16 of 17
16
Critique My Philosophy of Life?
Posted: 26 February 2014 01:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 226 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  813
Joined  2009-10-21
Philosofer123 - 26 February 2014 01:02 PM
Lausten - 26 February 2014 12:39 PM
Philosofer123 - 26 February 2014 11:30 AM

Neither you nor TimB have made a persuasive case that more than a very small percentage of people can individually have a significant political effect on society.  If you feel that you can make such a case, then do so.

You’re asking an awful lot.

Until you can make such a case, I see no reason to modify the document.

Lausten - 26 February 2014 12:39 PM

But really, if a small number of people don’t make big change, why do we acknowledge individuals at all? Why do we care about a speech Steve Jobs made or call someone the most powerful man in America?

I do not dispute that a very small percentage of people can individually have a significant political effect on society, and this fact is perfectly compatible with my qualified guideline of usually avoiding political activity.  In order to demonstrate that my philosophy requires modification, you need to show that more than a very small percentage of people can individually have a significant political effect on society.

To be clear, I can’t make the case that you are asking me to, and neither can you. You are taking a decent philosophy and turning it into something dogmatic. You are making claims and not allowing for qualifiers. You are saying you have covered all the bases when that is simply not possible.

Worse you are sending us off on errands to make proofs then changing your request two posts later, as in; “Neither you nor TimB have made a persuasive case that more than a very small percentage of people can individually have a significant political effect on society” then “I do not dispute that a very small percentage of people can individually have a significant political effect on society”.

Have you twisted the idea of the high probability that it is individuals who make a difference to a the low probability that any one individual has a chance of making a difference? Because this latest request doesn’t make sense, “you need to show that more than a very small percentage of people can individually have a significant political effect on society”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2014 02:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 227 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  52
Joined  2013-11-23
Lausten - 26 February 2014 01:42 PM

To be clear, I can’t make the case that you are asking me to, and neither can you.

As far as I am concerned, it is simply obvious that most people cannot individually have a significant political effect on society.  If you believe I am wrong, then in order to precipitate a change in the document, you need to make your case.

Lausten - 26 February 2014 01:42 PM

You are taking a decent philosophy and turning it into something dogmatic.  You are making claims and not allowing for qualifiers.

False.  As I clearly and patiently explained in post #208, my advice regarding political activity is indeed qualified, and therefore not in the least dogmatic.

Lausten - 26 February 2014 01:42 PM

You are saying you have covered all the bases when that is simply not possible.

False.  Where do I say that I “have covered all the bases”?

Lausten - 26 February 2014 01:42 PM

Worse you are sending us off on errands to make proofs then changing your request two posts later, as in; “Neither you nor TimB have made a persuasive case that more than a very small percentage of people can individually have a significant political effect on society” then “I do not dispute that a very small percentage of people can individually have a significant political effect on society”.

Read that again, because you clearly do not understand what you have written.  What you have written demonstrates that my request did not change.

Lausten - 26 February 2014 01:42 PM

Have you twisted the idea of the high probability that it is individuals who make a difference to a the low probability that any one individual has a chance of making a difference? Because this latest request doesn’t make sense, “you need to show that more than a very small percentage of people can individually have a significant political effect on society”

My request makes perfect sense.  In order for my qualified advice against political activity to be invalidated, you do indeed need to show that more than a very small percentage of people can individually have a significant political effect on society.

[ Edited: 26 February 2014 02:24 PM by Philosofer123 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2014 02:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 228 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  813
Joined  2009-10-21

Now you’re just saying “I make sense”, “You’re wrong”, “Read it again”. There needs to be a name for the Monty Python meme “this is not an argument it’s contradiction.” Like Reductio Ad Hitlerum, it indicates the thread has run its course.

The burden of proof is on you to show that your philosophy will have the results you claim.

In order for my qualified advice against political activity to be invalidated, you do indeed need to show that more than a very small percentage of people can individually have a significant political effect on society.

Why do I have to show that? Is your philosophy to just play the odds? The odds are small that you can make a difference, therefore don’t try? Better to be happy as a slave than get your foot cut off for attempting to be free? I don’t get it.

[ Edited: 26 February 2014 02:38 PM by Lausten ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2014 03:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 229 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  52
Joined  2013-11-23
Lausten - 26 February 2014 02:33 PM

Now you’re just saying “I make sense”, “You’re wrong”, “Read it again”. There needs to be a name for the Monty Python meme “this is not an argument it’s contradiction.” Like Reductio Ad Hitlerum, it indicates the thread has run its course.

Empty rhetoric.  You have failed to respond to my post.

Lausten - 26 February 2014 02:33 PM

The burden of proof is on you to show that your philosophy will have the results you claim.

What “results” have I “claimed”?

