of pleasure but not promoting a type of pleasure if it causes the child more pain than its worth. Although I still don’t know how the parent is supposed to make that distinction without having access to the child’s thoughts. I think I understand that your advocacy is for pleasure in general. You admit that the pursuit of some pleasures can be more painful than they are worth. Basically it seems you advocate against merely adopting pleasure restricting moral codes “just because.” One should at least explore the pursuits of all pleasures and make the choice for themselves which ones are worth it and which ones are not. In this respect, I have no real problems with this advice. The only thing that I really need you to still answer is your definition of intellectual pleasure and how it encompasses my example scenarios. In addition, you need to clear up the troubling matter of why some people seem to pursue intellectual pain. I understand that optimists such as yourself do not, but that does not get you off the hook in explaining that phenomenon. Also, I will hold my contention that some of the gaps in scientific knowledge will make your advice a little weaker.
That’s why I made this thread, I wanted people to challenge the integrity of my ideas, and I wanted to see if I could hold my points up. Thank you for giving me this credit.
You are right that there are mixes. And maybe stressing some pleasures too much might have negative consequences, such as sex addiction. I cannot address the people with moral codes unless I can un-convince them of absolutes. Which I’m sure you know is not an easy task. Nothing should ever be prohibited; everything should be accessed as risk reward. If people understand the process of association that causes such relativity in intellectual pain they should realize anything goes at an individual level, nothing should be prohibited. Just like my experience tells me that murder and rape have a huge risk associated to them, my teaching to my kids will reflect this perception, just like a religious person’s experience tells them that lying causes them pain and thus they will teach their kids not to lie. The difference is that my teachings are relative, because if the kids grow up aware of only the risk, and in 50 years rape becomes the norm and no one goes to jail for it, they will be able to partake in the fun and obtain intellectual pleasure from it as well. The religious guy will get the intellectual pleasure of following his morals, but he will not be able to get the physical rewards of raping women because of his absolutes. So the point is, whatever your belief system, which occurred from associations to physical pain/pleasure, if you understand me, you should conclude that to force your intellectual pain as absolutes on your children limits their pleasure in life. You can still guide your kids along your beliefs, by teaching your absolutes as mere guidelines, just like my parents did. I do now have a natural aversion to murder and rape, because some association did occur at a young age. But it did not stick as an absolute, and my parents stressed the pursuit of reason and logic, thus the more I delve into my philosophy, the less the aversion affects me.
How much physical pleasure and what kind should we pursue? I don’t think that’s important, and probably unknown. I guess the biggest point I’m trying to make is to not prohibit physical pleasure with absolutes. And encourage rational thinking and understanding of the world. Everything else will follow. They will feel pleasure, and they will realize pleasure is the drive, not any abstract absolutes. But maybe promoting pleasure in general will increase the drive. Either way, this understanding of relativity will increase the chance of pleasure over any absolutes.
Ok, I do not have statistical evidence that people get fired for disobeying their bosses. None the less there is data in my brain that tells me it’s true. From an analysis of what exactly a job is, you can conclude that most of the time, job refers to working to produce profit. It is also a safe conclusion to make that in most cases; the boss has more experience than the subordinate on how to make that profit. I can then conclude that a subordinate that does what he is told to do by his more knowledgeable boss is more productive than one who disobeys his boss. Taking into consideration the highly competitive job market in the US, it is safe to say that the boss would prefer and have the means to replace a disobedient worker with a more productive obedient worker or that the boss would rather have more productive subordinates promoted to higher possitions. Any wholes in that logic?
You are right that not all intellectual pleasure is a corruption of logic. Most of the time its just association. It’s the formation of absolutes that is the corruption, such as, not stealing and thus being a good person leads to pleasure. This premise is not true if the relative circumstances are not made aware. Thus the corruption occurs when the premise is taken as true, and an absolute is created. With you eating a doughnut and remembering it, that is just the natural association of physical pleasure to a moment in your life, and the subsequent intellectual pleasure achieved from memory of that moment. Just like you said. But! It IS the nature of taste. By taste I mean taste in music, taste in clothes, maybe even taste in… taste. Why do I get physical pleasure from hearing GnR? I don’t get physical pleasure. Its intellectual pleasure. The music is just a cue that I associated with pleasure sometime in the past. Otherwise you would have to concede that I was genetically programmed to like GnR, which is obviously untrue. This would explain the relative tastes in music and clothing. It is an intellectual association with physical pleasure. I believe the same applies to taste of food. I can’t stand kidney, my whole family can’t get enough of it. How does one explain this relativity of taste? Because it’s just intellectual pleasure achieved from association. And what about acquired taste? Some people learn to obtain pleasure from a specific food. Its intellectual pleasure.
When I say “for whatever reason†I mean something is wrong. I don’t know what is wrong. When someone gets pain from thinking about the past, then he either also gets more pleasure to make it worth it, or he can’t help himself. I would bet if you ask most people that ruminate over bad experiences, they will tell you they wish they could stop. If they give you any reason, such as, I’m trying to punish myself for doing something bad… well you understand that the pleasure drive comes into play at that point.
I agree with your science paragraph. But my philosophy is grounded in science. I have read psychology and their observations are not in contradiction to my ideas, actually, I was lead to my philosophical conclusions from psychology. Same goes with neurology. But both of these sciences are still weak, and their observations don’t have as concrete conclusions as some other sciences such as biology, or chemistry. So I am hoping my conclusions are backed up by further observations.
You said “From all I can tell you advocate teaching the child the pursuit of pleasure but not promoting a type of pleasure if it causes the child more pain than its worth. Although I still don’t know how the parent is supposed to make that distinction without having access to the child’s thoughts.†That’s not what I am promoting. You are right; the parent cannot have access to the child’s thoughts. This is what I said “He can still manipulate his kid’s circumstances if he finds one type of pleasure causes him more pain than is worth. Just make the relativity known so it doesn’t stick as an absolute.†I was referring to the parent having a pleasure he finds is not worth it, a taste or belief. If the parent has specific tastes that he believes in, he can still guide his child towards those beliefs, but he must keep the child’s mind open and free from absolutes. That way the child will formulate his own tastes and opinions later in life, because he will realize he was only learning his dads beliefs and tastes, and not absolutes.
Hey martin, where did you go. Im eagerly awaiting a reply. Hope you still visit the site…