Copulation or contemplation?
- my philosophy on the way
to be
June 1997
Introduction 3
The aims of this work 3
The Good 3
Morality and the value-giver 3
Conclusion 4
Book 1 5
Appendix 7
Philosophy of life file 7
Notes 9
misc 10
questions 11
Can there be moral experts? 12
thoughts on god 13
Poem 14
Various metaphys/ethical systems 15
People often have ‘mid-life crises’. They get to the point at which it is too late to easily shape their future, and then regret their past. They lament a ‘wasted life’, complaining about how they have failed to realise their goals. It seems to me that this is not merely a case of stumbling on the path to contentment, but unthinkingly taking entirely the wrong route.
I am concerned about this. Seventeen years of age seems an excellent time to have a crisis of purpose, since if I can determine what to aim for, then I can spend my entire life trying to realise it. I am turning to philosophy as the only means of acquiring long-term inner harmony, although I may realise/believe this too to be unimportant one day.
Purposive actions have immediate, intermediate and long-term ends. How should I behave, think, live my life and die? I hope that once I know why I live, I will be best-placed to answer this.
I am assuming that all lesser ends must stem from an ultimate end, the ‘Good’. Having found it, I assume similarly that we would merely need to establish the means to this Good in order to allow us to fulfil our purpose, achieve excellence at our function and be satisfied.
To say that the end is happiness is almost a truism. I refuse to strive for anything whose realisation will not make me happy. Therefore, happiness could be said to be the ultimate goal. Alternatively, it could be said that the ultimate goal will lead inevitably to happiness. Either way, acknowledging happiness to be completely desirable is of little help.
Morality is based entirely on values. What is ethical depends on what one values. In the past, philosophers have based their substantive ethics on their metaphysical systems. This is because they require something else to tell us what is valuable. Given this knowledge, we can determine basic moral rules which branch out into more specific rules to govern actions.
However, this makes an important assumption. It assumes the existence of something ‘higher’ to determine values, viz. God, a fundamental, moral world order, the superman, society. Without a governing value-giver, we descend into nihilism, unless we assign values ourselves. However, the instinct is to assume that these values are in some way intrinsic, or bestowed upon valuables by something outside both us and the object; people find it unsatisfying to consider that an object’s only value consists in the value placed on it by us. That would mean that there is no absolute set of values, because people place different values on different objects. Indeed, other people value ourselves less than we do.
There is so much in us which smacks of purpose. We find it
almost inconceivable that there is no purpose whatsoever, or that we create our
own purpose. God, in all his forms, has previously fulfilled this deep-seated
need for purpose within us all (at the very least, God exists in a very real
way in most people as a psychological prop). The value-giver, then, allocates
purpose to everything, but also gives them inherent value. Purpose and value
are synonymous. The extent of our striving towards a particular goal is
proportionate to its (assigned, seen by us as inherent) value.
As far as I am concerned, metaphysics and ethics are one and the same. An ethical system which I am willing to obey will require its set of values to come from somewhere. A metaphysical system is worthless if it does not help its builder in any way by proscribing derived values and morality. Therefore, I intend both to arise together, and be entirely in agreement, to my satisfaction (without which the whole exercise becomes merely academic).
So I am primarily trying to establish objects’ ‘true’ value. If my search for a transcendental or superior value-giver fails, I may be forced to turn towards barren, unhappy nihilism. If I ever fully embrace nihilism, the most awful devil of all, then I will become a psychopath. Why not? What’s to stop me?
I am particularly concerned about whether this goal is within my reach. Attempts have been made to demonstrate that it is impossible to logically (i.e. within the clumsy medium of language) prove anything of substance to this discussion. If this is true, then my philosophising is utterly futile. My hunger for knowledge is sufficient to induce me to try nevertheless.
One last concern haunts me. I still have no inkling of what, if anything, I will conclude. However, I am presently impressed by the desolate musings of the nutty, ante-Nazi anti-nobility nihilistic Nietzsche. The main deterrent to a greater embracing of his Godless mutterings, is the misery under which he himself laboured. I have to remind myself that it may not be happy-making to know the truth, or moreover, that the truth may supercede mere sub-lunary happiness. A dangerous paradox, flaw in my quest for happiness via truth?
I feel I have only one weapon to aid me in my quest for direction: this is my impartial desire for truth. I admit that it would be comforting to be told that God exists, I am insignificant, and that he’ll protect me. This has helped many before me, but it will only support me if reinforced by the full weight of my faith. At least, this is what I pledge. Many philosophers have claimed possession of this most important knowledge; it seems to me that they have either rationalised their prejudices or been witness to mystic visions. I am unwilling to content myself with the former, and am blind to the latter.
