• Agustino
    10.1k
    "I have intrusive thoughts" implies necessarily, through the use of "I have", that the thoughts are yours.Metaphysician Undercover
    Yeah, they are mine by virtue of occuring in my mind, just as my perception of a tree is mine by virtue of the fact that the tree is in my visual field. They are not mine in the sense that I have freely chosen to have them. Because I have not freely chosen to have them, I cannot be morally responsible for them.

    This is nonsense, and contradictory. "I have intrusive thoughts" implies necessarily, through the use of "I have", that the thoughts are yours. To go on and claim that they are not yours is contradictoryMetaphysician Undercover
    The argument here is a sophism. They are mine in one sense, and not mine in another. It is your failure to make the necessary distinctions there.

    Trying to disassociate yourself from your irrational or immoral thoughts, as if the thoughts were not yours, does not absolve you from responsibility for these thoughts.Metaphysician Undercover
    This is very wrong. How can you be responsible for things that are not within your control?! Am I responsible for the thunderbolt outside?

    And you are aware that relatively many people suffer of intrusive thoughts and associated disorders (like anxiety, OCD, etc.). Do you reckon that these people are morally responsible for their thoughts? That is almost a grotesque thing to say, that can bring a lot of suffering to such a person. Typically people who suffer of those thoughts do not want to have them, and are ashamed of them - they usually feel guilty about having such thoughts anyways, and part of the process of therapy in their cases is to understand that having those thoughts or not isn't within their control, they are under no compulsion to act on them, and they are just thoughts which happen to them - it doesn't mean they are immoral or sinful.

    No, it is quite clearly something you are doing, you are thinking.Metaphysician Undercover
    Nope, because I don't want to think, it just happens by itself.

    Even sensing is not something which happens to me, it is something that I do. You are very clearly taking an unrealistic approach here, with an extremely unrealistic description.Metaphysician Undercover
    How is sensing something you do? Can you stop your ears from hearing?
  • TimeLine
    2.2k
    u suggest that one could proceed on the basis of examining possibilities. This would be like trial and error. However, in trial and error by the conscious mind, there must be a clearly defined "success", such that we would know when the trial has success. In this case, we'd examine all sorts of possibilities with no way of knowing which is the correct one. Furthermore, it is likely that each of the possibilities contributes its own bit toward compounding the problem. So it appears to me, like there are no parameters for judging "success", in determining which of the possibilities is the correct one. Then there is no way of knowing whether any such understanding of the subconscious by the conscious is a correct one.Metaphysician Undercover

    No, I completely agree but what I am attempting to convey is that the process itself, of being able to articulate and examine their past and memories, to be able to understand causal connections particularly that of biological - including health and sleep - as well as genetic, of attempting to analyse and ascertain the authenticity of their perceptions, all this is the process that leads one toward the successful and indeed permanent alleviation of such anxiety.

    This is because we begin to understand ourselves as an autonomous agent with better clarity and we begin to mature the existential properties that reduce ambiguous mental states, enabling us to exercise better control of our lives. The concept of "being born again" - removing any Christian connotations to this - is really just the ability to start all over again, to overcome the given way to interpret our perceptions and experiences with the external world according to our parents and friends and begin interpreting that independently or autonomously and that often means a complete transformation in their environment and the people that they associate with. A healthy psychology is a person who has achieved that kind of balance, that peace which leads one to happiness.

    You can never directly know, but the process maximises our agency, the ability to feel, our moral well-being and virtuous conduct, and so we become distinct and our actions intentional and authentic. This is what 'wisdom' is, which is basically knowledge of our experience.
  • TimeLine
    2.2k
    I think that the importance of true love is often underestimated.Metaphysician Undercover

    Praise science! I just love this subject...

    Love is the foundation, in my opinion, the very core of who we are and this is clear in children who have caregivers that fail to provide adequate love or care that such neglect often has a massive impact right into adulthood, including anxiety and attachment issues. Our experience of love alleviates this feeling (hence why if you are in a relationship and feel anxiety, you do not love your partner) and for me that is proof that love is the source of all that makes us human; empathy, care, charity, it is moral consciousness.

