Exploration of My Philosophy
Personal Philosophy
Sounds pretentious; as if I might be trying to take my place along side of Plato,
Aristotle, and their later contemporaries. Not at all. Consistent with my overall
objective, this is a page where I can propose hypotheses, study them, contemplate
them, and change them as appropriate. In other words it is an extension of the sand
box. I am finding that the more I read and the more I think about what I read the wider
becomes my breadth of both interest and knowledge, and the more robust my
understanding of how I view it in the wider scheme of things, as well as deal with the
inevitable inconsistencies.
But it changes with each addition to the knowledge base. To explain that I might
insert the link to an essay in which I explored it The Modern Soul. This page gives me
the sand box in which to play, make changes, expand and link. That, after all is the
purpose of this entire exercise: to learn and consolidate that learning for personal
improvement of my thought, thinking and understanding. It might even lend a measure
of order to the chaos. Well, that's doubtful, but it's a good thought.
I might add that it also constitutes the basis of my opinion, as it gives me the chance
to examine that opinion away from emotionalism, rate it and decide whether it's
defendable; and if it isn't. to alter it.
Sounds pretentious; as if I might be trying to take my place along side of Plato,
Aristotle, and their later contemporaries. Not at all. Consistent with my overall
objective, this is a page where I can propose hypotheses, study them, contemplate
them, and change them as appropriate. In other words it is an extension of the sand
box. I am finding that the more I read and the more I think about what I read the wider
becomes my breadth of both interest and knowledge, and the more robust my
understanding of how I view it in the wider scheme of things, as well as deal with the
inevitable inconsistencies.
But it changes with each addition to the knowledge base. To explain that I might
insert the link to an essay in which I explored it The Modern Soul. This page gives me
the sand box in which to play, make changes, expand and link. That, after all is the
purpose of this entire exercise: to learn and consolidate that learning for personal
improvement of my thought, thinking and understanding. It might even lend a measure
of order to the chaos. Well, that's doubtful, but it's a good thought.
I might add that it also constitutes the basis of my opinion, as it gives me the chance
to examine that opinion away from emotionalism, rate it and decide whether it's
defendable; and if it isn't. to alter it.
NATURE
First and most obviously to me, man is an animal, albeit a highly
complex animal; as such he is also a chemical/biological machine.
He is neither inherently good nor is he inherently bad; he is far
more complex than that. But he is first and foremost concerned
with self preservation and self aggrandizement, and all things
being equal he will more often than not consider his own needs
and wants first - but exceptions occur, strangely enough. He,
however, does not always know his own needs and wants, as he
is susceptible to manipulation.
Man, as everything else in nature, is subject to many, many
variables, such as gene structure and experiences. Neither can
be given sole responsibility for what he is and how he functions,
but neither can either be discounted. He cannot change what he
is, genealogically, but he is constantly changed by his
experiences, both those he undergoes and those he learns about
that others undergo. The result is that mankind, as virtually
everything else in nature, can be plotted on a series of normal
distributions; plotted but not defined, because each characteristic
or group of characteristics must be plotted separately. That's why
people are so damnably variable.
RELIGION
I use that word, even though it is limiting, since I am including all
aspects of what he believes concerning those things beyond his
ken that influences him. The fact that they are beyond his ken is
why I use the word, religion.
We know, or are convinced at least, of more and more of the
characteristics of our universe, even how we think it began, with a
big bang. So what was there prior? We don't know. What exists
beyond it? We don't know. But if there was nothing prior and
nothing beyond, what is nothing? I can only believe that time and
space is infinite; but since man's mind is finite we will never fully
be able to comprehend that. Our minds insist on beginning and
end - boundaries.
So what force caused this big bang to occur? What is the
fundamental force behind the physical laws of the universe. We
don't know. We learn continually, but what we learn is effect and
not cause. The cause we will never know, we cannot ever know,
but with our natural curiosity and attendant ego we think we can
figure it out. We can't and that doesn't satisfy us.
Thus religion. We have decided for the most part, that there is
a supreme force behind it all; we have not agreed on the details,
and probably never will, despite belief by many that that force has
communicated with some who have attempted to explain it and
define it. Is that true? I don't know and am content with the fact
that I do not know and cannot know.
