Philosophy - What Is It?

The Autonomist ^ | March, 2003 | Reginald Firehammer

[dyed_in_the_wool]

I thought 'ti' had root in another word. The little bit that I did (no, I did not work with Greek near as much as Latin), I found precious little use of 'why'.
This corresponded with what I read in Plato and Aristotle.
I'll have to check my Greek-English dictionary. I thought 'ti' was part of the idiomatic 'in what manner'. Bah. It's been a while.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

For whatever it's worth, I've found that both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche deal extensively with the interplay of forces that go into the definition of 'self'.
If you take the first lines of Sickness Unto Death:

Man is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation [which accounts for it] that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but [consists in the fact] that the relation relates itself to its own self. Man is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short it is a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between two factors. So regarded, man is not yet a self.

You can see that while he is attempting a 'Christian Psychological Exposition for Upbuilding and Awakening', he's dealing exclusively with the definition of the 'self'.

Nietzsche, as well, deals with the primacy of the 'self' and its interplay with senses, emotions, personal interaction, others, etc. and envisions the self as a plethora of 'wills' each attempting to dominate the others, with 'self' being ultimately defined by that will which suborns the others.

This is the Nietzsche in 'Beyond Good and Evil'. His views change, to say the least, both between books and within books.

I think my ultimate disenchantment with Ayn Rand comes from the basic response to her view as being, "So What?". I mean, of course the self is and can only be defined by the individual. What then? Mostly, we define ourselves in terms of how others see us, even if we want them to see us as being individualistic. You don't wish your will be subjected? Fine. But, working from the old saying, "Lead, Follow or Get Out of the Way", what are you working in relation to?

In other words, to be individualistic, you have to be apart from something. Even by saying you're opposed to or apart from something, you're positing a relation to something that could not exist without that thing.

Realize that typically in human affairs, I find Normative Egoism to be the case, especially where large groups are concerned. Less typical in small groups, there is almost an asymptotic point where Egoism gives way to concern. This isn't to say that Egoism is invalid. I just find it less useful where smaller or tighter groups are or may be concerned. For example democrats and republicans may hate each other, but if China invaded, those differences become negligible.

Ultimately, I see most moral codes as little more than cooperative self preservation. A great example of this is the Mayflower Compact or the Constitution. We may not agree on why murder is bad, but we know we have to outlaw it.

[cornelis]

If you wish, read the Phaedo from 95e and following. You'll get an autobiography of Socrates. It's quite interesting.

[Hank Kerchief]

Nietzsche, as well, deals with the primacy of the 'self'

I do not agree with the "primacy of self." I believe in the primacy of existense.

I am a radical individualist, by which I mean, all of my choices are based on and only on what I, using my best objective reason, understand to be right and good for me.

Most of what you have written is diametrically opposed to my views of reality and life. Essentially, mine are the same as those the Autonomist describes, Here.

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

...read the Phaedo from 95e and following. You'll get an autobiography(?) of Socrates...

Let's see, the Phaedo was written by Plato.

...I suppose you mean a fictional autobiography. That's interesting, anyway. I do not find the work so.

Hank

[dyed_in_the_wool]

Do you believe in the Golden Rule?

[cornelis]

Strictly speaking, since Socrates left us no writing, no autobiography of Socrates exists. Both you and I already knew that.

I suppose you mean a fictional autobiography. That's interesting, anyway

Why suppose that? In the Phaedo, Socrates launches into a bio of himself. Whether Plato wanted to write fiction or not is part of a recent game people fudge with. Plato could not have written at all without history. He knew that, and he didn't have to be a radical empiricist to know it.

[tpaine]

Do you believe in the Golden Rule? -ditw-



Go to the link at 84. Read:

"Good pertains only to individuals. This means if it is not good for you it is not good."

"If questions like, what about the good of society? the family? my neighbors? mankind? etc. come to your mind, it is because you have been influenced by the evil principle of altruism. The primary error of altruism is the false teaching that there can be conflicts in values.
There can be nothing which is truly good for you which is not also good for society, your family, your neighbors, and mankind.
Any supposed good that is bad for anyone else is based on an immoral ethic which believes the world is paradoxical, that there are contradictions in truth, and that evil is a positive. It is the ethic of the thief and moocher who believe that the good is produced by some mystic force and is of fixed quantity and that any good that any one individual enjoys automatically deprives someone else of that good."

[Hank Kerchief]

Do you believe in the Golden Rule?

