Your philosophical world view and your life

[Ana the Ist]

I can't say I've ever held a cohesive "worldview" in the sense that a worldview informs behavior and thinking across a wide spectrum of life. I did have (and still do have) beliefs that relate to life and/or the world in a way that one would describe as narrow in scope. These views are typically changed and discarded by me either when I decide they are faulty or I've taken them as far as I can.

For example, as a very young man (12-13) I had done a lot of thinking about what was of value as it relates to death. That is, when dying, what would I reflect upon that I would value having? I decided that experience was my answer. I had decided that wealth, relationships, power...all things that men (and women to some extent) tend to value in life seem to lose all value when dying. Experiences, however, remain of value until you're dead (I forget how I actually rationalized this all out...I just remember this was the conclusion that I came to). When I began to analyze experience in my mind...I decided that variety and quantity were of far more importance than quality (I believed that view would lead to more experiences of many different kinds) when it came to their value and the value of the wisdom gained from them.

So I kept this idea in mind for about the next ten years or so whenever I was faced with the question "Hey...you wanna go do this?".

It led to a very interesting 10 years in which I learned a whole lot...but I wouldn't recommend it as a worldview for anyone. It takes a lot of self discipline and the ability to suppress your emotions. Ultimately, some re-evaluation of this idea occurred and I abandoned it almost completely.

Hope that answers the OP a little.

 

[juvenissun]

At a conscious level, yes. But beneath the surface our biology sees it as all about survival.

Watching a sports game, we get excited. Our adrenalin rises. This is because our biology is interpreting our excitement in terms of fight or flight - survival.

What you said is illusive. Just like what you feel when I talk about God.

 

[David Colin Gould]

David, this sounds like you dismiss the "conscious level" as irrelevant - sort of like helplessly being exposed to "biology".
How does your view account for the fact (?) that - at least sometimes - we seem to be able to overcome e.g. the fight or flight reflex (because we consciously realize that the given situation isn´t about survival) and find third options?

Well, consciousness must be an expression of our biology, and our biology is all about survival. Daniel Dennett talks about the evolution of a compatibilist free will (which is not really free will, but anyway) in terms of more and more options being available to people instead of just the fight or flight response or the sex response or any other response. But these responses are still focused on survival, just at a different level - survival in the social group, survival in the workplace, survival on the dating scene. And even survival of one's own identity, so to speak. Going against our own world view can cause distress.

I think all decisions boil down to a cost/benefit analysis of options that is undertaken at the subconcious level but, depending on the cognitive requirements of the choice, that can manifest in internal dialogue. This cost/benefit analysis is built on our survival 'modules', so to speak.

 

[David Colin Gould]

What you said is illusive. Just like what you feel when I talk about God.

Illusive or elusive? (I am not being pedantic - I am just wondering if you mean my claims are an illusion or if you cannot pin down what I am saying).

 

[quatona]

Well, consciousness must be an expression of our biology, and our biology is all about survival.

I agree with the first part, while I see no reason to assume the latter. There are many things people do that aren´t helping their survival; they even may put it at risk - and they do them knowingly and consciously.

Daniel Dennett talks about the evolution of a compatibilist free will (which is not really free will, but anyway) in terms of more and more options being available to people instead of just the fight or flight response or the sex response or any other response.

Just so we don´t misunderstand each other: I am not arguing for "free will".

But these responses are still focused on survival, just at a different level - survival in the social group, survival in the workplace, survival on the dating scene. And even survival of one's own identity, so to speak. Going against our own world view can cause distress.

David, you just changed the meaning of "survival" from a literal definition to a metaphorical one in the midst of your argument. I´m not sure this is a good idea.
I do agree that there´s no way around interpreting every action and motive as driven by some sort of self-interest. This, however, is far from them being determined by the biological survival drive.

I think all decisions boil down to a cost/benefit analysis of options that is undertaken at the subconcious level but, depending on the cognitive requirements of the choice, that can manifest in internal dialogue.

I don´t disagree. Just would like to add, that the internal dialogue appears to be post-hoc rationalization more than anything.

This cost/benefit analysis is built on our survival 'modules', so to speak.

Well, with there being the qualifier "so to speak" - how could I possibly disagree?
It seems to me, though, that by mingling the literal survival and metaphorical survival (which actually could simply be called "well being"), you simply define the crucial distinction out of existence.

 

[juvenissun]

Illusive or elusive? (I am not being pedantic - I am just wondering if you mean my claims are an illusion or if you cannot pin down what I am saying).

I know what you said. You suggested that every human decision is, in fact, like an animal's decision, which is a decision of life and death.

Tell it to any one.

 

[David Colin Gould]

I agree with the first part, while I see no reason to assume the latter. There are many things people do that aren´t helping their survival; they even may put it at risk - and they do them knowingly and consciously.