    When we are young, our perceptions have the solidity of something definite until we become aware of ourselves, at which point we lose this solidity and thus the source of our anxiety becomes this inability to acknowledge an indefinite existence, the fact that we are separate and alone. We don't like feeling helpless and so in our desperation we reach out, to a partner or friends or anything in the external world that we can attach ourselves to, conform and finally 'unite' to return back to that same solidity and definite feeling we had when young. But this solution, this union is all wrong, we trick ourselves and falsely fill that void. It is why what is commonly done to explain existence by the masses does not produce anxiety in us when we follow; anxiety is proof that we have a problem following, but we have not yet 'let go' - it is the unity between automatons that gives meaning through common approval.

    People incorrectly believe in this idea that they have "fallen in love" when it is really initiated by the same conformism where sexual consummation is really an attempt to overcome the preceding loneliness. Such love fails so often in our society because we do not see the application of love to be rational but rather 'spontaneous' and so we do not correctly examine that we need to learn how to give it. We study courses or subjects over a number of years to gain a basic understanding of a subject, before proceeding further for another number of years working in the field to gain experience. Why is it that we neglect the study and practice of love? And it is not to one person, but to learn how to give it to all people, it is to basically be a friend.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    3.4k
    They are mine in one sense, and not mine in another. It is your failure to make the necessary distinctions there.Agustino

    As I said, I find your position here to be contradictory nonsense. You claim some of your thoughts are "in one sense mine", and in another sense "not mine", and you accuse me of failing to make a distinction. It's very clear that you are the one failing to make the distinction of what is yours and what is not yours, falling back onto contradiction, as if you can justify this failure with contradiction.

    And you know full well that you are responsible for your own immoral thoughts, as is evident from "covet", "lust", and "adultery in the heart". So you cannot absolve yourself from responsibility by claiming that I haven't freely chosen my thoughts, therefore they are not mine.

    This is very wrong. How can you be responsible for things that are not within your control?Agustino

    When you lose control of yourself in a fit of passion, you are responsible for your actions. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. You may find some legal defence if you have a diagnosable illness, but that's for the doctors to decide. In any case, if the doctors decide that you have an illness, then your thoughts are the thoughts of an ill person, therefore they are still your thoughts. Your insistence that your thoughts are in some sense not yours, is nonsense. In no sense are your thoughts not yours, that's nonsense. You're barking up the wrong tree here.
  • Agustino
    10.1k
    As I said, I find your position here to be contradictory nonsense. You claim some of your thoughts are "in one sense mine", and in another sense "not mine", and you accuse me of failing to make a distinction. It's very clear that you are the one failing to make the distinction of what is yours and what is not yours, falling back onto contradiction, as if you can justify this failure with contradiction.Metaphysician Undercover
    Actually, I'm not going to let you go on this one. What is this below?
    Yeah, they are mine by virtue of occuring in my mind, just as my perception of a tree is mine by virtue of the fact that the tree is in my visual field. They are not mine in the sense that I have freely chosen to have them. Because I have not freely chosen to have them, I cannot be morally responsible for them.Agustino
    Is that not a distinction? Next time, you should put your glasses on, and perhaps read what is being said to you multiple times.

    And you know full well that you are responsible for your own immoral thoughts, as is evident from "covet", "lust", and "adultery in the heart".Metaphysician Undercover
    Nope. Again, failing to make the required distinction. Things like "adultery in the heart" involves giving attention to thoughts of having sex with a woman other than your wife - ruminating on them. If the thought just comes into your mind, and you don't give it attention, then you haven't committed that sin. It's giving attention that you control, not always having thoughts.

    When you lose control of yourself in a fit of passion, you are responsible for your actions.Metaphysician Undercover
    Sure, but why are you still responsible? Because you could have controlled yourself, through your reason, and failed to do so. Remember, regardless of what impressions you have (such as rage), you must still assent to them in order to take action based on them. That's why you are responsible.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    3.4k
    No, I completely agree but what I am attempting to convey is that the process itself, of being able to articulate and examine their past and memories, to be able to understand causal connections particularly that of biological - including health and sleep - as well as genetic, of attempting to analyse and ascertain the authenticity of their perceptions, all this is the process that leads one toward the successful and indeed permanent alleviation of such anxiety.TimeLine

    OK, so this would be a process of understanding one's own conscious mind, self-reflection. Further, you seem to articulate that one can understand a relationship between one's biological health, and the health of one's conscious mind. Furthermore, an individual can ascertain that the health of one's conscious mind is dependent on a healthy biology.

