Personal Belief and Absolute Belief
Belief exists on two levels. Personal Belief, and absolute belief. Absolute belief equates to the personal knowledge of the person, while the personal belief equates to the values held by the person. Personal Belief = how they like to portray their ideals of existence. Absolute belief = how they believe the universe is undoubtedly takes form. Dogmatic people often have difficulty in differentiating between and understanding the absolute belief and the personal belief, mainly due to these two beliefs being more or less identical for them. This belief structure is perhaps most prevalent and easy to distinguish in those of agnostic theism and atheism alike. While they both have an equal absence of the absolute belief, being of surety that such a notion is unprovable, their personal belief differs. Agnostic Theists prefer to believe in the existence of a God on a personal level, but are fully aware of the impossibility of proving such an existence. Likewise, agnostic atheists decide to take a stance of no god existing, despite this being unprovable.
Poke holes in this. I'm not looking for an argument here, I'm just trying to form some kind of construction as to how human ethics, morals and beliefs exist. So any contradictions or arguments will help me build around them and make a more solid explanation. :)
Sunday, 24 January 2010
The 'Evil' of Dogma (The personal opinion rant)
I felt like adding a pretext to this, to state that i wrote this with a lot of personal opinion behind it. Of course, I meant to keep it as justifiable as possible, but there are points of disagreement in this argument most obviously, and that is a cause of my own bias peppering this post. But, on the other hand, I suppose it gives a better idea of my standing and personal opinion when you add a bit of dogma into my beliefs.
Good and Evil
The concepts of good and evil, as ill-defined as they are, have been a constant throughout human existence, both in theology and society. What is good is something you should live by doing, and what is evil is something you should avoid. However, the defintions of such concepts are ill-defined and vague. Such a suggestion is not new to the philisophical train of thought, indeed, such concepts are based on opinion, and since everyone has individual opinions, to subject a definite good and evil is near impossible, and is wrong and rather arrogant to do so. We cannot live without concepts however, they are something that is seemingly integral to our existence. Our existence must surely have instinctual rights and wrongs in order to differentiate life and death, and to keep the species alive, and it is from this base point, that we can draw a logical conclusion to where morality and ethics derived from. However, if we are talking about the right and wrong beyond survival, indeed a universal, possibly transcendental sense of morality, does this exist?
Evil as Dogma
Personally I believe not. To argue an absolute concept when it is impossible to reinforce and back any concept as absolute, is a seemingly ridiculous train of thought. However, if I WAS to consider my own sense of good and evil, I would claim this: 'Evil' (the term, of course, used lightly) is only that which organises a claim of evil itself (and as such, a counter-point of good). As such, near all religions fall guilty to evil, Christianity claiming to know evil as its sins, such as homosexuality and heresy. This indeed includes all forms of dogma, whether religious or non-religious, for the moment one claims knowledge of righteousness and wickedness, he also claims a shallow arrogance, egotism and hatred. Truly, if one claims to truly know the true nature and purpose, and the opposition of such, this is the forging of a tool of segregation, of seperation. As such, I would personally treat this tool as a tool of evil, and one that is logically weak in the grandeur of the unknowable. It is an easy assumption that the human race indeed functions on such morals and ethics, and that these are necessary to a healthy survival, but the difference between a belief in such an ethic, and an understanding of the possibility of said ethic, is not as blurred and intertwined as intial thought and presentation would have us assume. Indeed, this argument is embodied in the nature of agnostic theists and atheists alike, those who share individual beliefs, but fully realise that the nature of these beliefs is largely unknowable, and instead form their beliefs on personal opinion and preference, rather than what they could believe as 'absolute', like many gnostics do. Conclusively, the 'evil' I view is the ever-present dogma, and that true intelligence in man is only brought forth with the realisation of the egotism of such dogma, and the unknowable of absolutes. Boiled down to a sentence: When one claims true knowledge, one rejects true intelligence.
Good and Evil
The concepts of good and evil, as ill-defined as they are, have been a constant throughout human existence, both in theology and society. What is good is something you should live by doing, and what is evil is something you should avoid. However, the defintions of such concepts are ill-defined and vague. Such a suggestion is not new to the philisophical train of thought, indeed, such concepts are based on opinion, and since everyone has individual opinions, to subject a definite good and evil is near impossible, and is wrong and rather arrogant to do so. We cannot live without concepts however, they are something that is seemingly integral to our existence. Our existence must surely have instinctual rights and wrongs in order to differentiate life and death, and to keep the species alive, and it is from this base point, that we can draw a logical conclusion to where morality and ethics derived from. However, if we are talking about the right and wrong beyond survival, indeed a universal, possibly transcendental sense of morality, does this exist?
