Are there self evident truthes

PureX said:

Existence requires effort. None of us knows why.
The effort can be diminished when we cooperate, but is increased when we compete.

These are things that appear to be 'self-evident', to me.

Click to expand...

So effort is a product of the need to survive and the need to outdo others for competing resources.

And you do not think people are motivated by cooperation. Common goals do not produce effort and motivation to you.

It could be that the reason for that is the way the game is rigged in our systems of policy, government, and economics. Its definetly natural selection at work.

There isnt a lot of impetus out there for people to cooperate or change the nature of the game.

No Star Trek utopian society in our future i guess.

osgart said:

So effort is a product of the need to survive and the need to outdo others for competing resources.

And you do not think people are motivated by cooperation. Common goals do not produce effort and motivation to you.

It could be that the reason for that is the way the game is rigged in our systems of policy, government, and economics. Its definetly natural selection at work.

There isnt a lot of impetus out there for people to cooperate or change the nature of the game.

No Star Trek utopian society in our future i guess.

Click to expand...

I think we humans have difficulty seeing the simple truth of our own existence. We are basically monkeys with hyper-active, ego-centric imaginations, frantically imaging that we are everything but what we are. It's very hard for us to cooperate on anything when we're all living in our own 'universe of selves'.

PureX said:

I think we humans have difficulty seeing the simple truth of our own existence. We are basically monkeys with hyper-active, ego-centric imaginations, frantically imaging that we are everything but what we are. It's very hard for us to cooperate on anything when we're all living in our own 'universe of selves'.

Click to expand...

Well with modern society of today its a horrible thing that we lose common language. We cant even determine what a self is. And some even argue there really is no true self.

People sometimes try to transcend beyond their mortal plight and mortal nature to find a better way or a better life beyond the history of mankind.

Is there no commonality between humans or do we all go through life with private dictionaries where nobody really understands each other.

I think that its a defense mechanism that people do not want to be an open book about even the most basic things.

Words like soul, and spirit have seemed to lost all meaning when people make those words out to be magical realms. But they otherwise carry great significance in reality as some use them.

For the life of me i don't know how to speak naturalism. I wish they would make a dictionary for naturalism.

osgart said:

Well with modern society of today its a horrible thing that we lose common language. We cant even determine what a self is. And some even argue there really is no true self.

People sometimes try to transcend beyond their mortal plight and mortal nature to find a better way or a better life beyond the history of mankind.

Is there no commonality between humans or do we all go through life with private dictionaries where nobody really understands each other.

I think that its a defense mechanism that people do not want to be an open book about even the most basic things.

Words like soul, and spirit have seemed to lost all meaning when people make those words out to be magical realms. But they otherwise carry great significance in reality as some use them.

For the life of me i don't know how to speak naturalism. I wish they would make a dictionary for naturalism.

Click to expand...

Art is our common language. But we're too interested in money to pay it any mind.

PureX said:

Existence requires effort. None of us knows why.
The effort can be diminished when we cooperate, but is increased when we compete.

These are things that appear to be 'self-evident', to me.

Click to expand...

Most things existed long before the Earth and Sun ever existed, and the Earth existed long before there were any sentient beings to make an effort.
Who made the effort to create existence before there was any life in the universe?

osgart said:

If a person thinks long and hard on their entire own will they eventually come to truthes that are self evident?

Or perhaps whatever is true is relative to the person and their situation. In which case anything goes and the ends justify the means.

My conviction is that moral truthes are self evident. Virtues are self evident. And what is vice becomes apparent.

My conviction is that people have the capacity to become certain attributes of character of their own choosing.

People fall into all kinds of trouble because of boredom and danger, risk and rewards, temptation and ignorance, greed and carelessness, lack of sufficient resources and desparation, false pride and hatred.

Everybody needs a clean place and space of their own. An environment they can organize and control. Relationships that would benefit their causes of survival and prosperity.

Everything of civilization depends on trust, and trustworthiness. If we are not consistent in our attitudes, values, behaviours, sincerity towards others, and persistence in what is good things will fall apart. And its all about doing right things even when you are the only one doing them.