I am fully aware that I may fail in this , my mind’s heart’s desire. Philosophy has been repeatedly dismissed as futile. Worse only than the sceptic is the sceptical sceptic.
Essentially, I am addressing the issue of the Good (our function) and the value-giver (that which allocated the functions). These are essentially one and the same. This great truth should be sufficient for me, for now, and for ever.
So far, so many unanswered questions (the philosopher’s speciality). The hard part comes next.
- 1 -
I feel able to dismiss many ‘mundane’ entertainments and occupations as immaterial and distant from the Good. However, the fact that we enjoy some of them is definitely of note. Football and money for instance, just don't seem of any real, self-contained importance, which we have so far assumed that the Good must be. From the perspective of grandiose and ‘goodly’ goals, they are but intermediate in the scheme of things.
The following have previously been regarded as the Good, i.e. our function (not an indication of validity):
1. following our instincts/drives, like animals
2. victory over something, exercising power. whatever we want, i.e. egotism, power to impose the force of our ego over the outside.
3. power over others
4. resisting drives (= sublimated will to exercise power over appetite), impulses, desires, determination, victory over perceived bad = asceticism
5. thought, intellectualism, art, academia, literature (® create)
6. inner harmony
7. (stoicism not ascetism)
8. the absence of pain – suffering heightens our appreciation of lack of suffering/pleasure
9. not desiring - Buddhism
10. beauty, aesthetics, sensation, sensualism, experiencing (raw, moment)
11. pleasure, ecstasy
12. past, memory, experiences (distillate of)
13. love
14. good sex
15. honour, fame, fortune, popularity
16. external validation
17. success (job, money, personality, achievements/accomplishments)
18. parenthood
19. being better than others
20. talent, intelligence, Nobel Prize
21. money
22. job fulfilment
23. creation, creativity
24. philanthropy, helping others, lessening their pain, creating better world
25. serve God
26. contemplation (arete at a function), i.e. searching for our function
27. cessation of loneliness = friendship (conversation, shared experience) which bridges the gap of solitude
28. personality – golden mean, well-liked, charming, humorous, integrated (no psychoses/neuroses), balanced
At first glance, all seem valid in some respects, and it is hard to imagine being truly happy without satisfying each, or most of these (or at least, not being completely at odds with them). However, some are contradictory.
The traditional philosophic method of choosing among those is to logically prove as soundly and deductively as possible, those which it cannot be, and that which it must be. I am not sure whether I am up to this task. I also feel sure that I would never be entirely convinced of the validity of my own reasoning, which seems wholly inadequate to such an undertaking.
- 2 -
something exists – i.e. disprove only ‘nothing’
1 thing exists – me
another outside – maybe merely absence of me
actually, definitely me (conscious) + outer (whether alternate other consciousness or merely my subconscious, equals one and the same thing)
these are all in theory necessary to make the introduction valid, for it assumes these
Another inroad might be to try and see what I am certain of. I would be a good starting point:
I feel sure of my own existence, that is to say, that of myself. However, that in itself is of little real help. Descartes himself, made little progress until he was also able to convince himself of the existence of at least two ‘beings’, himself and God. I too am certain there must be something outside myself (even though I might end up realising that this is little more than the absence of myself, a circumferential void if you like). That too indicates a second entity, of some sort. At the very least, one could say that there is the conscious part of myself, that is to say, the part I am conscious of. The second part could therefore be the sub/unconscious. One can only really become aware of these two elements through experience of them (for now, I would like to avoid whether it is possible to know of anything without the assistance of our senses). I experience experiencing myself, therefore I feel sure of myself. My only evidence of my subconscious is from manifestations of it, in dreams, and perhaps emotions (since I do not directly control them; however, this raises the issue of whether I even have control over my ‘conscious’ part).
So, I feel sure of at least 2 presences:
a) the obvious, conscious, rational, linguistic, stimulated part
b) the submerged, subconscious, irrational, imaginative, creative, stimulating part
what about the existence of
nothing/anything?
- 3 -
Everything is self-motivated. There is nothing that is done for anyone else’s benefit. Nothing.
Is there such a thing as an intellectual virtue? By ‘intellectual virtue’, I refer to the kind of contemplation which Aristotle praised above what he termed the moral virtues. Well, first of all, what is a virtue? Something intrinsically good? But often, virtues are good because their exhibition in the virtuous is somehow extrinsically beneficial. So, a virtue is merely a “desirable” quality.
