Posted on 04/06/2010 7:07:19 AM PDT by truthfinder9
I believe I understand where you're coming from, but surely you must see that this statement is a self-contradiction.
And I'm the best looking. :)
Very judgmental.
Yes, it was a personal opinion and judgement. I should have phrased it generically, but…
>>It will cause you less pleasure and more pain
Why?
It's a very small self to live in, completely selfish, and, in my experience, when we are motivated by our own pleasure, no matter how skillfully we do so, the truly good and beautiful aspects of life become invisible and after a while we become resentful.
It's a self-protective state, but, for lack of a pithier cliché, 'no pain, no gain.'
I'm not referring to delayed gratification here, but to what happens to a life directed solely towards it's own pleasure, or happiness. Not that anyone seeks unhappiness or doesn't wish to be happy. It's when our own happiness is our whole world, the world becomes pretty small.
Being equal to what? The decisive factor is what is least hurtful. This is where the "principles" end. But it's always good, for domestic consumption, to pay them a lip service.
The example we are using - murder vs. telling the truth - is an extreme case
Even one exception make an absolute value relative.
Then at least in some cases, sating it is a choice, one could choose not to for a higher value - if one has them
Not unless there is no perceived reward in it. There are no "higher" values. All desirable personal values are subjective and relative (i.e. they vary form one individual to another). But they can all be reduced to "feels good." Every one of them. Name any one.
Based on their value as best I know at the moment So it's all about you? Your knowledge? This is what you call "absolute?" Amazing.
Discerning value, making choices in my view involves all of our Self.
Solipsism at its best. And you talk to me about selfishness? LOL.
It is part of knowing who we are, what our relationship is to other humans and to the rest of the cosmos.
Which can all be reduced to "feels good", "feels bad." and the "I don't care' category. But things we desire and aim for are all in the "feels good" category.
We are conscious beings who have control over our instincts
Human instincts? LOL! Name one. All human skills and behavior are learned, not instinctual—save for the sucking and grasping reflexes.
We can learn, grow, gain experience and hopefully some wisdom, develop new understanding, decide what our goals are and act in our lives motivated by what has value.
We are motivated by what "feels good." That which feels good has value because it is experienced as a reward. Experimental psychology will show you without fail that, "all thing being equal," rewards produce predictable repetitive behavior. People are willing to follow and work for rewards. Rewards = "feels good."
There is no contradiction in it. Sometimes we must choose a "feels bad" path to happiness. The goal ("feel good")doesn't change, just the path to it. Some paths leading to happiness require more "feels bad" than others. Some people have to work full time and go to school at night for their educations; other have rich parents; all they have to do is drive themselves to school in the car daddy bought them, and try to pass.
That's not a goal.
It's a very small self to live in, completely selfish, and, in my experience, when we are motivated by our own pleasure, no matter how skillfully we do so, the truly good and beautiful aspects of life become invisible and after a while we become resentful
This is all gibberish to me. What motivates you if not that which feels good?
It's a very small self to live in...It's a self-protective state, but, for lack of a pithier cliché, 'no pain, no gain.'
Sometimes that is true, but not necessarily desirable. I don't see what is "small" about looking for ways to make the pain as insignificant as possible.
It's when our own happiness is our whole world, the world becomes pretty small.
I never said it's our whole world; it's out desired goal. You are making a straw man.
Equal in value. In your case it would be equal in "feels good." To you, truth would then have zero value, it's a coin flip.
The decisive factor is what is least hurtful. This is where the "principles" end.
I'm assuming you mean least hurtful to you. Yes, this is the test of principles. I believe for you there is no test here. Whatever feels best IS the principle. For others accepting unpleasurable consequences can be a test of whether our principles are really held.
Even one exception make an absolute value relative.
Again, you are make an error in the meaning of the term absolute value. It means it's value is not completely relative to another, not completely conditional; rather, it has value on it's own. Inherent value. In your value system "feels good" is the absolute value, it's value is not relative to another and all other values gain the totality of their value from it.
Whether or not absolute values exist, we should use the proper terms to mean the same thing.There are no "higher" values. All desirable personal values are subjective and relative (i.e. they vary form one individual to another). But they can all be reduced to "feels good." Every one of them. Name any one.
Believe me I get your philosophy, you've repeated and clarified it enough. Feels good is your highest and only absolute value. That's your choice. Others choose differently.
So it's all about you? Your knowledge? This is what you call "absolute?" Amazing.