So live or die many people have the deepest commitment to right doing even in the face of total chaos and anarchy. Because in right doing there is fulfillment, and quality of life.

But its more than the self reasons that people do right things, its love of others and self.

So i see two divergent paths in life, a right way and a wrong way.

Click to expand...

Down the rabbit hole.

Valjean said:

Most things existed long before the Earth and Sun ever existed, and the Earth existed long before there were any sentient beings to make an effort.
Who made the effort to create existence before there was any life in the universe?

Click to expand...

A self created existence that thusly created the universe. Before ever existence was ,there was absolute nothing. Nothing is unstable and impossible to maintain zero energy. So possibly some energy goes negative and some positive forming matter.

Before the very first sequence of events there was absolutely nothing or zero energy point.

Either that or an infinite regression of causes, or an eternal uncaused cause, or a brane in a higher dimension, or cyclical eternality of universal properties.

That is a good question! How many possibilities can you think of?

osgart said:

You have to make the distinction between moral relativism, and moral absolutism. Physical truthes aside. If everything is relative to the situation and there are no moral absolutes than nothing is impeding you from taking license to stealing, and hoarding, then whatever you decide to do is good if you benefit from it.

I have faced a few moral conundrums in my life. And i would have been better off if i stuck to my ideals then enter into certain relationships that i had no virtue basis for entering into them. The only relationships i value are the ones i entered into based on virtue.

Click to expand...

Relativism and absolutism both need a foundation. Generally one seeks universally applicable, abstract principles as the measure of morality, though many simply refer to a deontological set of rules. Then there is function. Does morality have a purpose, or is it just a set of natural laws? Is morality discernible to man? -- our history might argue against this.
Is morality consequential? If so, what consequences inform morality, and how broadly should consequences apply? Do we owe moral consideration only to our own family, our own nation, religion, race or species? How does one decide?

osgart said:

That is a good question! How many possibilities can you think of?

Click to expand...

Human, waking-state consciousness? Dream state? Manyworlds theory? Copenhagen interpretation? Strings? Supersymmetry? Multiverses?

Valjean said:

Relativism and absolutism both need a foundation. Generally one seeks universally applicable, abstract principles as the measure of morality, though many simply refer to a deontological set of rules. Then there is function. Does morality have a purpose, or is it just a set of natural laws? Is morality discernible to man? -- our history might argue against this.
Is morality consequential? If so, what consequences inform morality, and how broadly should consequences apply? Do we owe moral consideration only to our own family, our own nation, religion, race or species? How does one decide?

Click to expand...

This is just how i see things.

I would say that morality serves many purposes. Its rules are virtues of which i have counted 160 qualities of good character. Peaceful co-existence is one purpose. There are also many consequences of lacking virtues. Without virtues there is no basis for a substantive love of others.

We owe consideration to the potentials of all living beings on the basis of their intentions primarily, and actions secondarily.

Morality if centered on virtues shows that lacking virtue is consequential to the overall quality of life of all. And having virtues as qualities of our being produces mostly beneficial results to those who possess such virtues.

Virtues are not without defense. Its a virtue in and of itself to defend virtue.

As far as everything that happens in reality our evolutionary natures must be taken very seriously into account in regards to integrating virtues into our lives. Humans are subject to fallibility and error from the best to the worst of us. Honest people can be prone to delusions as well as dishonest people.

Ideals are all well and fine but human nature isnt going to be ideal. For me virtues are taken to heart and very much appreciated. I suppose i hold virtues as a higher power than my own self. But i believe that many people non religious and religious have a certain amount of virtue in their lives that they take to heart.

I meditate on virtues occasionally and sense a very genuine and real cause and effect of them in my life. I do not find virtues self limiting but rather self enabling.

I am atheist but i do develope a relationship with my understandings of what virtues mean. So i have no God, but i have this relationship to the meanings themselves. I have read books and there are firefighters, and other kinds of people that meditate on virtues. So its something i took to doing.

Valjean said:

Most things existed long before the Earth and Sun ever existed, and the Earth existed long before there were any sentient beings to make an effort.
Who made the effort to create existence before there was any life in the universe?

Click to expand...