Is there any value in contemplation for contemplation’s sake, the highest intellectual virtue? This conjures images of lone meditative ascetics perched on pillars, with the vacant expressions of the addicted, an equally vicious but tempting practice. I regard the aetiology of this regard for pure thought as a derivative of the initial and laudable desire to act and be good/well, which for those of a pensive turn of mind requires the knowledge of what being good is. In order to be sure of this, one contemplates the “meaning of existence”, or some such metaphysical vagueness, in the hope of discovering the laws of the universe, which will then dictate how to be ethically lawful, i.e. act according to the way we should, i.e. be good. It is usually assumed that acting according to our nature and position in the world/universe will make us happy (I suppose because we ought really to have evolved to find fulfilment in acting in accordance with our nature). In this way, philosophy can be defined (debased) as the ‘marriage of metaphysics and ethics’[1].
So, having turned our mind to higher things, reduced them to a formula or causative predictive process à la methode scientifique, we can determine what the good for man consequently should be and is, and then live that way.
However, there may be a fallacy in assuming that one can understand the ‘how’ of the universe (metaphysics) and consequently be assured of why we should act a certain way. Can there be a meaningful how without a why? And, having discerned the ultimate how, should this be possible as we hope and assume it is, then who is to say that this will be sufficiently relevant to our own little self-contradictory condition?
This is the rationalist means. Depending on reason alone (or foremost) requires justifications and reasons all of its own, an endlessly circular and fruitless process. Unless we can find a complete, ultimate answer, or settle for a circular one, then the only escape is to stray from/float above reason. Answering in empirical terms would be largely meaningless, given the inward, human-mindedness (anthropomorphic nature) of the issue ???. This leaves only gut instinct/natural light to guide us through the vacuum darkness of the universe’s meaning.
So we are left with the question of how, if at all, we can derive a justified ethical system, if not by reason.
What would we demand/desire of our complete ethical system:
self-consistent and generative as a definitive guide to existence as well as day-to-day complications and trivialities
satisfyingly justiable
universal/uniform, non-perspectival i.e. absolute
applicable to the individual and to humanity, => self-esteem and harmony in a society when practised by one and all
commends the traditional virtues
Ideally
(or more precisely: in order to be minimally in contention with current
wisdom/beliefs), it would be one which recommended a way of life in tune with the
virtues we currently hold as being, if not universal, then at least socially
harmonious and popular: compassionate, free(-thinking) and happy.
In many ways Christianity provides a superb case-study of just such a happy and long-lasting yoking of metaphysics and ethics. It has proved resilient and adaptive as a result of its seductive nature and the tenacity and imaginativeness of its many adherents (lending both fervour and the force of swelling popularity). It posits a god, comforting in His power, humanity and unshakeable love for Us. It grants us significance, answers all questions (or defaults to the inherent mystery of an impossibly life-like and limited yet unlimited being) and cushions us from the coldness of truth, with the panaceaic promise of an afterlife of happy eternity, perfected by an absolute truth and justice. Christianity is the construct of a genius. A genius, but a very human, once-alive now-dead genius. It answers our questions in a swallowable, self-perpetuating and contenting way.
Pretending to perspectival/relativistic/existentialist version of truth is a self-betrayal, an intellectual dishonesty/vice/fuckup: for the statement, ‘there is no single truth’ is a single, absolute truth. Any such statement of relativity is inherently absolute. That is the nature of us and our thoughts: we cannot escape the rigidity and uniformity of our idea of truth. Perhaps its a “language thang”J.
Any metaphysics, certainly any classical one worth its salt, will be too macroscopic to anyone or anything as microscopic as humanity, let alone individual humans. Rather than casting about for an all-encompassingly elegant tapestry of truth and hoping that our particular threads will be satisfyingly interwoven, we should perhaps look for something more inherently meaningful. For what we really desire of such a tapestry is that it is beautiful and satisfying to the look and touch; a fabric of feeling, if you will. Unfortunately, the past has shown (Galileo and Darwin) that we also demand to be the colourful centre-piece. But the sun and the other species have shown or equal value, or unequal lack of value.
This means that, rather than concentrating pointlessly on something either meaningless or non-existent, and incomprehensible to us, like metaphysics, what we should be searching for is really only a metapsychology.
We are inherently pathetic, useless, insignificant, worthless and limited. Admitting it to ourselves is unacceptable (we are unable to embrace this truth fully, and it would be too unpleasant). If this is true, then why not commit suicide tomorrow (add ‘procrastinators’ to the list).