Please there's no need for this attempt at distortion. We are both describing and discussing what we know or believe we know. This discussion is all about both of us, our knowledge and views.
Solipsism at its best.
Solipsism is the view that the self is all that can be known to exist. I don't hold that view. Perhaps you meant something different.
Which can all be reduced to "feels good"
Again I know that is your view. I think it's your choice, and you also said you have the ability to not choose it.
All human skills and behavior are learned, not instinctual
I'm speaking of survival and sex for example. Or pleasure. Many humans would not keep punching the button for morphine like a lab rat.
We are motivated by what "feels good."
Yes, I really do know that is your view and your choice.
People are willing to follow and work for rewards.
Of course they are, this is not news and not really relevant to the discussion.
It a contradiction on its face.
Sometimes we must choose a "feels bad" path to happiness.
We've discussed delayed gratification before and you've stated it's not qualitatively different that "feels good." Same value, same goal, merely a hopefully more skillful way of achieving more of it.
I guess that's to be expected.
What motivates you if not that which feels good?
Asked and answered, twice I believe.
I don't see what is "small" about looking for ways to make the pain as insignificant as possible.
If it is all about your pain (and pleasure) then it's small. There's much more to the world.
I never said it's our whole world; it's out desired goal. You are making a straw man.
You've made very clear that all of value of the world and everyone else in it is relative to how good it makes you feel, and that maximizing your "feel good" is the only goal you know. I think the straw man is flesh and bone.
I appreciate the clarification of meaning in the parenthetical statement. For clarifying my own use: When I compare relative and absolute values, I'm using relative as in relative to another value - relative values take their value from another, "X is only valuable because it increases Y" for example. If a value does not rely solely on another for its value, it's said to have absolute, or inherent value.
Values can be both relative and absolute. I do realize you believe absolute values don't exist. I believe they do, and further that you have illustrated one that you hold: "feels good."
Truth has a relative value: either it hurts or it benefits. We take our approach to truth accordingly.
I'm assuming you mean least hurtful to you
Yes, of course. And "me" includes people and things that are the source of "feel god," i.e. my interest sphere, my family, friends, country, etc.
For others accepting unpleasurable consequences can be a test of whether our principles are really held
Like what? Give me an example and I will show you that there is a "feel good" in it.
Again, you are make an error in the meaning of the term absolute value. It means it's value is not completely relative to another, not completely conditional; rather, it has value on it's own
That's nonsense. Nothing has a value of its own. What good is $100 on Mars?
In your value system "feels good" is the absolute value, it's value is not relative to another and all other values gain the totality of their value from it.
Our goal is not to be hurt, to fail, to lose, etc. You keep hinting that it "might be" but you will not give me any examples to back it up.
I think it's your choice, and you also said you have the ability to not choose it
If there is something to be gained from it.
I'm speaking of survival and sex for example
Sex is not instinctual but appetitive. The "how" of sex is learned. Survival is not a behavior but an atavistic desire that is inherent in all non-plant species. Humans have to learn to survive. Some animals don't.
Or pleasure
Pleasure is a sensation, not behavior.
Many humans would not keep punching the button for morphine like a lab rat.
Maybe because they learned that it could kill them...
Yes, I really do know that is your view and your choice.
And you are motivated by pain, failure and loneliness, to mention a few "feels bad" examples?
Of course they are, this is not news and not really relevant to the discussion
It's very relevant. Rewards are the "feel good" stimulants.
It a contradiction on its face
There is no contradiction.
If it is all about your pain (and pleasure) then it's small. There's much more to the world.
In terms of what? What drives you? Let me guess, you starve yourself because there is hunger in the world? Or maybe you deprive yourself of water since so much of the world has no clean water to drink? Do you take a shower once a week because some people have no water? What does that accomplish other than perhaps a vicarious pleasure of being "one" with the world? But does that ease the world's suffering? No it doesn't. However it does make one feel good that they can see themselves as "caring."
You've made very clear that all of value of the world and everyone else in it is relative to how good it makes you feel, and that maximizing your "feel good" is the only goal you know. I think the straw man is flesh and bone.
I am human and I don't see my fellow humans being any different, even if they outwardly claim to be.
When I compare relative and absolute values, I'm using relative as in relative to another value - relative values take their value from another
So do I. Truth means different things to different people.
If a value does not rely solely on another for its value, it's said to have absolute, or inherent value.
Inherent value is an oxymoron.
I do realize you believe absolute values don't exist. I believe they do
Based on what?