That notwithstanding there does exist a natural hierarchy
among men. Some are smarter, cleverer, stronger, more
attractive, more introspective than others, and when there are
differences, and we are capable of rating them subjectively, a
hierarchy will exist and we will rate. Among men this results in
elite and the elite rule, in many different ways, but surely in terms
of power. Thus there are the most powerful and they rule us in a
hierarchical manner. But what is there above the highest of the
human elite? The power of creation. Which is? Again, I do not
know.
Some, through whatever means, profess to know; the result is
something we call faith. But, of course we do not agree on what
that is, how it works and what it portends. But apparently we
have an inherent need for something that closes the circle.
Justice perhaps? We resent elite and the unfairness that results
from it because we really do not agree on elite and the power it
assumes for itself. So we have need for a higher authority, and
throughout history when we rejected the creator concept we
crafted our own. That concept is blurry? Of course, and it will
always be; with that we must just live - and argue, and even fight.
The there is the concept of heaven. Man has trouble excepting
an ultimate end to life. And that's inconsistent because as he
rejects infinity as a concept beyond his understanding he seems
to be able to embrace living forever - somewhere. If that
somewhere exists, it is undefinable. I have no idea, and don't
worry about it one way or the other. But many do, and it is
important to them, not only for themselves but their familial
relationships, and it helps them. Ancestor worship is an off-shoot
of that.
My conclusion is that religion of whatever kind is helpful to many
people. It influences their morality, their comfort and their
acceptance of life. So what's wrong with that? Only that they
have seemed to always have had to try and impose their views on
others, often violently. Therefore the concept of religion is
individually powerful, but collectively dangerous. But then, people
are like that.
And what of dogma? History in ancient times was not as it is
now, and much of it was based on oral passings on from one to
another - in a time when much was not known. So, should we
accept the dogma/history of a religion at face value? Only if
accepted purely on faith as passed down from a supreme deity.
This is a personal choice, that I believe should not be pressed
violently upon others. My personal position is to discount lots of
it, but on the inside. It is not my place - not my right - to try and
destroy another's comfort zone, and I try to refrain from it.
Religion is very comforting to many, providing structure to their
lives, structure that can be very helpful to them and to society, if
properly (that is positively focused.
ECONOMICS
A strange inclusion in philosophical thought? I don't think so;
economics really has a central place in our thinking and actions.
And it must if we are self-preserving animals as I see us to be, for
economics is the means of our self preservation.
Economics is also the basis of the whole Middle Ground
discussion - because of the normal distribution of the
characteristics of people; from intellectually strong to dim, from
disciplined to weak, from self-sustaining to predatory, and so on.
Some will be successful no matter what they do; some will always
need help; some will always prey on others; and there is an
infinite range of differences in between. Somewhere within this
melange we must attempt to find Middle Ground. It can never be
completely fair; it will never satisfy all; and it cannot be optimal.
Thus we will always swing back and forth between relative
extremes and we will always be confronted by shocking
exceptions of many kinds, particularly the extreme successes and
the extreme failures.
In this interest I feel the strong need for incentives, rewards
for effort and ability, safety nets for those who fail despite efforts,
and punishment for those prey upon others or fail due to their
own missteps. But I realize the difficulty of developing a system
that will even moderately accomplish these aims. So controls are
inevitable, but what controls? That is our challenge, and it will be
continual. But it will also be emotional and often based on envy,
for envy is as much a part of us as selfishness, weakness and
ambition. I am a strong proponent of reward to those that earn it
but help where it is necessary and a system that rewards the first
and discourages the second.
What is patently obvious and unarguable in my view is that
whether in business or personally, greed is a temptation that
many cannot resist. To consider business as particularly greedy is
stupid, but it has long been taught in many ways to our citizens -
another example of the politics of envy. The seven sins are alive
and well, and will be forever, and without punishment potential
many people will take every advantage to get what they want.
POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT
This is perhaps the most controversial point in my personal
perceived cognition: how should we be governed? The dilemma
can never be resolved, and thus can only be addressed by
compromise the purpose of which will always be swinging the
pendulum in as short periods as possible. The "people" (Stalin's
sheeple?) are not competent to rule and the elites will rule, not in
the interest of the people in general, but for themselves, with
exceptions, of course, but exceptions that are limited. The
masses, ruled by emotion and ignorance, are dangerous and
inclined, as suggested by Professor Tytler, toward care for
themselves with little concern for affordability or long range
consequences. The elite on the other hand will always be
susceptible to self aggrandizement and the arrogance of power.
Checks and balances on power are essential, but so are controls
on the emotional inconsistencies of the electorate. The balance is
delicate, and probably unsustainable. I am reconciled to growing
centralization, power consolidation and liberty curtailment; I only
hope that it contained to limits that keep it from strangulation of
economic vitality.
Populism and social propaganda are dangerous, powerful and
an extension of a culture that has become entertainment and
pleasure surfeited and entitlement driven, particularly in terms of
materialism. I am not optimistic that this can be curtailed, but
maintain hope that the entrepreneurial and liberty based spirit
that has sustained us up to now can survive. I have no similar
hope for other republican systems that are already reaching the
point of no return in viability. But I also believe that catastrophic
demise is not the danger, just a gradual decline leading to an
ultimate state of mediocrity.
I do not trust nor do I respect the majority of our national elite
and this strongly flavors my philosophical outlook. But then I have
learned to be very careful of what I trust and who I believe; I also
disbelieve the media. But on an individual basis I trust more
easily, trusting my instincts. But deep down I realize they could
also fail me, so I prefer to be trusting on an individual basis as a
cost of living, inconsistent as I know that is.
Politics has taken us over, and one would immediately add,
so what else is new. But in ours, as a democratic republic, the
politics has become so pervasive and short-term that it dominates
all action. There seems no longer to be any problem the
importance of which is beyond the space until the next election
that matters. Policy of that nature must be disastrous - and ours
has become so.
PEOPLE IN GENERAL
As creatures of reason I find them discouraging. Seldom do
they use the capability to think with which they are imbued. I find
that saddening, particularly when I see the alternative: gullible
absorption of emotional rhetoric consistent with what they want
to believe. But, I need to continually remind myself, I have chosen
to think about it, read about it, ponder it, and I have time to do
so. Most have neither the time or the interest to do so.
I am also impressed with the power of emotion and
propaganda, built upon preconceived notions and factual
ignorance. The extremes of progressive and liberal demonstrate
this starkly and depressingly.
I know that Americans think, in general, that we are morally
superior to the rest of the world, and administratively we probably
are, since much of the world is blatantly, and culturally, corrupt.
The truth is that our corruption is more sophisticated and less
blatant; our morality, depending on the specific, can be rotten or
exemplary; we are a diverse people. But when big money is
around there are plenty who are for sale - it's just that our prices
are higher. Our government officials are far more sophisticated
than most, and our corruption is almost universally swathed in
pseudo legality; but close up it still nauseates.
Our media loves sensation and trades upon it; it's a business
and the business trumps truth and honesty. On the other hand
pathetic sells too as long as it elicits sympathy, so the media
trades on that too. But sympathy is seldom extended to honest
and sincere officials trying to do their job; they are fair game and
exploitable, particularly if exploiting them elicits sympathy for
someone, culpable or not, who might get hurt.
First and most obviously to me, man is an animal, albeit a highly
complex animal; as such he is also a chemical/biological machine.
He is neither inherently good nor is he inherently bad; he is far
more complex than that. But he is first and foremost concerned
with self preservation and self aggrandizement, and all things
being equal he will more often than not consider his own needs
and wants first - but exceptions occur, strangely enough. He,
however, does not always know his own needs and wants, as he
is susceptible to manipulation.
Man, as everything else in nature, is subject to many, many
variables, such as gene structure and experiences. Neither can
be given sole responsibility for what he is and how he functions,
but neither can either be discounted. He cannot change what he
is, genealogically, but he is constantly changed by his
experiences, both those he undergoes and those he learns about
that others undergo. The result is that mankind, as virtually
everything else in nature, can be plotted on a series of normal
distributions; plotted but not defined, because each characteristic
or group of characteristics must be plotted separately. That's why
people are so damnably variable.