Evil as Dogma
Personally I believe not. To argue an absolute concept when it is impossible to reinforce and back any concept as absolute, is a seemingly ridiculous train of thought. However, if I WAS to consider my own sense of good and evil, I would claim this: 'Evil' (the term, of course, used lightly) is only that which organises a claim of evil itself (and as such, a counter-point of good). As such, near all religions fall guilty to evil, Christianity claiming to know evil as its sins, such as homosexuality and heresy. This indeed includes all forms of dogma, whether religious or non-religious, for the moment one claims knowledge of righteousness and wickedness, he also claims a shallow arrogance, egotism and hatred. Truly, if one claims to truly know the true nature and purpose, and the opposition of such, this is the forging of a tool of segregation, of seperation. As such, I would personally treat this tool as a tool of evil, and one that is logically weak in the grandeur of the unknowable. It is an easy assumption that the human race indeed functions on such morals and ethics, and that these are necessary to a healthy survival, but the difference between a belief in such an ethic, and an understanding of the possibility of said ethic, is not as blurred and intertwined as intial thought and presentation would have us assume. Indeed, this argument is embodied in the nature of agnostic theists and atheists alike, those who share individual beliefs, but fully realise that the nature of these beliefs is largely unknowable, and instead form their beliefs on personal opinion and preference, rather than what they could believe as 'absolute', like many gnostics do. Conclusively, the 'evil' I view is the ever-present dogma, and that true intelligence in man is only brought forth with the realisation of the egotism of such dogma, and the unknowable of absolutes. Boiled down to a sentence: When one claims true knowledge, one rejects true intelligence.
Verifiability (Short blog)
Personal Verifiability
One key argument that theists put forward for God is the argument that God is personally verifiable, and therefore knowable. However, this is a misconception of understanding. The case is not whether one verifies God's existence as definite, but as to whether one CAN verify God's existence for definite. To verify another existence would require insurmountable proof of another being to exist, and for that, one that is within oneself, and is able to differentiate itself from the idea of said existence. The difference in having absolute belief for something to be certain, and having absolute knowledge for that certainty is vast. While I believe for absolute certainty that other people exist, there is no way to personally justify this assumption. And thus, just as it is truly impossible to verify anyone's existence apart from ones own, it is also impossible to verify the existence of a deity. This is furthermore reinforced by the fact that a deity has shown no definite effect on our perceptions, while the existence of others has.
Acts of God
In life, there may be things that seem unprovable, and impossible within the parameters of logic, and therefore must be an 'act of God'. This is one argument for a transcendent deity that may often present itself. Jumping to such a conclusion, however, is highly presumptious. At our current stage, we are still discovering new explanations as to the workings of the universe, and hence the parameters of logic our perception thrusts upon us. Atoms, quantum mechanics and otherwise are still in the process of understanding, and as such, the assumption of an 'Act of God' or the 'work of God' is impossible to make at this current stage. To be certain of a non-personal deity's existence, one must witness the rejection of logic only once all logic has been learnt, only one has absolute comprehension. As such, the only justification for resorting to the theory of an 'Act of God' would be for when one has absolute understanding of our plane of existence. In addition to this, considering that it is personally impossible to truly justify an all-knowing state due to the constant possibility of a further understanding to be learnt, it is therefore incorrect to assume the existence of a transcendent God at all.
One key argument that theists put forward for God is the argument that God is personally verifiable, and therefore knowable. However, this is a misconception of understanding. The case is not whether one verifies God's existence as definite, but as to whether one CAN verify God's existence for definite. To verify another existence would require insurmountable proof of another being to exist, and for that, one that is within oneself, and is able to differentiate itself from the idea of said existence. The difference in having absolute belief for something to be certain, and having absolute knowledge for that certainty is vast. While I believe for absolute certainty that other people exist, there is no way to personally justify this assumption. And thus, just as it is truly impossible to verify anyone's existence apart from ones own, it is also impossible to verify the existence of a deity. This is furthermore reinforced by the fact that a deity has shown no definite effect on our perceptions, while the existence of others has.
Acts of God
In life, there may be things that seem unprovable, and impossible within the parameters of logic, and therefore must be an 'act of God'. This is one argument for a transcendent deity that may often present itself. Jumping to such a conclusion, however, is highly presumptious. At our current stage, we are still discovering new explanations as to the workings of the universe, and hence the parameters of logic our perception thrusts upon us. Atoms, quantum mechanics and otherwise are still in the process of understanding, and as such, the assumption of an 'Act of God' or the 'work of God' is impossible to make at this current stage. To be certain of a non-personal deity's existence, one must witness the rejection of logic only once all logic has been learnt, only one has absolute comprehension. As such, the only justification for resorting to the theory of an 'Act of God' would be for when one has absolute understanding of our plane of existence. In addition to this, considering that it is personally impossible to truly justify an all-knowing state due to the constant possibility of a further understanding to be learnt, it is therefore incorrect to assume the existence of a transcendent God at all.