Just so we don´t misunderstand each other: I am not arguing for "free will".

David, you just changed the meaning of "survival" from a literal definition to a metaphorical one in the midst of your argument. I´m not sure this is a good idea.
I do agree that there´s no way around interpreting every action and motive as driven by some sort of self-interest. This, however, is far from them being determined by the biological survival drive.


I don´t disagree. Just would like to add, that the internal dialogue appears to be post-hoc rationalization more than anything.

Yes, I think it might very well be. But I am not quite ready to put our conscious deliberations into the epiphenomena basket, although that could be where I am actually at.

Well, with there being the qualifier "so to speak" - how could I possibly disagree?
It seems to me, though, that by mingling the literal survival and metaphorical survival (which actually could simply be called "well being"), you simply define the crucial distinction out of existence.

On reading this, I think that you are correct. I will need to think it through a bit more to work out what it is that I mean.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Who wouldn't be angry and upset?

...but you could forgive the river for sweeping your family away, though, right?

A river cannot be punished as the term is normally understood.

Why not? Why the ontological difference?

But it can be rehabilitated, in that structures can be put in place to try to prevent it killing people again, which is what we do with humans we wish to rehabilitate.

...not really...we restructure a river's flow in some form, not 'train' it to do better.

Forgiveness is a different issue. In my worldview, forgiveness is automatic (should be automatic - I am fallible, of course, which is a little bit of what this thread is about). Thus, there is no difference between a river and a person.

Ok. So. Forgive the river, Dave. [I had no idea Nihilism could bend the mind this far...]

Well, any deity that exists cannot have free will, either.

And you know this how? Revelation?

So they would not be moral agents, either. But again if steps could be taken to prevent them killing then that would be of benefit.

Oh...there are steps. The first is repentance on our part.

There may be one or two others out there.

Could be a few, that's for sure, Dave.

They do not sense good and evil. What they see are actions they like and actions they do not like. They lable those things 'good' and 'evil'.

What were you saying about unsupported assertions?

Um, there would still be reasons. Whether someone would act on those reasons is a different matter. Regarding Stalinist Russia and the United States, I did mention that there are many reasons for such a system.

Oh, I'm sure there are reasons, but saying there are reasons is not the same as demonstrating that 'they' have good reasons. They could have bad reasons, and bad reasons are, well, 'bad' because they typically don't contribute to long-term survival. Y'know, what they say the road to Hell is paved with? (Did I just say that? Yes, I said that, Dave...because I know you're smarter than the average bear...you have to be, to be an educator.)

It is a little odd attempting to equate randomness with free will.

Or, maybe God does play dice.

Thanks for making that unsupported assertion once more - I missed it the first time.

You're welcome. And I suggest thinking deeply about what Quatona pointed out earlier... [ Thanks Quatona! ]

2PhiloVoid

 

[David Colin Gould]

...but you could forgive the river for sweeping your family away, though, right?

Why not? Why the ontological difference?

Because rivers do not - to the best of our knowledge - feel pain.

...not really...we restructure a river's flow in some form, not 'train' it to do better.

It is the same thing. We restructure a human's circumstances - either their brain or their environment - such that they do not do the same things.

Ok. So. Forgive the river, Dave. [I had no idea Nihilism could bend the mind this far...]

I am not really talking about forgiving the river here. When I talk about forgiveness being automatic, I see human actions as like the river's actions. As I do not blame a river for what it does, i do not forgive it. As I do not blame a human for what it does, I do not forgive it. Forgiveness becomes something that has no meaning - the lack of blame is automatic, which is perhaps how I should have expressed it.

And you know this how? Revelation?

The arguments against humans having free will apply to any being. And a deity defined in the way that Christians do has no free will by definition: God does not choose to be good; God is good by definition. Thus, in any particular case where a decision needs to be made, he must do the most moral thing. He cannot choose to be immoral. Thus, no free will.

Oh...there are steps. The first is repentance on our part.

Many Christians have repented. And yet suffering still happens for them. Thus, they must not have completed the number of steps.

Could be a few, that's for sure, Dave.

Not many.

What were you saying about unsupported assertions?

Okay: on close examination, I do not sense good and evil, and my assumption has to be that others sense things in similar ways to me. Further, I can observe that some people - for example - claim that homosexual acts are evil, while others claim that they are not. Thus, if people do sense good and evil, their senses can be confused.

Oh, I'm sure there are reasons, but saying there are reasons is not the same as demonstrating that 'they' have good reasons. They could have bad reasons, and bad reasons are, well, 'bad' because they typically don't contribute to long-term survival. Y'know, what they say the road to Hell is paved with? (Did I just say that? Yes, I said that, Dave...because I know you're smarter than the average bear...you have to be, to be an educator.)