RELIGION
I use that word, even though it is limiting, since I am including all
aspects of what he believes concerning those things beyond his
ken that influences him. The fact that they are beyond his ken is
why I use the word, religion.
We know, or are convinced at least, of more and more of the
characteristics of our universe, even how we think it began, with a
big bang. So what was there prior? We don't know. What exists
beyond it? We don't know. But if there was nothing prior and
nothing beyond, what is nothing? I can only believe that time and
space is infinite; but since man's mind is finite we will never fully
be able to comprehend that. Our minds insist on beginning and
end - boundaries.
So what force caused this big bang to occur? What is the
fundamental force behind the physical laws of the universe. We
don't know. We learn continually, but what we learn is effect and
not cause. The cause we will never know, we cannot ever know,
but with our natural curiosity and attendant ego we think we can
figure it out. We can't and that doesn't satisfy us.
Thus religion. We have decided for the most part, that there is
a supreme force behind it all; we have not agreed on the details,
and probably never will, despite belief by many that that force has
communicated with some who have attempted to explain it and
define it. Is that true? I don't know and am content with the fact
that I do not know and cannot know.
That notwithstanding there does exist a natural hierarchy
among men. Some are smarter, cleverer, stronger, more
attractive, more introspective than others, and when there are
differences, and we are capable of rating them subjectively, a
hierarchy will exist and we will rate. Among men this results in
elite and the elite rule, in many different ways, but surely in terms
of power. Thus there are the most powerful and they rule us in a
hierarchical manner. But what is there above the highest of the
human elite? The power of creation. Which is? Again, I do not
know.
Some, through whatever means, profess to know; the result is
something we call faith. But, of course we do not agree on what
that is, how it works and what it portends. But apparently we
have an inherent need for something that closes the circle.
Justice perhaps? We resent elite and the unfairness that results
from it because we really do not agree on elite and the power it
assumes for itself. So we have need for a higher authority, and
throughout history when we rejected the creator concept we
crafted our own. That concept is blurry? Of course, and it will
always be; with that we must just live - and argue, and even fight.
The there is the concept of heaven. Man has trouble excepting
an ultimate end to life. And that's inconsistent because as he
rejects infinity as a concept beyond his understanding he seems
to be able to embrace living forever - somewhere. If that
somewhere exists, it is undefinable. I have no idea, and don't
worry about it one way or the other. But many do, and it is
important to them, not only for themselves but their familial
relationships, and it helps them. Ancestor worship is an off-shoot
of that.
My conclusion is that religion of whatever kind is helpful to many
people. It influences their morality, their comfort and their
acceptance of life. So what's wrong with that? Only that they
have seemed to always have had to try and impose their views on
others, often violently. Therefore the concept of religion is
individually powerful, but collectively dangerous. But then, people
are like that.
And what of dogma? History in ancient times was not as it is
now, and much of it was based on oral passings on from one to
another - in a time when much was not known. So, should we
accept the dogma/history of a religion at face value? Only if
accepted purely on faith as passed down from a supreme deity.
This is a personal choice, that I believe should not be pressed
violently upon others. My personal position is to discount lots of
it, but on the inside. It is not my place - not my right - to try and
destroy another's comfort zone, and I try to refrain from it.
Religion is very comforting to many, providing structure to their
lives, structure that can be very helpful to them and to society, if
properly (that is positively focused.
ECONOMICS
A strange inclusion in philosophical thought? I don't think so;
economics really has a central place in our thinking and actions.
And it must if we are self-preserving animals as I see us to be, for
economics is the means of our self preservation.
Economics is also the basis of the whole Middle Ground
discussion - because of the normal distribution of the
characteristics of people; from intellectually strong to dim, from
disciplined to weak, from self-sustaining to predatory, and so on.
Some will be successful no matter what they do; some will always
need help; some will always prey on others; and there is an
infinite range of differences in between. Somewhere within this
melange we must attempt to find Middle Ground. It can never be
completely fair; it will never satisfy all; and it cannot be optimal.
Thus we will always swing back and forth between relative
extremes and we will always be confronted by shocking
exceptions of many kinds, particularly the extreme successes and
the extreme failures.