A New Beginning
Well, I'm back, at least for a while. With the setting up of my youtube account and my posterous account (all links at watcherg.posterous.com) I felt a need to restart the philosophy blogs. Luckily, a lot of the writing I've done over the past year or so I can upload to here without much effort, so I won't be updating this for a week or so after the following updates. Finally, i'll be giving a more naive realist/apatheistic viewpoint, since, unlike when I started these blogs, I've finally found my philosphical niche, so to speak. Let's give this another try! :P
Existence - Cognition, Perception, Reality
Before we begin, I would first like to cover the nature of our existence, as we can know and understand it. Existence, as far as we are aware, exists in at least 3 different states. These states of existence can be considered to be:
1.The First, subjective State of Cognition. This is the centre of our consciousness, and where our individual thought processes, reasoning, intellect and memory congregate. It is also the state from which we interpret the Second State.
2.The Second, projective State of Perception. This is the appearance of, and how we view, the third state. The second state is merely a process of viewing the Third State, however, it shapes the existence as we know it, and the world around us is an interpretation of this Second State, as we must view reality through perception. Essentially, this is the World we live in.
3.The Third, objective State of Reality. This is the 'true' form of existence, which has been subject to no interpretation or perception by the consciousness, instead the reality in its true form. This form is generally unknowable in its true form, our mind simply gaining some form of understanding and perception from the Second State. The accuracy of the perception is, again, unknowable.
These three following States are ones which are going to be covered in great detail in the following chapters, and are therefore going to be integral to our unfolding interpretation of existence, so remembering them will be key throughout. Also, Atheism is a broad sense covering any belief with a 'lack of theism', including Agnostics, so at any point I am referring to those with a belief in the non-existence of God, I will be referring to these as S.Atheists (Strong Atheists)
Logic and Faith
Logic is considered to be integral, when deducing the existence of a deity, particularly to Atheists. Indeed, the continuous raging debate between Theists and Atheists, seems also to be an ongoing debate between faith and the logic of atheists, however, even in this term, the word logic may be used incorrectly. Indeed, when considering the Second State, the definition of Logic could be boiled down to 'that which is feasible within the parameters of our perception'. From this point of view, God is indeed illogical in his actions, this agreeing with both arguments of God. After all, should a God be omnipotent, should he also not be able to defy logic? Where S.Atheists believe these parameters our indeed the limit to existence, Theists deny this, claiming there to be a further, illogical, incomprehensible parameter to existence. Obviously for this even be consdiered, faith in its existence is needed, as there is no way to prove something illogical. This, is the main argument as to the existence of God, and as to the consideration of God in our lives. The following chapter is not one that will deal in the non-existence of God. As many of us know, God is neither provable nor disprovable, and therefore considering an argument involving such is futile. However, as opposed to an argument over the non-existence of a transcendant being, but instead, the irrelevance of such a being in our lives.
The Thunder Theory
The World we live in, the Second State, is one which is formed of logical parameters. Everything that happens within this corporeal existence is formed of certain parameters, that seem to follow a certain pattern, and with all things that happen to be within our comprehension. Indeed, there may be the appearance of certain acts of nature, or otherwise, that are difficult to understand and comprehend in our current state. However, in ancient times, the existence of thunder and lightning, and other then unexplainable parameters, were put down to the illogical idea of God, due to an explanation not surfacing. In our current society, the understanding of such acts of nature have been deduced and understood, and are no longer put down to the actions of gods. We can apply this idea to the unexplainable parameters in our current day, and expect that parameters that are currently unexplainable to be beyond our knowledge, and possibly one day explainable. Indeed, I myself know several people who have claimed to have experienced paranormal phenomena, even two at the same time claim to have seen a ghost. However, these suggestions are perfectly within the realms of possibility, with the discovery of different wavelengths of energy there could be an eventual explanation for such phenomena, natural or not.
The Irrelevance of God
So, if we are to consider that the Second State, our current subjective 'existence', is one of logic, then what place does God have in it? The truth is, the existence of God is perfectly feasible. Indeed, the Third State could be simply matter and energy as our perception tells us, although the possibility of a God affecting and controlling our perception is also a perfectly feasible interpretation of the Third State (And as such, as is a simulated reality). However, considering the parameters that have been created to surround us are those of logical understanding, and there have been no active, clear signs to represent an illogical nature within our perception, then the consideration of a God is questionable. Indeed, theists who devote their lives to a God, and consider him an important part of life itself, these beliefs exist while God has shown no clear sort of impact on life, and it is clear to see why the Atheistic belief system is quick to question such unfounded basis. While it is perfectly possible that a God did create this logical world we live in, and these parameters we live our life by, the transcendent God has shown no active sign of participation in our existence, for him to do so he would have to defy the very parameters he created, with no possible explanation ever being able to exist. As such, if God has shown no participation, even if his 'existence' is so, his relevance to our everyday lives is far from a necessity, and is one that should not be considered, if we are to live our lives by the parameters our perception has set out. In fact, considering the wars and many deaths that have been caused over conflicting beliefs, gods and devotion to transcendency within a world without transcendancy could be seen as a detriment to humanity, more than anything. As stated above, it is also possible that God is active in creating the image of the Second State, but as his involvement actually WITHIN it is non-existent, his consideration should be also. It should be added that his possibility is one that should also be considered by S.Atheists. S.Atheists are similar to Theists in that they make an assumption, and although their assumption is based on the findings within the Second State Parameters, they are nevertheless assumptions.