    This is because we begin to understand ourselves as an autonomous agent with better clarity and we begin to mature the existential properties that reduce ambiguous mental states, enabling us to exercise better control of our lives. The concept of "being born again" - removing any Christian connotations to this - is really just the ability to start all over again, to overcome the given way to interpret our perceptions and experiences with the external world according to our parents and friends and begin interpreting that independently or autonomously and that often means a complete transformation in their environment and the people that they associate with. A healthy psychology is a person who has achieved that kind of balance, that peace which leads one to happiness.TimeLine

    This is a little more difficult for me to understand. I assume you are suggesting a situation where a person has had problems with the conscious mind, that it has not been completely healthy. You suggest that a "start all over again" is required. What does this mean in relation to the biological condition? The conscious mind forms and evolves through childhood, as we develop. It is in the middle between the environment and the subconscious which is the underlying biological condition. It is shaped by these two features. Are you suggesting that we can go back, "born again", and reshape the conscious mind?

    If so, consider this. The subject may be able to release the present conscious condition to a certain extent. Also, appropriate environmental conditions may be provided for that person. And this may be conducive to some success. But the serious issue is the condition of the subconscious, which is a property of the underlying biological features. The principle which I discussed in my last post, is that in the early stages of conscious development, infancy, the subconscious, the biological features themselves, must be conditioned to properly accept the conscious mind. Assuming that we can't really understand how the subconscious is molded to properly accept the conscious, how could we properly deal with the subconscious in this rebirth process?

    Love is the foundation, in my opinion, the very core of who we are and this is clear in children who have caregivers that fail to provide adequate love or care that such neglect often has a massive impact right into adulthood, including anxiety and attachment issues. Our experience of love alleviates this feeling (hence why if you are in a relationship and feel anxiety, you do not love your partner) and for me that is proof that love is the source of all that makes us human; empathy, care, charity, it is moral consciousness.TimeLine

    My proposal was that love is the means by which the subconscious, the biological is conditioned to better accept the conscious in the very early stages of conscious development. If this is the case, then we ought to ask how is it that love can affect one's biological features? This may be very simple, such as through eating right and sleeping right, but there may be other factors which reach much deeper. Consider the adult who needs the rebirth which you refer to. That person needs a reconditioning of the subconscious, the biological features which provide for consistency between the subconscious and the conscious. What are all the benefits which love can give?

    When we are young, our perceptions have the solidity of something definite until we become aware of ourselves, at which point we lose this solidity and thus the source of our anxiety becomes this inability to acknowledge an indefinite existence, the fact that we are separate and alone. We don't like feeling helpless and so in our desperation we reach out, to a partner or friends or anything in the external world that we can attach ourselves to, conform and finally 'unite' to return back to that same solidity and definite feeling we had when young. But this solution, this union is all wrong, we trick ourselves and falsely fill that void. It is why what is commonly done to explain existence by the masses does not produce anxiety in us when we follow; anxiety is proof that we have a problem following, but we have not yet 'let go' - it is the unity between automatons that gives meaning through common approval.TimeLine

    The unity which you refer to here is "all wrong" because it is not the unity of true love. It is a unity of purpose. This person wants to be close to this other person for some purpose, and so on, just like "networking" except that the purpose is often not revealed, disguised as "friendship", or even "love". When the ulterior motive is revealed there is the inevitable disappointment, the feeling of deception. We can't go on living like this, where the appearance of love is just an illusion, a veil covering the ulterior motive.

    People incorrectly believe in this idea that they have "fallen in love" when it is really initiated by the same conformism where sexual consummation is really an attempt to overcome the preceding loneliness. Such love fails so often in our society because we do not see the application of love to be rational but rather 'spontaneous' and so we do not correctly examine that we need to learn how to give it. We study courses or subjects over a number of years to gain a basic understanding of a subject, before proceeding further for another number of years working in the field to gain experience. Why is it that we neglect the study and practice of love? And it is not to one person, but to learn how to give it to all people, it is to basically be a friend.TimeLine

    That's right, love is not taught. I am not religious, but I believe that Christians used to teach love. I don't know if they still do though, because I've never been to Sunday School.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    3.4k
    Is that not a distinction?Agustino

    No, it's an illusion of distinction. That I freely choose to have something in no way provides any real means for classifying whether that thing is mine or not. That assumption is ridiculous.