A reason that is bad for someone else might contribute to long-term survival. Locking up or executing your political opponents can assist in the long-term survival of a dictatorship. Of course, sometimes that backfires. But that is again because we do not always (and probably not usually) make good decisions.

As to being smarter, only in some areas.

Or, maybe God does play dice.

God might play dice. But a roll of the dice is not free will.

You're welcome. And I suggest thinking deeply about what Quatona pointed out earlier... [ Thanks Quatona! ]

2PhiloVoid

I am thinking about it. And you have given me things to think about, too. That is why I enjoy discussing things with people who disagree with me.

 

[David Colin Gould]

I can't say I've ever held a cohesive "worldview" in the sense that a worldview informs behavior and thinking across a wide spectrum of life. I did have (and still do have) beliefs that relate to life and/or the world in a way that one would describe as narrow in scope. These views are typically changed and discarded by me either when I decide they are faulty or I've taken them as far as I can.

For example, as a very young man (12-13) I had done a lot of thinking about what was of value as it relates to death. That is, when dying, what would I reflect upon that I would value having? I decided that experience was my answer. I had decided that wealth, relationships, power...all things that men (and women to some extent) tend to value in life seem to lose all value when dying. Experiences, however, remain of value until you're dead (I forget how I actually rationalized this all out...I just remember this was the conclusion that I came to). When I began to analyze experience in my mind...I decided that variety and quantity were of far more importance than quality (I believed that view would lead to more experiences of many different kinds) when it came to their value and the value of the wisdom gained from them.

So I kept this idea in mind for about the next ten years or so whenever I was faced with the question "Hey...you wanna go do this?".

It led to a very interesting 10 years in which I learned a whole lot...but I wouldn't recommend it as a worldview for anyone. It takes a lot of self discipline and the ability to suppress your emotions. Ultimately, some re-evaluation of this idea occurred and I abandoned it almost completely.

Hope that answers the OP a little.

Interesting. My world view has altered significantly over time in the larger scope of things. These changes seem to not have a massive impact on the behavioural level, just in the way that I look at things.

Experiences are important, but I would say that even experiences have no value after death. (Although I have friends who believe in the stories of our lives being the things that continue after death, so ...) Thus, the value of experiences mainly exists while you are having them. Quality thus becomes more important.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As to being smarter, only in some areas.

I am thinking about it. And you have given me things to think about, too. That is why I enjoy discussing things with people who disagree with me.

I'm confident you'll do fine in your teaching, Dave. (Just watch out for those remedial students ---I say that in jest, as a former, short-term teacher.)

And it's been good to meet you, Dave! You've been a good sport through our introduction.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[anonymous person]

I don´t believe that...

Ok...

an "I/me/self" exists,.....

Hmm.....

and I am convinced that......

The above is a real world, real life example of the consequences that result from one forsaking the knowledge of God. They become fools. Their minds become so darkened, so far removed from reality, that statements like the above are made, and made with pride.

The apostle Paul presents a clear analysis of the process by which one arrives at this state. First, the deliberate and willful suppression of truth. This is done intentionally, not once for all, but rather, that which was done once becomes part and parcel of the one doing the suppressing. It becomes habitual, natural, common. After this, failure to honor God and to give God praise. Such a disposition naturally leads to one failing to honor God and to give Him the praise due Him. By them that welcome and embrace truth, honor and glory are seen as those things which rightly and naturally belong to God and Him alone. Them that deny it and willfully attempt to suppress it, will naturally live in such a way as reflects their desires to suppress the truth. They will give glory and honor and praise to this thing or that, but cannot give it to God because to do so would be to acknowledge the truth instead of suppress it. Thus, they become futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Just as the rain falls from the clouds when the vapor within the cloud cools, so do the minds and hearts of men fall when they are made hard and cold by rejecting the warm light of God. They become futile in their thinking. They indeed can think, as the rest of men can, but their thinking is of such a nature as that it is rendered futile and worthless. The tires on a race car are slick and cold and hard and virtually useless until they are heated up and made soft by friction. Only when the tires are hot, can they perform as they were designed to perform. If they are cold, the car may indeed be driven and the tires of some small use, but they will never be what they were made to be unless they are hot. Such people, Paul says, claimed to be wise, but in reality, became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Now they have become so hard and calloused in their hearts and minds that they actually really think they are wise. They say things like, "something can come from nothing, didn't ya know?" or, "I don't believe that I exist..." and then they go on and on about what they like or don't like, what they do or do not do, how they see this thing or that, all the while using the word "I". Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. The apostle Paul here finishes the thought by calling us to look at the effects produced by willful suppression of the truth. They receive the fruit of their labor. They are given over to the lusts of their hearts to impurity. Strong passion and strong desire overtake such a one and they are inundated as in a flood. They burn with passion which can never be quenched. With every vile and indecent act, the desire and passion grows. They use their bodies, their members, their hands, their eyes, their tongue, their genitalia, and any other thing capable of producing base pleasures in an attempt to satisfy this burning, which if left unrestrained and unquenched, leads inevitably to them being consumed. They willfully exchange the truth about God for a lie and worship this thing or that thing so long as it is not God. By worship, Paul signifies the deliberate and intentional act of esteeming, honoring, placing hope and trust in, and giving glory to a particular thing. Here the debased man worships his appetite, his sensual lusts and desires, he worships other men, he worships himself, he worships knowledge, he worships money, power, prestige, position, influence, and any other thing under the sun other than the Son, by whom all things were made and in whom they exist.