Existence - Cognition, Perception, Reality
Before we begin, I would first like to cover the nature of our existence, as we can know and understand it. Existence, as far as we are aware, exists in at least 3 different states. These states of existence can be considered to be:
1.The First, subjective State of Cognition. This is the centre of our consciousness, and where our individual thought processes, reasoning, intellect and memory congregate. It is also the state from which we interpret the Second State.
2.The Second, projective State of Perception. This is the appearance of, and how we view, the third state. The second state is merely a process of viewing the Third State, however, it shapes the existence as we know it, and the world around us is an interpretation of this Second State, as we must view reality through perception. Essentially, this is the World we live in.
3.The Third, objective State of Reality. This is the 'true' form of existence, which has been subject to no interpretation or perception by the consciousness, instead the reality in its true form. This form is generally unknowable in its true form, our mind simply gaining some form of understanding and perception from the Second State. The accuracy of the perception is, again, unknowable.
These three following States are ones which are going to be covered in great detail in the following chapters, and are therefore going to be integral to our unfolding interpretation of existence, so remembering them will be key throughout. Also, Atheism is a broad sense covering any belief with a 'lack of theism', including Agnostics, so at any point I am referring to those with a belief in the non-existence of God, I will be referring to these as S.Atheists (Strong Atheists)
Logic and Faith
Logic is considered to be integral, when deducing the existence of a deity, particularly to Atheists. Indeed, the continuous raging debate between Theists and Atheists, seems also to be an ongoing debate between faith and the logic of atheists, however, even in this term, the word logic may be used incorrectly. Indeed, when considering the Second State, the definition of Logic could be boiled down to 'that which is feasible within the parameters of our perception'. From this point of view, God is indeed illogical in his actions, this agreeing with both arguments of God. After all, should a God be omnipotent, should he also not be able to defy logic? Where S.Atheists believe these parameters our indeed the limit to existence, Theists deny this, claiming there to be a further, illogical, incomprehensible parameter to existence. Obviously for this even be consdiered, faith in its existence is needed, as there is no way to prove something illogical. This, is the main argument as to the existence of God, and as to the consideration of God in our lives. The following chapter is not one that will deal in the non-existence of God. As many of us know, God is neither provable nor disprovable, and therefore considering an argument involving such is futile. However, as opposed to an argument over the non-existence of a transcendant being, but instead, the irrelevance of such a being in our lives.
The Thunder Theory
The World we live in, the Second State, is one which is formed of logical parameters. Everything that happens within this corporeal existence is formed of certain parameters, that seem to follow a certain pattern, and with all things that happen to be within our comprehension. Indeed, there may be the appearance of certain acts of nature, or otherwise, that are difficult to understand and comprehend in our current state. However, in ancient times, the existence of thunder and lightning, and other then unexplainable parameters, were put down to the illogical idea of God, due to an explanation not surfacing. In our current society, the understanding of such acts of nature have been deduced and understood, and are no longer put down to the actions of gods. We can apply this idea to the unexplainable parameters in our current day, and expect that parameters that are currently unexplainable to be beyond our knowledge, and possibly one day explainable. Indeed, I myself know several people who have claimed to have experienced paranormal phenomena, even two at the same time claim to have seen a ghost. However, these suggestions are perfectly within the realms of possibility, with the discovery of different wavelengths of energy there could be an eventual explanation for such phenomena, natural or not.
The Irrelevance of God
So, if we are to consider that the Second State, our current subjective 'existence', is one of logic, then what place does God have in it? The truth is, the existence of God is perfectly feasible. Indeed, the Third State could be simply matter and energy as our perception tells us, although the possibility of a God affecting and controlling our perception is also a perfectly feasible interpretation of the Third State (And as such, as is a simulated reality). However, considering the parameters that have been created to surround us are those of logical understanding, and there have been no active, clear signs to represent an illogical nature within our perception, then the consideration of a God is questionable. Indeed, theists who devote their lives to a God, and consider him an important part of life itself, these beliefs exist while God has shown no clear sort of impact on life, and it is clear to see why the Atheistic belief system is quick to question such unfounded basis. While it is perfectly possible that a God did create this logical world we live in, and these parameters we live our life by, the transcendent God has shown no active sign of participation in our existence, for him to do so he would have to defy the very parameters he created, with no possible explanation ever being able to exist. As such, if God has shown no participation, even if his 'existence' is so, his relevance to our everyday lives is far from a necessity, and is one that should not be considered, if we are to live our lives by the parameters our perception has set out. In fact, considering the wars and many deaths that have been caused over conflicting beliefs, gods and devotion to transcendency within a world without transcendancy could be seen as a detriment to humanity, more than anything. As stated above, it is also possible that God is active in creating the image of the Second State, but as his involvement actually WITHIN it is non-existent, his consideration should be also. It should be added that his possibility is one that should also be considered by S.Atheists. S.Atheists are similar to Theists in that they make an assumption, and although their assumption is based on the findings within the Second State Parameters, they are nevertheless assumptions.