    You accept that the thoughts are yours, but you create this illusion, that because "I have not freely chosen to have them", they are in some sense not mine. But "freely choosing to have them" provides no real means for classifying whether a thing is mine or not. So your argument is absurdity.
  • Agustino
    10.1k
    No, it's an illusion of distinction. That I freely choose to have something in no way provides any real means for classifying whether that thing is mine or not. That assumption is ridiculous.Metaphysician Undercover
    You are such a sophist, you should get a prize for it, you know? It will be called Master Cum Laude of the Science of Eristic. (For the mods, don't think anything dirty, it's Latin).

    So thinking is an activity (your words, not mine). If I do an activity without my consent - if that activity is forced on me, in other words - am I responsible for it? If a criminal takes my thumb by force and puts my fingerprint on the lock to the bank's safe, am I morally responsible for opening it for him? :s One cannot be morally responsible for things that lie outside of one's choice. Freedom of choice is a precondition for moral responsibility. So clearly, if an action is not freely chosen, it is not mine, in a very important sense of the term.

    But "freely choosing to have them" provides no real means for classifying whether a thing is mine or not.Metaphysician Undercover
    Yes it does - you have moral responsibility for the actions that you have freely chosen. So the fact that you do freely choose them is what makes them yours in the moral sense.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    3.4k
    You are such a sophist, you should get a prize for it, you know? It will be called Master Cum Laude of the Science of Eristic. (For the mods, don't think anything dirty, it's Latin).Agustino

    Thanks, I appreciate the respect.

    So thinking is an activity (your words, not mine). If I do an activity without my consent - if that activity is forced on me, in other words - am I responsible for it? If a criminal takes my thumb by force and puts my fingerprint on the lock to the bank's safe, am I morally responsible for opening it for him? :s One cannot be morally responsible for things that lie outside of one's choice. Freedom of choice is a precondition for moral responsibility. So clearly, if an action is not freely chosen, it is not mine, in a very important sense of the term.Agustino

    You've now resorted to standard determinism. If you believe in determinism, and think that you are not responsible for your acts because of determinism then so be it. That is your belief.

    Yes it does - you have moral responsibility for the actions that you have freely chosen. So the fact that you do freely choose them is what makes them yours in the moral sense.Agustino

    No, even if you are for some reason not morally responsible for your actions, the actions are still in all respects, yours. Being absolved from moral responsibility does not in any way make your actions not yours. You're arguing absurdity.
  • Agustino
    10.1k
    You've now resorted to standard determinism. If you believe in determinism, and think that you are not responsible for your acts because of determinism then so be it. That is your belief.Metaphysician Undercover
    Can you explain how the position I've outlined is determinism? Also please clarify what you mean by determinism.

    No, even if you are for some reason not morally responsible for your actions, the actions are still in all respects, yours. Being absolved from moral responsibility does not in any way make your actions not yours. You're arguing absurdity.Metaphysician Undercover
    This makes no sense. The claim is that I'm not responsible for some actions because they are not mine in the moral sense of the term, so I cannot have moral responsibility for them, since I didn't choose them. Sure, my finger may have pressed the button, but it was forced by the criminal to do that - I never consented to it. So the action is "mine" if by that you mean that it is performed through my finger, but it is not mine in terms of its moral relevance - it belongs to whoever forced me in that case.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    3.4k

    You continue with your faulty logic. You argue "if an action is not freely chosen, it is not mine, in a very important sense of the term". But you have no premise to support this conditional, it's based in an absurdity. You conclude that because I am not morally responsible for the actions therefore the actions are not mine.

    You need a further premise to support your conclusion, and you cannot state that premise without contradiction. "A person's actions are not that person's actions if one is not morally responsible".
    You've acknowledged the contradiction already.

    Unless you can clear up this contradiction, you have no argument. How do you propose to separate the actions from the person, to support your claim that the actions are not the person's actions? Clearly, it doesn't suffice to say that we can separate the actions from the person on a basis of moral responsibility, because dogs, cats and other animals all have actions without moral responsibility. It is completely absurd to say that a cat's actions are "in a very important sense" not the cat's actions, because the cat is not morally responsible. Your argument is based in this absurdity, that a lack of moral responsibility provides a principle whereby we can separate the actions of an object from the object, allowing for the contradictory notion that the actions of the object are not the actions of the object.

    I'll afford you some advice. Actions are attributed to things acting. If you can attribute your actions to something else, then you have a principle whereby you might say that the actions are not yours they are the actions of that other thing. Some for instance, have been known to insist that I am the conduit for God, God is thinking through my mind. Such an argument is commonly dismissed as lunacy though. But if you can explain what it is that your thoughts (as actions) are attributed to, other than yourself, then you provide the basis for your claim that your thoughts are in that sense, not yours.