The question is ambiguous. Do you mean:
Do I believe there is such a rule that some people believe in?
Do I believe the golden rule is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you?"
Do I believe this rule is correct?
Do I believe this rule is truly the "golden" (ultimate) rule?

I therefore must assume you want to know if I believe this is a correct rule.

The so-called, "golden rule," states no moral principle and if actually applied is as likely to lead to evil as it is good. It depends entirely on what one desires others to do to them, which places its power entirely in the subjective desires and opininons of individuals which takes it out of the realm of objective morality.

Do you think someone who wants to die and wishes someone would kill them ought to do to others what he wishes they would do to him?

I see that tpaine has already answered this question, and I agree exactly with what he quoted.

I would only add this:

The biggest mistake most people make in their relationships with others is the presumption that others are like themselves. While most human beings share some similarities, it is always their differences that are most profound and significant. When dealing with others, it is much safer to presume they do not like what you like, want what you want, believe what you believe, or feel what you feel.

It is a mistake, therefore, to do to others what you would like, because they will probably hate it.

From Social Relationships, The Autonomist's Notebook.

And... The golden rule is, "mind your own business." Every social evil begins with someone breaking this rule.
(In classic terms it is, "do nothing unto others, because that is what you would have them do unto you, unless your are an idiot.")

From Society, The Autonomist's Notebook.

I have given you my philosphical answer, because this is a philosophy thread. A theological answer would require a entirely different interpretation of both the question and answer, and would be of interest to a very small class of people.

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

...since Socrates left us no writing, no autobiography of Socrates exists. Both you and I already knew that.

Of course. I confess the temptation to pull your leg was too great for me.

Whether Plato wanted to write fiction or not is part of a recent game people fudge with. Plato could not have written at all without history.

My intention was not to denegrate Plato. The suggestion that he was, "writing fiction," does not mean that what he wrote was not historically accurate, only that, for interest, he must have fictionalized some part of what he wrote. Historical novels are a very repsected genre.

On the other hand, I would not be above poking fun at Plato. I personally find nothing in Plato with which I am in agreement or which I could not learn as well from almost any other source. Having read Plato, once, long ago, for me was sufficient. When I want to read for pleasure, I read Dostoevsky, or Hugo, or Twain, Shaw, Dumas, Maughm, Kipling....but, never Plato.

Hank

[Dumb_Ox]

I think I understand your position much better now, thank you. However, the fact that you have provided a coherent answer to the question "Why something rather than nothing?" proves that it was not a crazy question, on the order of the question "Why am I made of glass?"

I'd still like an explanation for the statement
The concept existence does not require any particular existense, only some existense.

Did I understand that right in my previous post?

[Hank Kerchief]

I think I understand your position much better now, thank you. However, the fact that you have provided a coherent answer to the question "Why something rather than nothing?" proves that it was not a crazy question, on the order of the question "Why am I made of glass?"

I am gratified that you found my explanation coherent. (My explanations always seem perfectly coherent to me, of course, but I always wonder if I really seem to be saying anything to anyone else. )

No question is crazy in itself, and even the most absurd of ideas have to be consciousnly identified and held long enough to refute them. Like contradictions, which we entertain in the process of reasoning, and are frequently useful and sometimes necessary, if at the conclusion of our reasoning process there are still contradictions, we have made a mistake.

You quoted me: The concept existence does not require any particular existense, only some existense.

And asked: Did I understand that right in my previous post?

I think so. You said in that previous post:

This sentence throws me for another loop. Do you mean that existence as such--in some Platonic form--is impossible, for existence is always instantiated in a thing? As I understand Copleston, he would agree with this.

Since I do not believe in "Platonic forms," (or 'real' universals), I think you are correct. Except for those concepts which we as humans create (from parts of other concepts, as in fictions and in invention), first there must be something; then, once we become conscious of it, we can form a concept of it.

We do not, as seems to be implied by Plato and the Schoolmen, first have concepts which we are then obliged to seek out 'instantiations' to validate. It is the other way around, so to speak, (and, if you will forgive my rhetoric) we live in a universe of "instantiations" for which we must develop the concepts that enable us to identify, organize, and understand them. Implicit in all other concepts (which are identifications of existents) is existense.

Hank

[dyed_in_the_wool]

Thanks for the post. Very interesting.
Getting me down some paths I haven't been down in a while. With a little more wisdom to light the way.
Regards.