Tuesday, 24 March 2009
Laws and Emotions Part I: The Greed of Men
Ok here we go again guys. I apologise greatly to the few for having not posted in the past 1 month 1 week and 2 days, I really have no excuse other than I lost motivation to continue for a little while. Anyway I will continue with this from now on (at least until I lose will again), and will bring out The Fear Factor soon, since 5 weeks one post would be pretty bad. This one focuses on the effect Greed has on our capitalist societies, an obvious subject, but surprisingly difficult to write in words (As such, this may not be the best article ever)
Obligatory Notice: I do not mean in any way to offend anyone who has conflicting opinions or ideals, I am merely stating possible theories, which I may not necessarily believe in. I also greatly appreciate constructive criticisms and arguments against the points I make, however, I do not wish to have people slandering my opinions with comments/arguments that are unfounded (excluding religious arguments, although whether they are unfounded or not is debatable), and nonsensical (unless, course, your talking about illogicality, which is naturally nonsensical)
Let’s get started…
What is the basis of human society? What is the basis of the current state of human mind, the very core essence that has been created and moulded by its surroundings? The optimistic would suggest that it is love and peace, and yet war and conflict suggests otherwise. A stronger argument that is often suggested is that the basis of society is greed, that society is based on corruption, on capitalism and elitism of the few over the many. The material bases of society are the written laws, which we live and abide by. How and why are these laws formed? The obvious and logical truth is that laws are formed not from a ‘greater good’, or intelligent choices or ideas, but instead by the very basis of the mind. The emotions of the human being. In this article I wish to draw attention to the key argument, and the one most likely relevant to our current society: Greed.
The Greed of Men
Some background history of the emotion of Greed. Greed, as does not need pointing out, has long been considered a negative, disruptive and ultimately destructive emotion, breeding corruption, hatred and elitism, among others. By the Christian Church (and many others, I might add), greed has been considered a trecherous and heretical sin, and all who succumb to it are condemned to eternal hellfire and damnation.
The emotion greed is defined as:
A selfish or excessive desire for more than is needed or deserved, especially of money, wealth or power.
It should be pointed out that greed is the desire, and not the pursuit of said desire. However, the pursuit of greed is what is to be taken into account, when the formation of our capitalist society comes into play.
Motivation and Excess
Greed is seen as the excess of what one needs, but how does this excess come to be? Why do we feel the ‘need’ (I use the term lightly, of course) to by-pass our simplistic need, in order to achieve greater wants. Although motivation is generally seen as a good thing, this extreme, insatiable drive to achieve is what gives birth to such feelings of greed. However, this drive is often our motivation for living, and often encouraged, if only subconsciously, throughout the veins of society. However, the question arises as to whether this drive is innate, or adaptive.
In order for us to examine this excess, we must first return to the roots of the very human existence. Humans have instinctual urges built into their mental and physical system, created for our survival. The two key ones, as we all know, would be survival, and reproduction. We follow our instincts to survive, and as such have the ability to reproduce. Through this reproduction, more beings with the will to survive are created, who in turn repeat this cycle over and over. The will to survive is where I begin.
Living requires certain necesseties, certain requirements, to be fulfilled and maintained, in order to guarantee survival. The obvious components of this would be food, drink and warmth. Our survival requires us to maintain such needs, and as such, it would be natural for us to instinctually want to gain as much, if not an infinite, supply of such necessities. This is, in my belief, what has created our lust, our greed, our want. In our modern day society, certain new, developed aspects help to guarantee us such necessities. The most common of these, naturally, are what is listed in the definition of greed itself: Money, Wealth and Power.
The Effect in Capitalism
A captalist society, such as the one we live in currently, is based on the laws of gain or loss. As such, everybody wants to make a gain, and nobody wants to make a loss. Due to the integration, and dependence, of money, money has become the key object of the inhabitants within capitalist societies. Of course, power (which is also closely linked with money) is also an obvious pursuit fueled by ‘greed’, though to a much lesser extent in today’s society. The guarantee of life is an excess of money, and therefore many gain more money than ‘needed’, causing others to essentially suffer from no guarantee of survival. Whether intentionally or inadvertently, this shows that the capitalist society creates disregard for human life (par one’s own), which is directly linked to the emotion of greed.