    Sure, my finger may have pressed the button, but it was forced by the criminal to do that - I never consented to it. So the action is "mine" if by that you mean that it is performed through my finger, but it is not mine in terms of its moral relevance - it belongs to whoever forced me in that case.Agustino

    Again, this is all wrong. The action of pushing the button belongs to you. The action of forcing you to push the button belongs to the other. Even if responsibility for pushing the button is transferred to the other, this in no way indicates that the action itself is the other's. "Responsibility for", and "the action" refer to two distinct things.
  • Rich
    3.1k
    The action of pushing the button belongs to youMetaphysician Undercover

    If a person is resisting, which means the person's will is moving in a direction away from the button, then this would not be that person's action. The law recognizes intent. What is key is the direction of the intent, and whose force is being applied in that direction. Law, in this regard, understands the nature of human will applied in a specific direction. There is a mind and it is applying force. Outcomes are always uncertain.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    3.4k

    Right, the law recognizes intent. But there is nothing to indicate that when a person acts under duress the act is not the person's act. That is contradictory, to say that the person's action is not the person's action, but it is what Agustino claims.
  • Rich
    3.1k
    nothing to indicate that when a person acts under duress the act is not the person's act.Metaphysician Undercover

    There can be over signs. Certainly the people involve will know who is forcing the act. Admittedly, sometimes motive and actions are unclear to anyone including participants.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    3.4k

    It's not a question of who is forcing the act, it's a matter of who is acting, who's act it is. That's why motive and intention are irrelevant. Aqustino is trying to create the illusion that if an individual is not morally responsible for one's own actions, then those actions are not the individual's actions.
  • TimeLine
    2.2k
    The unity which you refer to here is "all wrong" because it is not the unity of true love. It is a unity of purpose. This person wants to be close to this other person for some purpose, and so on, just like "networking" except that the purpose is often not revealed, disguised as "friendship", or even "love". When the ulterior motive is revealed there is the inevitable disappointment, the feeling of deception. We can't go on living like this, where the appearance of love is just an illusion, a veil covering the ulterior motive.Metaphysician Undercover

    Love is a part of our rational faculty and there are conditions that are necessary before it can transcend to a level of authenticity to be rendered as 'true love' where two people embody all the forms of love through one another. Almost everyone believes that love is spontaneous and that if it were to be rationally applied it must therefore be in contravention of this 'real' but that is just an imagined or delusional way we fool ourselves into forming bonds with people to escape from our loneliness. The 'real' here is that the emotional bond or attachment we have and so conversely when people attach for economic or sexual reasons they actually lack 'love' and when you focus on this latter example, it is lacking in humanity or what makes us human. There is no 'love' in a trophy wife or girlfriend, there is no 'love' for a man who works and brings home the money. The question is how can we form this bond rationally and with authenticity?

    When I say "start all over again" or "be born again" it is finding the capacity (and the courage) to understand the network of our relationships from social or environmental, genetic or biological, epistemic or instinctual that forms our perceptual interpretations and this is achieved through rational thinking. We begin to choose for ourselves and this autonomy enables us to remove toxic people from our lives despite having emotional attachments to them, it makes us choose people to associate with that are worthy and that you feel good when you are around. We are endowed with the capacity to objectively become conscious of our own existence or to become self-aware and this self-awareness is in part achieved by our relationship with the external world. We begin to use our rational faculty rather than blindly conform to or follow those in our environment.

    What makes us human or gives us humanity is our moral substance, this empathy or ability to care for others, so it is about giving love and not specifically to an object but the rational application of being empathetic, caring, desirous to see the negative improve. Love is moral consciousness and this is impossible if one blindly follows the herd, thus being an autonomous agent in order to be rationally self-aware is a pre-condition to this moral consciousness. One cannot love unless they are an autonomous agent and when we authentically and consciously understand how to give love, it reshapes our perceptions of the external world. Which means, we begin to see the world differently that we are no longer what we once were; transcendence from blind conformism.

    While there is no exclusive capacity to undertake introspection without there being some limitations since any examination of our mental states are riddled with perceptual inaccuracies, I think that externalism is probably a better way of looking at introspection since the language that enables us to interpret the content in our minds is in part determined by our social environment. The epistemic possibilities thus enables a transmission of information that strengthens a better understanding of our own thought processes.