According to your philosophy, if telling the truth has zero feel good benefit to you, you're just as likely to lie as tell the truth - it's a coin flip.
Give me an example and I will show you that there is a "feel good" in it. Admitting a failure even though it can mean lose someone you love.
Like telling the truth even if there is feel bad for you as a result.
Nothing has a value of its own. What good is $100 on Mars?
What good is honesty if it doesn't make you feel good?
Sex is not instinctual but appetitive
Whatever. We have control over our appetites. The point is the same.
And you are motivated by pain, failure
For the fifth time, that A is not our primary motivator, does not mean the Not-A is.
<>Rewards are the "feel good" stimulants.
And *everything* you do is for your own reward. I really do get it.
I am human and I don't see my fellow humans being any different.
I don't see any difference, in your view, between humans and, again, crustaceans. What's the difference in terms of values and morality?
Inherent value is an oxymoron.
Yet you believe "feels good" has inherent value.
Based on what?
Based on my personal experience, on asking other people about theirs and based on the logically problem of making choices without them. Either they exist and we can know them, we choose them on some other basis or we assume they exist. It's impossible to make a choice solely on relative value. Ultimately the relative chain of value must stop on an absolute (like your feels good) in order for us make a choice.
Are you afraid that if you saw the world as more than a source of feels good for you, you would have to starve yourself?
Religious, or self-appointed ethical people lie if telling the truth will hurt them. It's a coin-flip for them too. You yourself have agreed that lying to the enemy serves a "higher" purpose, but that is just a semantic feel-good flattery. If I do it, that is designated as "selfish" (not to say immoral), but the lying of the self-rigtheous serves a "higher" purpose.
By designating absolute (Platonic) values as "higher" (I suppose "higher" as in heavenly, since we all know from the Bible "science" that heaven is "up there"), we automatically designate others as "'lower" (and therefore less noble, less important). This is typical arrogance and hypocrisy of the self-righteous. But this is how they achieve their "feel-good." After all, they call themselves the "elect."
Like telling the truth even if there is feel bad for you as a result.
Most (if not all) people would lie to save their loved ones, their careers, their savings, etc. If telling the truth has a deleterious existential consequence attached, people will try to "save" themselves rather than trust in their God. But they would never admit it publicly.
Whatever. We have control over our appetites
To some degree. Have you ever been deprived of food to the point of starvation? More straws.
For the fifth time, that A is not our primary motivator, does not mean the Not-A is.
I was hoping you'd realize that it is nonsense. In this particular case we have three options, not an infinite number of possibilities. Either something feels good, feels bad, or feels indifferent. There is no fourth option. And since we do not pursue the indifferent, we pursue only the feel good and avoid only the feel bad as much as practically possible.
And *everything* you do is for your own reward.
No, only as much as possible.
What's the difference in terms of values and morality?
What's the difference between that and invented morality and "higher" values except self-flattery to make oneself feel good and more noble?
Yet you believe "feels good" has inherent value.
Nope, "feels good" is a sensation of satisfaction of a need.
Based on my personal experience, on asking other people about theirs and based on the logically problem of making choices without them.
Same here, except I avoid self-flattery.
Either they exist and we can know them, we choose them on some other basis or we assume they exist
That's correct. Man-made, no matter how you turn it around. Except that we have added the "higher" label in a vain attempt to show that our "feel good" is better, and nobler. But in the final analysis it is all reduced to human arrogance, pride, and self-flattery.
Ultimately the relative chain of value must stop on an absolute (like your feels good) in order for us make a choice.
Yes, by accepting our biological reality, or as some say—that we all put on our pants one leg at a time.
I don't see the world as only the source of "feels good." To the contrary, most of the world is filled with needless suffering mostly created by people promoting "higher" values.
It's true that having low or no values is the easiest way to avoid the failure of higher values.
However, whether we live up to higher values or not is no argument for or against their existence or the rightness of trying.
So most of your reply is irrelevant to the discussion. Except that it does illustrate that the easiest way to avoid pain is not struggle with trying to have higher values than selfishness.
We will fail to live up to our ideal. Being human means we can choose higher ideals. However, it also means we will struggle with them and our imperfection, and face our failures.
Nope, "feels good" is a sensation of satisfaction of a need.
Which you have made very clear is your ultimate and highest goal - for itself only, not relative to or conditioned by any other value. Which means this "sensation" has inherent value for you.
You've said you can choose otherwise. Humans can do this, can value something more than their own pleasure.