Conclusion
In conclusion of this section, it can be shown that both innate and adaptive processes are used in forming greed, and therefore society. These are formed from the human mind’s insatiable lust for life’s necessities (innate), coupled with the learnt idea that the closest path to a guaranteed survival is through power and wealth (adaptive). If these two are indeed jointly used to create the atmosphere of greed, then greed may not be a sin, an ‘evil’. It could be considered merely a creation of the time, and the attitude of the environment we have created. However, greed is so integral to the functioning of the capitalist society that we both depend on it to uphold the society and its economy in productive form, while at the same time encouraging the condemnation of the majority of the population by the few.
Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed - Gandhi
Obligatory Notice: I do not mean in any way to offend anyone who has conflicting opinions or ideals, I am merely stating possible theories, which I may not necessarily believe in. I also greatly appreciate constructive criticisms and arguments against the points I make, however, I do not wish to have people slandering my opinions with comments/arguments that are unfounded (excluding religious arguments, although whether they are unfounded or not is debatable), and nonsensical (unless, course, your talking about illogicality, which is naturally nonsensical)
Let’s get started…
What is the basis of human society? What is the basis of the current state of human mind, the very core essence that has been created and moulded by its surroundings? The optimistic would suggest that it is love and peace, and yet war and conflict suggests otherwise. A stronger argument that is often suggested is that the basis of society is greed, that society is based on corruption, on capitalism and elitism of the few over the many. The material bases of society are the written laws, which we live and abide by. How and why are these laws formed? The obvious and logical truth is that laws are formed not from a ‘greater good’, or intelligent choices or ideas, but instead by the very basis of the mind. The emotions of the human being. In this article I wish to draw attention to the key argument, and the one most likely relevant to our current society: Greed.
The Greed of Men
Some background history of the emotion of Greed. Greed, as does not need pointing out, has long been considered a negative, disruptive and ultimately destructive emotion, breeding corruption, hatred and elitism, among others. By the Christian Church (and many others, I might add), greed has been considered a trecherous and heretical sin, and all who succumb to it are condemned to eternal hellfire and damnation.
The emotion greed is defined as:
A selfish or excessive desire for more than is needed or deserved, especially of money, wealth or power.
It should be pointed out that greed is the desire, and not the pursuit of said desire. However, the pursuit of greed is what is to be taken into account, when the formation of our capitalist society comes into play.
Motivation and Excess
Greed is seen as the excess of what one needs, but how does this excess come to be? Why do we feel the ‘need’ (I use the term lightly, of course) to by-pass our simplistic need, in order to achieve greater wants. Although motivation is generally seen as a good thing, this extreme, insatiable drive to achieve is what gives birth to such feelings of greed. However, this drive is often our motivation for living, and often encouraged, if only subconsciously, throughout the veins of society. However, the question arises as to whether this drive is innate, or adaptive.
In order for us to examine this excess, we must first return to the roots of the very human existence. Humans have instinctual urges built into their mental and physical system, created for our survival. The two key ones, as we all know, would be survival, and reproduction. We follow our instincts to survive, and as such have the ability to reproduce. Through this reproduction, more beings with the will to survive are created, who in turn repeat this cycle over and over. The will to survive is where I begin.
Living requires certain necesseties, certain requirements, to be fulfilled and maintained, in order to guarantee survival. The obvious components of this would be food, drink and warmth. Our survival requires us to maintain such needs, and as such, it would be natural for us to instinctually want to gain as much, if not an infinite, supply of such necessities. This is, in my belief, what has created our lust, our greed, our want. In our modern day society, certain new, developed aspects help to guarantee us such necessities. The most common of these, naturally, are what is listed in the definition of greed itself: Money, Wealth and Power.
The Effect in Capitalism
A captalist society, such as the one we live in currently, is based on the laws of gain or loss. As such, everybody wants to make a gain, and nobody wants to make a loss. Due to the integration, and dependence, of money, money has become the key object of the inhabitants within capitalist societies. Of course, power (which is also closely linked with money) is also an obvious pursuit fueled by ‘greed’, though to a much lesser extent in today’s society. The guarantee of life is an excess of money, and therefore many gain more money than ‘needed’, causing others to essentially suffer from no guarantee of survival. Whether intentionally or inadvertently, this shows that the capitalist society creates disregard for human life (par one’s own), which is directly linked to the emotion of greed.
Conclusion
In conclusion of this section, it can be shown that both innate and adaptive processes are used in forming greed, and therefore society. These are formed from the human mind’s insatiable lust for life’s necessities (innate), coupled with the learnt idea that the closest path to a guaranteed survival is through power and wealth (adaptive). If these two are indeed jointly used to create the atmosphere of greed, then greed may not be a sin, an ‘evil’. It could be considered merely a creation of the time, and the attitude of the environment we have created. However, greed is so integral to the functioning of the capitalist society that we both depend on it to uphold the society and its economy in productive form, while at the same time encouraging the condemnation of the majority of the population by the few.
Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed - Gandhi
Sunday, 15 February 2009
Society: The Laws and the Emotions
Today, I will start a new topic, hopefully not as in-depth and thorough as the Concept Problem 'series' (if you could call it that), but instead a few shorter, easier to understand blogs on the bases of our societies and cultures. As this set of blogs is unrelated to the Concept Problem, of course irt is understandable if black-and-white 'concepts' are utilised for the purpose of argument. After all, the Concpet Problem is simply a theory, as opposed to a righteous belief, of mine.
First, I pose you the question: What forms the foundations of our societies? Of course, our societies are created from the very laws and scoial norms that run and control the behaviour of the many, but what of these laws? Laws are created for the 'better' of our society, but it is never questioned as to why these particular laws, or norms, are the ones that we choose to live by. Are laws decided as a part of some 'greater good', are they simply decided on the whim of the few for the many, or is there a more underlying meaning?
Social norms have been around since the beginning of humankind, and are clearly present in other species as well. Laws are simply these norms written on paper, often for the well-being of the majority. The truth of these laws is that they are simply creations of our behaviour, or more basically, our emotions. However, what are the key emotions that govern society? There are many differing view on this, some say justice and peace, others say greed, among many ideas.
This is a question that I wish to ask you, before I begin investigating 'Laws and Emotions'. What are your beliefs on the laws of societies, and why do you think these emotions, or otherwise, have an impact on society? Please feel free to comment below with your ideas.
First, I pose you the question: What forms the foundations of our societies? Of course, our societies are created from the very laws and scoial norms that run and control the behaviour of the many, but what of these laws? Laws are created for the 'better' of our society, but it is never questioned as to why these particular laws, or norms, are the ones that we choose to live by. Are laws decided as a part of some 'greater good', are they simply decided on the whim of the few for the many, or is there a more underlying meaning?
Social norms have been around since the beginning of humankind, and are clearly present in other species as well. Laws are simply these norms written on paper, often for the well-being of the majority. The truth of these laws is that they are simply creations of our behaviour, or more basically, our emotions. However, what are the key emotions that govern society? There are many differing view on this, some say justice and peace, others say greed, among many ideas.
This is a question that I wish to ask you, before I begin investigating 'Laws and Emotions'. What are your beliefs on the laws of societies, and why do you think these emotions, or otherwise, have an impact on society? Please feel free to comment below with your ideas.
Saturday, 14 February 2009
Paradox: Belief vs Concept
Obligatory Notice: I do not mean in any way to offend anyone who has conflicting opinions or ideals, I am merely stating possible theories, which I may not necessarily believe in. I also greatly appreciate constructive criticisms and arguments against the points I make, however, I do not wish to have people slandering my opinions with comments/arguments that are unfounded (excluding religious arguments, although whether they are unfounded or not is debatable), and nonsensical (unless, course, your talking about illogicality, which is naturally nonsensical)
The Argument
This will, hopefully, be the final time I touch upon the concept problem. This post is a response to an extremely strong argument made against the concept problem during the introduction, by Alex Harman; it is an argument that I have been trying to answer for the past few weeks to no avail. This is a shortened version of his argument:
The concept problem suggests that concepts are indifferent, and therefore, essentially non-existent. However, consider this situation:
I believe that the colour I am looking at is blue. Even if at a later time I find that the colour I was looking at was indeed not blue, this does not dispute nor change the fact that I believed that the colour was blue. Surely through this logic, the fact that I believed the colour was blue must be the truth, and therefore truth, and concepts, must exist.
As you can see, this argument essentially uses belief to destroy the idea that concepts are indifferent, and therefore, non-existent. This, however, is not the case. From here on it may get a little complicated, so try and follow carefully.
Revision
First, let us revise the concept problem. The concept problem states (I quote):
'the very reason that (Right and Wrong) are subject is because they are concepts themselves, two opposing concepts that work in equilibrium and balance the world into a black-and-white perspective'
As you can see, the concept problem does not affect all concepts. In fact, the only concepts that are subject to the rule are opposing, black-and-white concepts, the integral ones that we use in everday society. Now, the source of the problem in the statement that we are trying to overcome is that the problem argument's very basis is the fact that one 'believes the colour is blue'. This is not an argument of whether the colour is blue or not, but instead, an argument that i believed in it, therefore the fact I believed must be true. Subsequently, can belief be considered a black-and-white concept?
Wait a minute...
For those of you who may have realised, belief CAN, in fact, be considered a black-and-white concept. This is due to the fact that there is belief, when one believes in something, and disbelief, when one does not belief in something. So, should this argument not apply? The case is not whether this argument should not apply, but that the argument undoubtedly can not apply. Let me explain.