    True love is two autonomous agents who recognise and improve one another by sharing this examination and analysing these perceptual inaccuracies; they form a bond because they are for and respect what is good and right and this bond is an eternal friendship. This love is forever because when two autonomous agents 'connect' they connect rationally and it is rational to accept the entropy of our existence and that nothing is forever. I could meet a man who is also this autonomous agent and we could love one another, share in sexual experiences, even marry, but these experiences will change and eventually end, but the friendship wont (the love itself).
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    3.4k
    Love is a part of our rational faculty and there are conditions that are necessary before it can transcend to a level of authenticity to be rendered as 'true love' where two people embody all the forms of love through one another. Almost everyone believes that love is spontaneous and that if it were to be rationally applied it must therefore be in contravention of this 'real' but that is just an imagined or delusional way we fool ourselves into forming bonds with people to escape from our loneliness. The 'real' here is that the emotional bond or attachment we have and so conversely when people attach for economic or sexual reasons they actually lack 'love' and when you focus on this latter example, it is lacking in humanity or what makes us human. There is no 'love' in a trophy wife or girlfriend, there is no 'love' for a man who works and brings home the money. The question is how can we form this bond rationally and with authenticity?TimeLine

    I'm inclined to disagree. I don't see how love could be part of the rational faculty. Conventional wisdom tells us love is of the heart, not of the mind. To me, love is an affection which inspires an attitude of giving toward others. In order that it is true love, this goodwill towards another cannot be motivated by any expectation of receiving anything in return. The motivation for the acts of love is the affection, the love itself. So the reason for the occurrence of loving acts is the love itself, but there cannot be a reason for the love because this would imply that the love was motivated by something else. The love cannot be motivated by something else because it would not be true love to expect that the love would bring something in return.

    Where I look to find the exemplar of true love is in the love which a parent has for a child. Does a mother love her baby because she thinks that it's rational to do this? One might argue that the mother rationally apprehends that the baby needs love, and is therefore driven by her rational mind to love the baby, but I don't think that this is the case. I think that the mother is driven by the affection itself, the feeling of love, not by the rational faculty telling her that the baby needs love.

    So here's the question to ask concerning the relationship between love and the emotional bond. Is it really the case that love causes bonds between us, or do the bonds between us pre-exist causing love within us. If it's not the rational faculty which motivates us to love, then there must be some sort of pre-existing bond which is the cause of love. We can't truthfully say that love causes the bond because then there would be no motivation to love in the first place. So the bond must pre-exist in some manner, as the cause of love.

    We begin to choose for ourselves and this autonomy enables us to remove toxic people from our lives despite having emotional attachments to them, it makes us choose people to associate with that are worthy and that you feel good when you are around.TimeLine

    I would say that this is where rationality comes into play. if the bonds which we have toward others pre-exist the love which we have for others, then we would be naturally inclined toward loving every other person as having some type of bond with those people. But the rational mind tells us that this is not good, it tells us that we ought to be discerning in deciding who is worthy of our love.

    What makes us human or gives us humanity is our moral substance, this empathy or ability to care for others, so it is about giving love and not specifically to an object but the rational application of being empathetic, caring, desirous to see the negative improve. Love is moral consciousness and this is impossible if one blindly follows the herd, thus being an autonomous agent in order to be rationally self-aware is a pre-condition to this moral consciousness. One cannot love unless they are an autonomous agent and when we authentically and consciously understand how to give love, it reshapes our perceptions of the external world. Which means, we begin to see the world differently that we are no longer what we once were; transcendence from blind conformism.TimeLine

    I would agree that we are autonomous agents, but at some deep internal level, we are already bound to others, and this bond causes use to feel love for others. So we are free, but our freedom is bounded, restricted by love. The need to love is as deep as the freedom itself and it limits our freedom. So the empathy we have toward others, the need to care for others, the love we have for them, is restricting the freedom of the autonomous agent. The conscious, rational, mind is caught in the middle, trying to make sense of all this, trying to strike a balance between the free autonomous agent, and the need to love and care for others.