In order to be happy we need self-esteem. This cannot come from our actions, since all actions are designed to increase our self-esteem, either directly through proudly increasing our own opinion of our own prowess, or indirectly by deriving satisfaction and vanity through others’ opinion of us. The mode and means of our actions and behaviour will inevitably be in this direction, differing only in terms of our dependence on different moralities. Thus self-esteem, leading quickly to happiness, is a product of various social factors, rather than metaphysical ones. Give up trying to find the meaning of the universe with the intention of finding purpose there. You won’t manage it, and if you did, it wouldn’t have any bearing on you. It cannot be the answer to the question of how to increase your self-esteem. Because that is all you’re asking.
The evillest most hurtful and least forgivable thing anyone can do is to damage their ego/make them feel small/inadequate/inferior/desire to be different/yearn for an alternative morality/mind-set/upbringing. Love could perhaps be defined as the opposite. That is why the 2 different kinds that we can experience; the heady scary kind which reflects more on us being the object of someone’s in-love, making us big. and perhaps the other love. unconditional familial love. perhaps that is transcendent. that’s special maybe. if it exists.
soul allows us to move and feel corpses, spirit influences corporeal world. effect delineated by body (not even all of body)
trust
caring for their sake
enjoy company
companion
shared experiences
comfortable
mood vs habit
individual (self) vs others (util etc.)
fully-mature, single ideal to aim for vs whatever we choose (relativist/existentialist)
do they matter?
is there anyone else to read this? any other souls? (do they exist, i.e. figments of me
friends
love
influence of God’s existence
murder
inferiority/equality
fame
loneliness
humbleness
minimum 2 entities: self vs God/subconscious
Not if you accept his way of life/feelings/sentiments/attitudes – he was not happy, so his ideas must be partially flawed
util vs N
prove rat order, solve Hume problem
relativist vs absolutist
sci impinges on former phils, e.g. genetics on Forms/Universals, ET on creation
free will
all phils are relevant on to their author?
knowledge/truth
death, youth (maturity)
creativity, intelligence
imagination, subconscious
mind/body
reason, growing up (children)
suicide, life
humour
values
relig (faith), God = psychological prop, sin
emotions, self-control (mean vs extremes)
polarities vs triangles (why are 1, 2, 3 such nice numbers?)
why do we make mistakes
luck/chance/randomness/probability
pleasure – mere dopamine/adrenaline
evil, morals, suffering
meaning of being, aim, why here, purpose/function
morality depends on values
inner harmony = balance (mean?)
What exists?
Can we be God?
What is our purpose?
Is truth a futile/misunderstood goal?
Does anything have intrinsic/assigned value?
driving force = egotism
2 exist (at least 2 separate entities)
why boredom?
security?
choice?
why do individuals waste their life being different, when they only have one chance. if we had multiple chances, I would experiment very much.
being buried alive – living death – padded cell
without memory, no development – grieving over memories
take out 1 of the axioms, Riemannian non-death existence
speak concentrated language, in poems
why age? or die?
suicide allowed/banned? death = relief no one should be scared of oblivion/only thing to be scared of
all intelligent people are atheists/agnostics
egotism – all is done because it makes us happy, directly or indirectly – even altruism/charity is a selfish desire to make us feel better about ourselves by making someone else feel better (or even elevating oneself at the expense of their self-esteem)
one sole super-Good, head of a hierarchy of lesser helpful intermediate goods (EAP – outdoor life, creativity, being loved by someone, indifference to ambition)?
need to know that a moral expert is = expert in morality
Morality
simply the code/rules by which one lives, ie a sys of ethics
experts
special knowledge/skill
experts are people who know more/better trained or are somehow more proficient (efficacious at producing the desired result, knowing what the result should be) at something
thus 2 types of experts:
· one who is more knowledgeable
· one who is a better practicer
Moral expert
correspondingly, 2 types of experts in morality
one who know more or has thought more and understands better the issues of morality
one who is a better practicer of morality, eg someone who adheres to a morality consistently, eg a saint, though it need not necessarily be a ‘good’ (see below) person
so 2 questions at once: can there be either type of moral expert
here, we find ourselves lumping together the thinker-about morality and the knower-of morality
the thinker-about morality is effectively the philosopher; he has given thought to the whole issue of morality, trying to decide on rationalist grounds how to live his life: there can be little doubt that some people have given more thought to the issue than others, and are thus more versed in the various options for morality, the arguments for and against god and an absolute morality and the like, more open-minded and less indoctrinated to a particular morality, and thus more expert in this sense. however, this kind of expertise requres an open-mindedness and indecision at odds with knowing one morality to be ‘true’, and thus is an unsatisfying moral expert
the knower-of morality may have thought about morality in the past, or may just know somehow, but either way, the knower-of morality is certain of what an/the absolute/true morality is, ie there is one to know
practices a morality well
does a morality have to be based on a metaphys sys? y, unless it is comeltely arbitrary (even if based on a vague/atheistic metaphys/ sys with corresponding nihilistic ethics/morality)
t quality of a metaphys sys can thus be linked to its ethically generative capacity
the only reason we have need of ‘back-to-basics’ is a lack of church-going, or any equivalent institution to instil values in line with the society we are used to living in on the back of a comforting metaphys, or at least on the basis of the need for such behaviour (soc contract)
at what point are we led ® socialism etc.