In this interest I feel the strong need for incentives, rewards
for effort and ability, safety nets for those who fail despite efforts,
and punishment for those prey upon others or fail due to their
own missteps. But I realize the difficulty of developing a system
that will even moderately accomplish these aims. So controls are
inevitable, but what controls? That is our challenge, and it will be
continual. But it will also be emotional and often based on envy,
for envy is as much a part of us as selfishness, weakness and
ambition. I am a strong proponent of reward to those that earn it
but help where it is necessary and a system that rewards the first
and discourages the second.
What is patently obvious and unarguable in my view is that
whether in business or personally, greed is a temptation that
many cannot resist. To consider business as particularly greedy is
stupid, but it has long been taught in many ways to our citizens -
another example of the politics of envy. The seven sins are alive
and well, and will be forever, and without punishment potential
many people will take every advantage to get what they want.
POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT
This is perhaps the most controversial point in my personal
perceived cognition: how should we be governed? The dilemma
can never be resolved, and thus can only be addressed by
compromise the purpose of which will always be swinging the
pendulum in as short periods as possible. The "people" (Stalin's
sheeple?) are not competent to rule and the elites will rule, not in
the interest of the people in general, but for themselves, with
exceptions, of course, but exceptions that are limited. The
masses, ruled by emotion and ignorance, are dangerous and
inclined, as suggested by Professor Tytler, toward care for
themselves with little concern for affordability or long range
consequences. The elite on the other hand will always be
susceptible to self aggrandizement and the arrogance of power.
Checks and balances on power are essential, but so are controls
on the emotional inconsistencies of the electorate. The balance is
delicate, and probably unsustainable. I am reconciled to growing
centralization, power consolidation and liberty curtailment; I only
hope that it contained to limits that keep it from strangulation of
economic vitality.
Populism and social propaganda are dangerous, powerful and
an extension of a culture that has become entertainment and
pleasure surfeited and entitlement driven, particularly in terms of
materialism. I am not optimistic that this can be curtailed, but
maintain hope that the entrepreneurial and liberty based spirit
that has sustained us up to now can survive. I have no similar
hope for other republican systems that are already reaching the
point of no return in viability. But I also believe that catastrophic
demise is not the danger, just a gradual decline leading to an
ultimate state of mediocrity.
I do not trust nor do I respect the majority of our national elite
and this strongly flavors my philosophical outlook. But then I have
learned to be very careful of what I trust and who I believe; I also
disbelieve the media. But on an individual basis I trust more
easily, trusting my instincts. But deep down I realize they could
also fail me, so I prefer to be trusting on an individual basis as a
cost of living, inconsistent as I know that is.
Politics has taken us over, and one would immediately add,
so what else is new. But in ours, as a democratic republic, the
politics has become so pervasive and short-term that it dominates
all action. There seems no longer to be any problem the
importance of which is beyond the space until the next election
that matters. Policy of that nature must be disastrous - and ours
has become so.
PEOPLE IN GENERAL
As creatures of reason I find them discouraging. Seldom do
they use the capability to think with which they are imbued. I find
that saddening, particularly when I see the alternative: gullible
absorption of emotional rhetoric consistent with what they want
to believe. But, I need to continually remind myself, I have chosen
to think about it, read about it, ponder it, and I have time to do
so. Most have neither the time or the interest to do so.
I am also impressed with the power of emotion and
propaganda, built upon preconceived notions and factual
ignorance. The extremes of progressive and liberal demonstrate
this starkly and depressingly.
I know that Americans think, in general, that we are morally
superior to the rest of the world, and administratively we probably
are, since much of the world is blatantly, and culturally, corrupt.
The truth is that our corruption is more sophisticated and less
blatant; our morality, depending on the specific, can be rotten or
exemplary; we are a diverse people. But when big money is
around there are plenty who are for sale - it's just that our prices
are higher. Our government officials are far more sophisticated
than most, and our corruption is almost universally swathed in
pseudo legality; but close up it still nauseates.