    True love is two autonomous agents who recognise and improve one another by sharing this examination and analysing these perceptual inaccuracies; they form a bond because they are for and respect what is good and right and this bond is an eternal friendship. This love is forever because when two autonomous agents 'connect' they connect rationally and it is rational to accept the entropy of our existence and that nothing is forever. I could meet a man who is also this autonomous agent and we could love one another, share in sexual experiences, even marry, but these experiences will change and eventually end, but the friendship wont (the love itself).TimeLine

    So I would not describe "true love" as a relationship between two individuals. I would describe it as the affection which one individual has toward others. How that person restricts one's loving actions toward others is a function of that person's rational, conscious mind. Each of us must make conscious choices about how we will restrict the love and care which we have for others, using conscious effort to break those bonds that are deep within us, which cause us to love, but also restrict us as autonomous agents.
  • TimeLine
    2.2k
    The love cannot be motivated by something else because it would not be true love to expect that the love would bring something in return.Metaphysician Undercover

    Love is not something independent of us and while indeed our will or motivation enables concepts to be authentic or genuine, it returns back to our original discussion about anxiety and the heart. What we feel without words is our 'real' self embedded into our subjective or intuitive emotions that we cannot articulate or describe. I believe that the root of all anxiety lies in our unwillingness to accept or understand our separateness or autonomy and when we start to become conscious of our self-awareness, without the right mechanisms to enable a proper transcendence toward becoming an autonomous agent, anxiety is thus borne. The responsibility of our aloneness is too difficult to accept because that would mean that everything - including how we interpret our experiences - are translations that have been given to us and not 'real' (since our will or motivation enables authenticity).

    We get anxiety because we simply cannot understand or articulate how to transcend and start learning to think for ourselves, so we escape from ourselves, follow others, do what others expect, form bonds or relationships with people - even if they are shit people - and so give up rational thinking to conform to society. They give up their self. The attachments these people form are what is generally imagined as love, this external, emotional force given to them - and indeed they do form attachments to people who present themselves in the way that is socially accepted - and because it is not there own choice there is no authenticity behind these attachments. These are the types of people who present themselves as normal but do bad things behind the scenes, or who have terrible anxiety or depression, or who lack complete empathy that they see others as nothing but objects for sexual or economical purposes. These people make every effort to be loved by presenting qualities about themselves that are loveable like attractiveness, power, money, popularity.

    Yet, none of them know how to be loving, to give love - just like how they cannot think for themselves - because to know how to be loving or to give love, one needs to transcend to that level of autonomy - they need to be able to think for themselves and dislocate their attachments to the people in their environment. You need to accept that you are alone. You are separate and no unity is ever really possible - this is rational - and that in our separateness we are only a part of the overall whole and thus symbolically there is unity. Our attachments should thus be to Forms - concepts like goodness, virtue, righteousness - as we endeavour to improve ourselves through the external world and that is how we learn to give love and not to an object.

    If there is unity possible, it is only when you meet someone conscious as you are, who is also independent and autonomous and who understands what this transcendence implies, which is the will or motivation to moral giving. Two such people are capable of giving love and share in this experience of improving themselves through one another. They are not compelled by false or inauthentic drives to conform into society and lose the self along the way. They are both rational, autonomous agents who form a friendship that share the same understanding and this friendship is forever - symbolically - and if they share experiences of sexual, emotional and economical unity together, despite knowing it is fleeting and can end, nevertheless will continue to care for one another because they know how to give love.

    They love the other person because they symbolically represent or epitomise those Forms or concepts - goodness, virtue, righteousness - and so you admire them for who they are, just as much as you would feel overjoyed seeing good things happen.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    3.4k
    Love is not something independent of us and while indeed our will or motivation enables concepts to be authentic or genuine, it returns back to our original discussion about anxiety and the heart. What we feel without words is our 'real' self embedded into our subjective or intuitive emotions that we cannot articulate or describe. I believe that the root of all anxiety lies in our unwillingness to accept or understand our separateness or autonomy and when we start to become conscious of our self-awareness, without the right mechanisms to enable a proper transcendence toward becoming an autonomous agent, anxiety is thus borne. The responsibility of our aloneness is too difficult to accept because that would mean that everything - including how we interpret our experiences - are translations that have been given to us and not 'real' (since our will or motivation enables authenticity).TimeLine

    I think it may be a mistake to describe "love" in this one-sided, subjective way, as if it were a part of one's autonomy. In reality love is always two-sided, the lover and the beloved, and this makes love more like a part of something which negates one's autonomy, it connects us. The lover is always loving another, and this creates a connection with the other. Also, if we ask where did the love that a person has, come from, we look back to see that the individual was borne into this world by the love of others, such that the person's existence, one's very being, is dependent on this giving of love, from others before and after birth. So love cannot be an aspect of our "separateness or autonomy", it ought to be understood as an aspect of our connectedness and unity.