absolute (requres something to assign value/intrinsic worth) vs multiple moralities
therefore, wo god, each person’s morality is their own (doesn’t necessarily mean tha twe should all act as egoists/hedonists, cos of social contract/natural empathy/sympathy/other people matter cos equal/cos indoctrinated to feel that way, but that there is no high reason dictating that that is the only way to be)
thus there can be one type of moral expert
‘good’ is taken here to mean good in the traditional sense, ie adhering to the prescriptions of the bible, principally being kind to other people
from here on, I will refer to the ‘personal’ God as that having the following attributes:
ineffable (yet strangely they’ve done a pretty good job of describing him in the bible – presumptuous)
impossible to humanly comprehend (how convenient)
anthropomorphic (ie one or other of us is made in the other’s likeness)
personal (you can pray to him, he understands/cares about humanity and each of us individually)
(all)-loving – just cos he ‘created’ us of his own volition and using his own volition doesn’t mean he’d care for his creation. daft
omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient
occasionally somewhat interventionist it would seem
feels the need for a plaything, hence our ‘free will’
perfectly good – insofar as he created/upholds the values associated with the ‘good’ in the traditionally christian moral sense
the Creator
purposive
Now, ‘god’ is a big subject, obfuscated by the need to define what is meant by God primarily. For starters, one could mean ‘a god’ or ‘God’. From here, we shall refer to ‘God’ a label with the following associated functions:
First Cause/Mover so (initial state/boundary conditions)
Value-giver
I’ve been wondering a bit about god
it struck me as rather odd
that such an important concept
could have so many aspects
you’d have thought we’d have pinned him down
rather than philosophically faffing around
he’s still compeltely ineffable
unless you’re able to epiphany
is He a meaningless question
or simply indescribably unknowable?
we have so little to go on
yet we can’t help but go on looking
how can you look up at the stars
without a part of you wondering
(for science is no less incredible or unfounded)
about so many things
unsatisfied by scientific explanations
in terms of us as minds in a mechanism
I find it increasingly difficult to believe in
Christianity
atheism – nihilism, common sense, “humanism???”, soc contract (aetiologied morals),individualism/existentialism, christian atheism
existentialistm???
agnositicism – ‘Greg-Uncertainty’
why no absolute morality wo God (of some sort)?
infinity exist wo god? boundlessness questions etc. …
why are metaphys/ethics bound up together
if you’re an external obj
to me then you have no intrinsic value
however, if you see you both as external objects to god
then it puts you both on an equal foot
better when the working classes couldn’t afford to travel
freedom requires knowledge to be safely and valuably wielded
ernst gumbrich – t story of art
commentary on a philosopher/idea
can there be moral experts
daring/grand
truth
soc ignorance
paradox
absolute truth
what is phil, why study it
why suspend egoism
why be religious; function of religion (soc, psych, val/truth)
why care for others
I can’t conceive of acting with anything but compassion
certainty
dualism
evoln
spiritual
my phil
phil of mind
fundamental energy
manifests as thought(psychic) + vibration (electricity?)
t prob with believing that the devising of a phil of life will lead to a happy life is that it assumes that the ideas can be wholly adopted and taken on board inside, and that we can live them and value them as involuntarily as those which currently reside with us unthinkingly
the inculcation of indoctrination is exceedingly hard to recognise, let alone over-turn and over-write
nothing of beauty was ever created by reason
collecting guests for my funeral
[1] Philosophy is the marriage of metaphysics and ethics. For without the former, one has speculated, unjustifiable opinion without knowledge; without the latter, one has a dry, rambling, fruitless branch of physics. Metaphysics could be regarded as providing the premises of life, from which putatively pursued ineluctably by a complete ethical system. These both are needed for a full and fulfilling philosophy of life (for it is of knowledge of life which we search).