Our media loves sensation and trades upon it; it's a business
and the business trumps truth and honesty. On the other hand
pathetic sells too as long as it elicits sympathy, so the media
trades on that too. But sympathy is seldom extended to honest
and sincere officials trying to do their job; they are fair game and
exploitable, particularly if exploiting them elicits sympathy for
someone, culpable or not, who might get hurt.
to be continued, lots to be
filled in - and rethought
filled in - and rethought
DRUGS
Drugs are a tough one. They are harmful,
but some are more harmful than others, and the
"soft drugs" including alcohol can be controlled, if
there is the will. But prohibition has shown us
that trying to protect people from themselves
doesn't work; however, it does make the bad
guys rich. Some legalization makes sense, is
better than fighting it at astronomical cost, and
even though some might be hurt (by themselves)
in legalizing must be pursued. I do not claim to
know the specifics on doing it and have no
confidence in our government elites to be able to
do it.
Drugs are a tough one. They are harmful,
but some are more harmful than others, and the
"soft drugs" including alcohol can be controlled, if
there is the will. But prohibition has shown us
that trying to protect people from themselves
doesn't work; however, it does make the bad
guys rich. Some legalization makes sense, is
better than fighting it at astronomical cost, and
even though some might be hurt (by themselves)
in legalizing must be pursued. I do not claim to
know the specifics on doing it and have no
confidence in our government elites to be able to
do it.
HYPOCRISY
I am a firm believer that hypocrisy rules, but
it is difficult to discern the difference in many
occasions between ignorance and hypocrisy.
But, frankly, I expect more from my countrymen
and am disappointed in them (generalization) on
both counts. With the opportunities we have
available to us, blatant and voluntary ignorance
is inexcusable, but hypocrisy is a national pride; I
believe we are world champions in hypocrisy in
which we are led by the elite who prefer it to
facing the reality that might get in their way of
getting what they want.
I am a firm believer that hypocrisy rules, but
it is difficult to discern the difference in many
occasions between ignorance and hypocrisy.
But, frankly, I expect more from my countrymen
and am disappointed in them (generalization) on
both counts. With the opportunities we have
available to us, blatant and voluntary ignorance
is inexcusable, but hypocrisy is a national pride; I
believe we are world champions in hypocrisy in
which we are led by the elite who prefer it to
facing the reality that might get in their way of
getting what they want.
COMPLAINING
People love to complain, and our culture no
less than most others. I am not immune, but I
contend mine is a bit different - rather than
complain per se I criticize; I am most critical, as is
quite easy to see in these pages.
What I find most incongruous though, is
complaining without understanding the basis of
the complaint. Incongruous is probably not the
right word - perhaps offensive is. I hate to here
people complain about things they don't
understand, particularly when their complaints
take no notice of the circumstances that spark
their complaint. If they are upset it matters little
that the situation was out of control of the
person being complained about or to.
But there is another aspect to this situation
as well, and it is that most complaining people
HATE to hear anything that might justify that
about which the complainer is complaining, that
is, do not confuse me with facts. And perhaps
that underlies my real concern: I have frequently
experienced people who instantly reject any
facts that disagree with their preconceived
opinion - their complaint - and this is the
opposite of the discussion that I admire and
enjoy. Perhaps it has never been in vogue, at
least in our culture - we do have that historical
reputation - but it surely does not seem to be at
this time, and it is having a serious impact that I
deplore.
People love to complain, and our culture no
less than most others. I am not immune, but I
contend mine is a bit different - rather than
complain per se I criticize; I am most critical, as is
quite easy to see in these pages.
What I find most incongruous though, is
complaining without understanding the basis of
the complaint. Incongruous is probably not the
right word - perhaps offensive is. I hate to here
people complain about things they don't
understand, particularly when their complaints
take no notice of the circumstances that spark
their complaint. If they are upset it matters little
that the situation was out of control of the
person being complained about or to.
But there is another aspect to this situation
as well, and it is that most complaining people
HATE to hear anything that might justify that
about which the complainer is complaining, that
is, do not confuse me with facts. And perhaps
that underlies my real concern: I have frequently
experienced people who instantly reject any
facts that disagree with their preconceived
opinion - their complaint - and this is the
opposite of the discussion that I admire and
enjoy. Perhaps it has never been in vogue, at
least in our culture - we do have that historical
reputation - but it surely does not seem to be at
this time, and it is having a serious impact that I
deplore.