reply to post by Aphorism
Actually, and factually, I never implied anything of the sort. I said it isn't out there. I would argue that it is you making an unnecessary
distinction between one truth and another.
You're describing two different kinds of truth. I never made the distinction: you did.
As for what else you've said, I sense you're letting logic lead you to absurd conclusions about reality.
Yes I do agree we make certain value judgements. However I would inverse your ideas just to see what falls out. I wouldn’t call them “truths of
value”, but more values of truth. “Truth” is an entirely honorific term we apply to certain propositions.
Were completely talking past each other.
In any case, does it in any way bother you that these sort of ideas - which ignore the value laden nature of reality and human relations - lead to
fractious and disordered realities? Or does your desire to think and think and think, until all concept of value is broken down, take precedence to
what is mutually beneficial to the largest number of people?
In my opinion, thinking entails responsibility. We should define the values we want to inculcate in ourselves - and therefore in society - so that the
world can be made a better place, with less stress, with less suffering, with more happiness, and more meaningful relationships.
From what I understand so far, you're thinking is essentially very self focused and unconcerned about the consequences of your thinking. And if there
occur unseemly consequences, you negate their importance and reality by more thinking
The “Human emotionality is basis of our being”. I hope I'm not too impolite in saying it is the most vacuous statement I've ever heard
See? Thanks for proving my point. That - that! is the most vacuous statement you've ever heard? Really!? Of all the crazy nonsense you've ever been
exposed to in your life, the idea that emotion, feeling - and thus value - underlies our cognitive processes, THAT, seems to be the most vacuous thing
you've ever heard?
That energy which compelled you to believe that, and then write that: i'd like to say thank you to it for proving my point, that emotion slings
around our thinking like a puppet.
Cognitions, via a process called mentalization, can learn to regulate how emotions function and manifest. But we cannot take absolute control of
emotion. Even at it's most quiet, it heuristically biases our judgements toward views that correlate with our most comforting perspective. The one
that essentially correlates with the temperament we've cultivated in life.
I wouldn't be surprised if any view which puts the needs and views of the Self above that of the collective to be one undergirded by a preverbal
history of relational trauma. Traumatology - a field which includes clinical and research psychology - has much to say about this. Early difficulties
in primary relationships i.e. with the mother, establish models of being and seeing the world that correspond with those early life patterns of being
and relating with the primary caregiver. It is a remarkably powerful force. For example, adult attachment interviews predict results in strange
situations studies at a rate of 75% - obviously indicating that the emotional-cognitive patterns of the parent become imprinted on the functioning of
the child in the process of relating.
If someone—no worse—if a society needs such a rule to adhere to, then I would argue that that little platitude isn’t going to help. In fact, if
it has been "evinced" for thousands of years and in every culture and religion already, I could just as easily say the current state of affairs is a
direct result of the golden rule, and enough evidence to plead a case against it.
That's just a bunch of specious nonsense. The problems with society are not the result of the golden rule, come on! As if promotion of a certain type
of behavior - A GOOD code of behavior - would be the cause
of the problems in this world, as opposed to, say, the lack of openness that exists
between individuals i.e. a lack of awareness, and attention, to the inner worlds that conceal the various feelings that we all experience in our day
to day life.
Rianne Eisler, for example, makes a good point that the problems that exist in society are largely the product of an androcentric way of seeing
things. It's a plausible theory, since, humanity is made up of 2 sexes, and the 2 sexes feel and experience the world in dimorphic ways; the female
sex is more sensitive and cooperative (an effect of estrogen) whereas the male sex is more aggressive and competitive (an effect of testosterone).
Perhaps if we mindfully choose to foster and develop empathy in our youth (already happening with programs like MindUP and The Roots of Empathy in
various schools systems worldwide) - the felt sense - the idea of the golden rule will not merely be something that is intuitively recognized but
seldom adhered to in action - but a verity of human social relations. Whether it emerges after an experience or before is irrelevant. The fact is
people come to the same conclusion at a well above chance rate. If it cannot be called a truth, as an absolute fact of logic, it is treated
a truth; and since it's treated as a truth by so many people, the world over, it's a truth that derives it's trueness from being a commonly
Neuroscience should stick to biology.
And philosophy should recognize that all of it's philosophizing is based on events in the brain - a brain that has been shaped and honed by
evolutionary processes, leading from reptiles, to mammals, and then primates: our brain evidences these grades in its neural architecture. It's
therefore highly plausible that the brains structure is triune, as animals developed, the brain got "larger" to accommodate more complex ways of
being and relating (the move from reptiles to mammals, which involved more complex socializing, which is evident in limbic structures, and then
mammals to primates, which have more developed frontal and temporal areas).
Two completely opposed methods of thought, in the end, reconcile at the same conclusion
So does that mean you agree that the golden rule deserves to promoted?