That is the existential question being begged. That and 'why'.

osgart said:

For me virtues are taken to heart and very much appreciated. I suppose i hold virtues as a higher power than my own self. But i believe that many people non religious and religious have a certain amount of virtue in their lives that they take to heart.

I meditate on virtues occasionally and sense a very genuine and real cause and effect of them in my life. I do not find virtues self limiting but rather self enabling.

I am atheist but i do develope a relationship with my understandings of what virtues mean. So i have no God, but i have this relationship to the meanings themselves. I have read books and there are firefighters, and other kinds of people that meditate on virtues. So its something i took to doing.

Click to expand...

This might be an answer to a question that I’ve been wondering about. When you meditate on virtues, are they associated with images or feelings or impressions of a person who exemplifies those virtues? Is your relationship with the meanings like a personal relationship in some ways? Apart from all that, do you have any concept of someone or something that you love, that moves you to want to live virtuously and resist temptations to to do otherwise?

osgart said:

For the life of me i don't know how to speak naturalism. I wish they would make a dictionary for naturalism.

Click to expand...

I think of all the best possibilities in human life and human society as being a part of human nature that has been wilting away for centuries now, but is now being refreshed at the same time. I think the wilting will continue for a few more generations at least, before the renewal grows and spreads enough to start turning things around,

@osgart Another question: Can you think of any stories that you’ve read or heard about, some time in your life, that have influenced your thoughts and feelings about virtues? For example I might have got some of mine from Oz stories.

osgart said:

Is there no commonality between humans or do we all go through life with private dictionaries where nobody really understands each other.

Click to expand...

That's why making a new friend feels so good. It breaks people out from behind their private dictionaries.

osgart said:

This is just how i see things.

I would say that morality serves many purposes. Its rules are virtues of which i have counted 160 qualities of good character. Peaceful co-existence is one purpose. There are also many consequences of lacking virtues. Without virtues there is no basis for a substantive love of others.

Click to expand...

160 virtues? OK, now you're just teasing us --- Give.
With such a long list there are sure to be many I and others will disagree with; enough to keep the debate section hopping for months.

We owe consideration to the potentials of all living beings on the basis of their intentions primarily, and actions secondarily.

Click to expand...

Didn't many of history's most notorious tyrants have good intentions?
I seem to recall something being said about intentions and the road to Hell....

As far as everything that happens in reality our evolutionary natures must be taken very seriously into account in regards to integrating virtues into our lives.

Ideals are all well and fine but human nature isnt going to be ideal. For me virtues are taken to heart and very much appreciated. I suppose i hold virtues as a higher power than my own self. But i believe that many people non religious and religious have a certain amount of virtue in their lives that they take to heart.

Click to expand...

Doesn't 'virtue', in the modern sense, call for suppressing our natures? It was tribalism and a narrow moral focus that got us through the Pleistocene, but the behavior that's "virtuous" among competitive hunter-gatherers -- our 'evolutionary nature' -- is pernicious in a diverse, civilized society.

Jim said:

I think of all the best possibilities in human life and human society as being a part of human nature that has been wilting away for centuries now, but is now being refreshed at the same time. I think the wilting will continue for a few more generations at least, before the renewal grows and spreads enough to start turning things around,

Click to expand...

Human nature is that which is neurologically hard-wired into our behavior, attitudes and values. It was functional at one time, but in modern society a moral universe that doesn't extend beyond your own tribe is toxic. Should it not be encouraged to wilt away?

osgart said:

Is there no commonality between humans or do we all go through life with private dictionaries where nobody really understands each other.

Click to expand...

I’ve learned that I can just ignore those smokescreens, and the imaginary lines of alienation that people draw between us.

Valjean said:

Doesn't 'virtue', in the modern sense, call for suppressing our natures?

Click to expand...

I prefer to call it “domesticating” human nature, like we’ve learned to domesticate plants and animals.

Jim said:

I prefer to call it “domesticating” human nature, like we’ve learned to domesticate plants and animals.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...me-tame/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.80f7ad93196c

Wouldn't "domestication" entail neurological alteration, though, rather than just diverting our natural aggression into more benign outlets like team sports?