 

[quatona]

Ok...

Hmm.....

The above is a real world, real life example of the consequences that result from one forsaking the knowledge of God. They become fools. Their minds become so darkened, so far removed from reality, that statements like the above are made, and made with pride.

The apostle Paul presents a clear analysis of the process by which one arrives at this state. First, the deliberate and willful suppression of truth. This is done intentionally, not once for all, but rather, that which was done once becomes part and parcel of the one doing the suppressing. It becomes habitual, natural, common. After this, failure to honor God and to give God praise. Such a disposition naturally leads to one failing to honor God and to give Him the praise due Him. By them that welcome and embrace truth, honor and glory are seen as those things which rightly and naturally belong to God and Him alone. Them that deny it and willfully attempt to suppress it, will naturally live in such a way as reflects their desires to suppress the truth. They will give glory and honor and praise to this thing or that, but cannot give it to God because to do so would be to acknowledge the truth instead of suppress it. Thus, they become futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Just as the rain falls from the clouds when the vapor within the cloud cools, so do the minds and hearts of men fall when they are made hard and cold by rejecting the warm light of God. They become futile in their thinking. They indeed can think, as the rest of men can, but their thinking is of such a nature as that it is rendered futile and worthless. The tires on a race car are slick and cold and hard and virtually useless until they are heated up and made soft by friction. Only when the tires are hot, can they perform as they were designed to perform. If they are cold, the car may indeed be driven and the tires of some small use, but they will never be what they were made to be unless they are hot. Such people, Paul says, claimed to be wise, but in reality, became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Now they have become so hard and calloused in their hearts and minds that they actually really think they are wise. They say things like, "something can come from nothing, didn't ya know?" or, "I don't believe that I exist..." and then they go on and on about what they like or don't like, what they do or do not do, how they see this thing or that, all the while using the word "I". Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. The apostle Paul here finishes the thought by calling us to look at the effects produced by willful suppression of the truth. They receive the fruit of their labor. They are given over to the lusts of their hearts to impurity. Strong passion and strong desire overtake such a one and they are inundated as in a flood. They burn with passion which can never be quenched. With every vile and indecent act, the desire and passion grows. They use their bodies, their members, their hands, their eyes, their tongue, their genitalia, and any other thing capable of producing base pleasures in an attempt to satisfy this burning, which if left unrestrained and unquenched, leads inevitably to them being consumed. They willfully exchange the truth about God for a lie and worship this thing or that thing so long as it is not God. By worship, Paul signifies the deliberate and intentional act of esteeming, honoring, placing hope and trust in, and giving glory to a particular thing. Here the debased man worships his appetite, his sensual lusts and desires, he worships other men, he worships himself, he worships knowledge, he worships money, power, prestige, position, influence, and any other thing under the sun other than the Son, by whom all things were made and in whom they exist.

Thanks for considering my thoughts.

 

[Cearbhall]

How much does your philosophical world view impact what you do in your life - the decisions that you make, the tasks that you undertake and the relationships you seek out and nurture?

I think that my philosophical outlook has given me peace of mind. I have very good control over my emotions and actions (in a good way, not a repressive way), and I don't find myself doing many things that I later regret. I think that my religious sense of self and humanity has helped be become a more intellectual person, as well.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I see choosing health, and benign psychological states as logical. Dr Spock meets ethics, meets Heidegger. This affects my actual state of being, I am a logical entity and my moment to moment decision making is like a benign equation. A mode of being, logically. Its a tune in to goodness. Hopefully (smiles).

The "truth of being" (matter of fact disclosedness of human being) is encountered as valenced (valued), and I sow and reap a beautiful life accordingly to the best of my ability.

^^^
Choose this,its better.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

dp

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So a chimp can tell good from evil?
Don't cheat yourself.

A chimp can act in its interests, itis "designed" to do so.