Lausten - 26 February 2014 02:33 PM

In order for my qualified advice against political activity to be invalidated, you do indeed need to show that more than a very small percentage of people can individually have a significant political effect on society.

Why do I have to show that? Is your philosophy to just play the odds? The odds are small that you can make a difference, therefore don’t try? Better to be happy as a slave than get your foot cut off for attempting to be free? I don’t get it.

Recall that the goal established in the “negative hedonism” section of the document is to optimize one’s state of mind over one’s lifetime.  And indeed, with respect to this goal, my qualified advice to usually avoid political activity makes sense if the odds that one can make a difference are small enough.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2014 03:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 230 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  813
Joined  2009-10-21
Philosofer123 - 26 February 2014 03:04 PM
Lausten - 26 February 2014 02:33 PM

Now you’re just saying “I make sense”, “You’re wrong”, “Read it again”. There needs to be a name for the Monty Python meme “this is not an argument it’s contradiction.” Like Reductio Ad Hitlerum, it indicates the thread has run its course.

Empty rhetoric.  You have failed to respond to my post.

Lausten - 26 February 2014 02:33 PM

The burden of proof is on you to show that your philosophy will have the results you claim.

What “results” have I “claimed”?

You state it in your response below. You say it’s a goal, and that your philosophy will lead toward that goal.

Philosofer123 - 26 February 2014 03:04 PM
Lausten - 26 February 2014 02:33 PM

In order for my qualified advice against political activity to be invalidated, you do indeed need to show that more than a very small percentage of people can individually have a significant political effect on society.

Why do I have to show that? Is your philosophy to just play the odds? The odds are small that you can make a difference, therefore don’t try? Better to be happy as a slave than get your foot cut off for attempting to be free? I don’t get it.

Recall that the goal established in the “negative hedonism” section of the document is to optimize one’s state of mind over one’s lifetime.  And indeed, with respect to this goal, my qualified advice to usually avoid political activity makes sense if the odds that one can make a difference are small enough.

And that’s exactly what I’m saying I have a problem with. You seem like a nice guy, but I wouldn’t want to climb any mountains with you. I wouldn’t want you around if I were working on the underground railroad.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2014 03:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 231 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04
Lois - 26 February 2014 12:59 PM

It is possible, though, to understand the actual process and still feel as if you are in control. It isn’t that hard to do. Any intelligent person can do it. It’s a little like watching a movie.  You get caught up in the story and you suspend disbelief. But you never lose sight of the fact that it’s only a movie.

Lois

I think we had this discussion a long while back, but I don’t mind going through it again.  It is an interesting problem.  I think that the “person watching a movie” analogy breaks down, when you must consider (if you are being fair) the possibility that our awareness of the story line could actually be a factor in changing the story.  This doesn’t happen when you watch a movie.  But it may well happen (and I think most probably does) in our actual lives.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2014 03:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 232 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04

Philo, If you are interested in debate as the criteria for adjusting your philosophy (though I wonder if that is the best criteria) you should try to get Brian interested enough to go through your philosophy in depth.  He seems to me to be a master debater.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2014 03:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 233 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  52
Joined  2013-11-23
Lausten - 26 February 2014 03:26 PM
Philosofer123 - 26 February 2014 03:04 PM

What “results” have I “claimed”?

You state it in your response below. You say it’s a goal, and that your philosophy will lead toward that goal.

OK—yes, I do believe that I offer good advice on how to optimize one’s state of mind over one’s lifetime.  And nothing in this thread so far has shaken that belief.  In the document, I explain why each piece of my advice can be expected to contribute to my goal. 

Lausten - 26 February 2014 03:26 PM
Philosofer123 - 26 February 2014 03:04 PM

Recall that the goal established in the “negative hedonism” section of the document is to optimize one’s state of mind over one’s lifetime.  And indeed, with respect to this goal, my qualified advice to usually avoid political activity makes sense if the odds that one can make a difference are small enough.

And that’s exactly what I’m saying I have a problem with. You seem like a nice guy, but I wouldn’t want to climb any mountains with you. I wouldn’t want you around if I were working on the underground railroad.

There is nothing in your response that invalidates my advice.  Your merely “having a problem” with my advice, and your reluctance to participate in certain activities with me, does not invalidate my advice.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2014 03:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 234 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  52
Joined  2013-11-23
TimB - 26 February 2014 03:31 PM

Philo, If you are interested in debate as the criteria for adjusting your philosophy (though I wonder if that is the best criteria) you should try to get Brian interested enough to go through your philosophy in depth.  He seems to me to be a master debater.