The Logic Paradox
What are concepts? Concepts are ideas, are they not? That said, concepts are not just ideas. Concepts are ideas that are created by belief. Logically, they are ideas created by the mind, and ideas that we, ourselves, have belief in. And that is the key. We have to have belief in these black-and-white concepts in order for them to exist, it is mandatory for concepts themselves. The argument stated is, as stated before, an argument of whether the belief is the truth or not. For the concept problem to work, however, this belief within the argument has to be non-existent and indifferent. This, in turn, affects the original belief from which all concepts, including the very concept problem itself, originates (This is where it gets difficult...). Therefore, if the argument indeed made sense, it would defy the original belief, therefore destroying the very concept problem that created the argument in the first place (confusing, I know).
Conclusion and the Simple Version
In laymans terms, the argument created by belief is subsequently destroyed by the resulting absence of belief. This, in turn creates a paradox. By applying belief to the formula and disproving it, you destroy the formula (the Concept Problem) itself, therefore rendering the original argument non-existent. In short, it makes no sense.
To me, this is extraordinary. Not only have I found a logical paradox with the help of Alex, but this has also been able to show that my entire argument of the concept problem, starts from, relies on the prescence and existence of belief.
I would like to thank Alex for sending it such a fantastic argument, it has been a real tricky one to dissect and overcome. If any of you believe you have a response or criticism that you can make to my blogs please post (or join and post if you haven't already) your responses in the respective comments section. After all, this blog is designed for intelligent arguments such as these, and trust me, it is a lot of fun once you get into it.
The Argument
This will, hopefully, be the final time I touch upon the concept problem. This post is a response to an extremely strong argument made against the concept problem during the introduction, by Alex Harman; it is an argument that I have been trying to answer for the past few weeks to no avail. This is a shortened version of his argument:
The concept problem suggests that concepts are indifferent, and therefore, essentially non-existent. However, consider this situation:
I believe that the colour I am looking at is blue. Even if at a later time I find that the colour I was looking at was indeed not blue, this does not dispute nor change the fact that I believed that the colour was blue. Surely through this logic, the fact that I believed the colour was blue must be the truth, and therefore truth, and concepts, must exist.
As you can see, this argument essentially uses belief to destroy the idea that concepts are indifferent, and therefore, non-existent. This, however, is not the case. From here on it may get a little complicated, so try and follow carefully.
Revision
First, let us revise the concept problem. The concept problem states (I quote):
'the very reason that (Right and Wrong) are subject is because they are concepts themselves, two opposing concepts that work in equilibrium and balance the world into a black-and-white perspective'
As you can see, the concept problem does not affect all concepts. In fact, the only concepts that are subject to the rule are opposing, black-and-white concepts, the integral ones that we use in everday society. Now, the source of the problem in the statement that we are trying to overcome is that the problem argument's very basis is the fact that one 'believes the colour is blue'. This is not an argument of whether the colour is blue or not, but instead, an argument that i believed in it, therefore the fact I believed must be true. Subsequently, can belief be considered a black-and-white concept?
Wait a minute...
For those of you who may have realised, belief CAN, in fact, be considered a black-and-white concept. This is due to the fact that there is belief, when one believes in something, and disbelief, when one does not belief in something. So, should this argument not apply? The case is not whether this argument should not apply, but that the argument undoubtedly can not apply. Let me explain.
The Logic Paradox
What are concepts? Concepts are ideas, are they not? That said, concepts are not just ideas. Concepts are ideas that are created by belief. Logically, they are ideas created by the mind, and ideas that we, ourselves, have belief in. And that is the key. We have to have belief in these black-and-white concepts in order for them to exist, it is mandatory for concepts themselves. The argument stated is, as stated before, an argument of whether the belief is the truth or not. For the concept problem to work, however, this belief within the argument has to be non-existent and indifferent. This, in turn, affects the original belief from which all concepts, including the very concept problem itself, originates (This is where it gets difficult...). Therefore, if the argument indeed made sense, it would defy the original belief, therefore destroying the very concept problem that created the argument in the first place (confusing, I know).
Conclusion and the Simple Version
In laymans terms, the argument created by belief is subsequently destroyed by the resulting absence of belief. This, in turn creates a paradox. By applying belief to the formula and disproving it, you destroy the formula (the Concept Problem) itself, therefore rendering the original argument non-existent. In short, it makes no sense.
To me, this is extraordinary. Not only have I found a logical paradox with the help of Alex, but this has also been able to show that my entire argument of the concept problem, starts from, relies on the prescence and existence of belief.
I would like to thank Alex for sending it such a fantastic argument, it has been a real tricky one to dissect and overcome. If any of you believe you have a response or criticism that you can make to my blogs please post (or join and post if you haven't already) your responses in the respective comments section. After all, this blog is designed for intelligent arguments such as these, and trust me, it is a lot of fun once you get into it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)