This is a key part of being human, but not being perfect we will also fail at it, and this will cause us pain.
The easiest way to avoid this pain is to not even try and to call those who do liars and hypocrites. From the nobel position of low ideals.
So promoting lower values is the way to decrease needless suffering?
I think there is noting lower than those who present themselves as holier than though but in reality are as fake as a $3 bill. They talk the talk but they don't walk the walk.
It's true that having low or no values is the easiest way to avoid the failure of higher values
There are no lower or higher values because there are no lower or higher humans. But some humans are hypocrites.
However, whether we live up to higher values or not is no argument for or against their existence or the rightness of trying
Yeah, that's the usual excuse.
So most of your reply is irrelevant to the discussion
LOL.
Except that it does illustrate that the easiest way to avoid pain is not struggle with trying to have higher values than selfishness
So, pain is your "feel good?" Or is this chest-thumping for the public consumption? Isn't wanting to be "holy" and making sure everyone knows it a form of selfishness too?
We will fail to live up to our ideal. Being human means we can choose higher ideals. However, it also means we will struggle with them and our imperfection, and face our failures.
So, a certain failure makes you feel good? Why not just leap off a tall building? You know you will hit the ground hard but at least you tried to be a superman...LOL. Pathetic.
Humans can do this, can value something more than their own pleasure.
Some do. They value their failure and pain more than pleasure. That's called pathological.
This is a key part of being human, but not being perfect we will also fail at it, and this will cause us pain
And recognizing that you have aimlessly suffered makes you feel good doesn't it? Do you always make sure others know how much you have suffered?
The easiest way to avoid this pain is to not even try and to call those who do liars and hypocrites.
Doing something that's certain to fail is stupid, not noble.
Promoting "higher" values certainy didn't!
Isn't wanting to be "holy" and making sure everyone knows it a form of selfishness too?
I haven't referred to being holy, just human; nor do I claim any success at it. And, no, realizing you have a choice beyond being selfish and acting on that choice is the antipode of selfishness.
Doing something that's certain to fail is stupid, not noble.
You will fail to be perfect that's for certain. But you won't fail to be human, more than a crustacean. No matter how much you succeed at living up to higher values, you will at least attempt to be human.
We each have that choice - whether to value something or someone - more than our own pleasure. This is a fact. Realizing this fact will inevitably bring some pain. So, if our highest goal is pleasure and avoiding pain, we will choose not to realize it, become blind and numb to it. We will act on our values, and, in this case, choose pleasure over truth.
But we'll lose what it means to be human, eventually resent it, ourselves and other humans and see them only as fake, pretentious and hypocritical - because they pretend to realize that being humans requires more being than the lowly pleasure-seeking animals we ourselves have chosen to be, incapable of being loved or loving except as it satisfies ourselves.
This may be pleasure, but I don't think it is happiness.
Have you interviewed each and every one of them to know where they set their sights? I am a retired naval officer and I know that many of my shipmates served for different reasons. Statistics show that people join the military for many reasons other than patriotism.
According to office of the the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, 17% who join do so to get out of jail.
This is not intended to undermine the military, but many people serve for a variety of reasons, most of them economic, so your fleeting generalization is moot. Thank God, today we can access information and not have to depend on anecdotal "evidence" and general scuttlebutt.
I haven't referred to being holy, just human; nor do I claim any success at it. And, no, realizing you have a choice beyond being selfish and acting on that choice is the antipode of selfishness.
Human can mean many things. Everyone is selfish, even people who claim they are not selfish, which is what makes it particularly deceitful.
You will fail to be perfect that's for certain. But you won't fail to be human, more than a crustacean
It's better to be successful at what you can be than to be a failure trying to be that which you can't be. There is no reason or obligation whatsoever to try to be perfect!
No matter how much you succeed at living up to higher values, you will at least attempt to be human.
This is your definition of humanity: trying to be all that you can't be? Amazing.
We each have that choice - whether to value something or someone - more than our own pleasure
That's nonsense. Why should what we value the most give us displeasure?
Realizing this fact will inevitably bring some pain.
That a masochit's "feel good!" Sorry, I am failure as a masochist. You will have to tell me what's so great about it, since you seem to think it's something we ought to desire.
So, if our highest goal is pleasure and avoiding pain, we will choose not to realize it, become blind and numb to it. We will act on our values, and, in this case, choose pleasure over truth.
Goodness! How did you get to equate pain with truth?
But we'll lose what it means to be human
That's pathetic, imo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.