If you would like to know why I do not care to engage Bryan in further debate, please see:

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/16725/P15/#190536

[ Edited: 26 February 2014 03:52 PM by Philosofer123 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2014 05:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 235 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04
Philosofer123 - 26 February 2014 03:48 PM
TimB - 26 February 2014 03:31 PM

Philo, If you are interested in debate as the criteria for adjusting your philosophy (though I wonder if that is the best criteria) you should try to get Brian interested enough to go through your philosophy in depth.  He seems to me to be a master debater.

If you would like to know why I do not care to engage Bryan in further debate, please see:

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/16725/P15/#190536

Okay, I waded through that debate as thoroughly as I could bring myself to do.  I have difficulty with the following:  You said that the purpose of this thread, for you, is to get feedback that can improve your philosophy document.  You also said “...it is only when I lose a debate that I am persuaded that the document needs revision.”

I could not tell that you “won” the debate with Brian.  Rather you disengaged, declaring that it offered nothing that would improve your document. 

Thus, it seems to me that you are asking an awful lot.  In order to help you improve your document we must go through it in depth, supply cogent feedback for possible revisions, and effectively debate with you why a particular revision is warranted, (with the proviso that you can subjectively deem the debate to be unhelpful), and, while doing all of this, we must somehow, overcome your subjective investment in the document, as it stands, to persuade you that a revision is warranted.

I think that the chances that you will make significant changes to your document are so small (not infinitesimally small) but so small, that going through this process is not worth the effort. In fact, the process does not seem supportive of my peace of mind.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2014 05:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 236 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04

Philo, If what you really want, is simply affirmation for the bulk of your document.  I think you have gotten that.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2014 06:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 237 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  52
Joined  2013-11-23
TimB - 26 February 2014 05:03 PM
Philosofer123 - 26 February 2014 03:48 PM
TimB - 26 February 2014 03:31 PM

Philo, If you are interested in debate as the criteria for adjusting your philosophy (though I wonder if that is the best criteria) you should try to get Brian interested enough to go through your philosophy in depth.  He seems to me to be a master debater.

If you would like to know why I do not care to engage Bryan in further debate, please see:

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/16725/P15/#190536

Okay, I waded through that debate as thoroughly as I could bring myself to do.  I have difficulty with the following:  You said that the purpose of this thread, for you, is to get feedback that can improve your philosophy document.  You also said “...it is only when I lose a debate that I am persuaded that the document needs revision.”

I could not tell that you “won” the debate with Brian.  Rather you disengaged, declaring that it offered nothing that would improve your document. 

Thus, it seems to me that you are asking an awful lot.  In order to help you improve your document we must go through it in depth, supply cogent feedback for possible revisions, and effectively debate with you why a particular revision is warranted, (with the proviso that you can subjectively deem the debate to be unhelpful), and, while doing all of this, we must somehow, overcome your subjective investment in the document, as it stands, to persuade you that a revision is warranted.

I think that the chances that you will make significant changes to your document are so small (not infinitesimally small) but so small, that going through this process is not worth the effort. In fact, the process does not seem supportive of my peace of mind.

It is not easy for newcomers to find ways to improve my philosophy, as I have spent several years carefully formulating it. 

If you do not wish to try, that is your prerogative.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2014 06:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 238 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  52
Joined  2013-11-23
TimB - 26 February 2014 05:09 PM

Philo, If what you really want, is simply affirmation for the bulk of your document.  I think you have gotten that.

That is not what I want.

As stated in the OP, I am posting my philosophy to solicit feedback so that it may be improved.

Recall that I advise myself to be honest (see page 12 of the document), and I have taken my own advice.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2014 06:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 239 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04
Philosofer123 - 26 February 2014 06:15 PM

It is not easy for newcomers to find ways to improve my philosophy, as I have spent several years carefully formulating it. 

If you do not wish to try, that is your prerogative.

Of course, I did try.  You politely thanked me for doing so.  It just occurred to me that it is consistent with your philosophy that most people should usually not try such an endeavor that has so little chance of success.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2014 07:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 240 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  52
Joined  2013-11-23
TimB - 26 February 2014 06:29 PM
Philosofer123 - 26 February 2014 06:15 PM

It is not easy for newcomers to find ways to improve my philosophy, as I have spent several years carefully formulating it. 

If you do not wish to try, that is your prerogative.

Of course, I did try.  You politely thanked me for doing so.  It just occurred to me that it is consistent with your philosophy that most people should usually not try such an endeavor that has so little chance of success.

A disciplined mind would not be disturbed by trying and failing.  There are a number of techniques in my document that are effective in this regard, most notably “goal internalization” (see page 8). 

You might respond that a sufficiently disciplined mind would not be disturbed by a life of failed political efforts.  And I would agree.  However, this would require a very disciplined mind, far more so than a mind that it not disturbed by merely making a couple of futile posts in a philosophy discussion forum.

Profile
 
 
   
16 of 17
16