    Have you read Plato's "Symposium"? If not, you should, it's very beautifully written with layers of subtleties (as is Plato's style), making it a fine read. The participants are reclined on couches, in a particular order around the room, and after having their lips sufficiently plied with wine they decide to follow this particular order, with each member producing a story to describe Love. The duality of love is quickly exposed, and one person produces a myth about people having been cut in half in ancient times, by the god of Love, so people are now always longing to find their other half. When it comes to Socrates' turn, he says I had a teacher Diotima who taught me about love affairs, so I'm not going to tell you myths or stories, I'm going to tell you the truth about love.

    First he describes how love is in the middle between have and have-not. This is important because it demonstrates how love is not derived from the rational mind, it is actually contrary to reason. You can see why it is irrational because it defies the law of excluded middle. Aristotle later categorized as "becoming" all those things which defy the law of excluded middle, and characterized these things with "potency" in his biology, and "matter" in his physics. So "love" refers to a person's position in becoming, between not-having and having, and this describes its relationship with desire.

    Moving on, Socrates describes what it is that is desired, and that is the beautiful. So there is a relationship between the lover and the thing loved such that the thing loved is the beautiful. Love lies between the subject and the object which the lover apprehends as beautiful. This is very similar to Plato's later renditions of "the good". But "the beautiful" is the raw form, without the implications of utility or pragmatic concerns of 'the good", so the beautiful is more primitive, and more representative of the irrational nature of love. Further, Socrtaes has been taught by Diotima to recognize beauty itself, as something brought about by the creative act of love. The person apprehends the object of desire as beautiful, and acts to bring that object of beauty into existence through creation. An individual may have a desire to procreate, and this act of bringing to life children, creates something beautiful. Also, an individual may have the desire to make something, produce something, or achieve something, and this also creates beauty. The climax of the story is reached when the student of love recognizes that all these acts of creation produce something beautiful by means of being the same type of act, creating, apprehending that all created things partake in the Idea of the beautiful. Then the beauty of all human products and institutions may be apprehended as partaking in this same beauty, the beauty of creation.

    For Plato, this describes the relation between our temporal selves, and the eternal, the desire to create. And we can see three levels of the desire to create (love); to procreate extends one's temporal existence through one's offspring; to be an artificer extends one's temporal existence through the artifact created; and to be a creator of ideas extends one's temporal existence through the social conventions and institutions represented by those ideas. The artificial is the authentic, in the sense that there can be no doubt that it is of the author.

    Yet, none of them know how to be loving, to give love - just like how they cannot think for themselves - because to know how to be loving or to give love, one needs to transcend to that level of autonomy - they need to be able to think for themselves and dislocate their attachments to the people in their environment. You need to accept that you are alone. You are separate and no unity is ever really possible - this is rational - and that in our separateness we are only a part of the overall whole and thus symbolically there is unity. Our attachments should thus be to Forms - concepts like goodness, virtue, righteousness - as we endeavour to improve ourselves through the external world and that is how we learn to give love and not to an object.TimeLine

    So I see this in the very opposite way as you. Transcendence is to go beyond that level of autonomy, to find the unity with others, that inheres within each of us, which is implied by the existence of love, art, creation, and all that is artificial. It all appears as irrational and unintelligible to the rational human mind which depends on reason for guidance, because love is of the realm of becoming and cannot be comprehended by the logic of the rational mind. But when we turn to love we gain an approach to artistry, production, and creating, our relationship with temporal existence, and the true unity which love is an aspect of.

    If there is unity possible, it is only when you meet someone conscious as you are, who is also independent and autonomous and who understands what this transcendence implies, which is the will or motivation to moral giving. Two such people are capable of giving love and share in this experience of improving themselves through one another. They are not compelled by false or inauthentic drives to conform into society and lose the self along the way. They are both rational, autonomous agents who form a friendship that share the same understanding and this friendship is forever - symbolically - and if they share experiences of sexual, emotional and economical unity together, despite knowing it is fleeting and can end, nevertheless will continue to care for one another because they know how to give love.

    They love the other person because they symbolically represent or epitomise those Forms or concepts - goodness, virtue, righteousness - and so you admire them for who they are, just as much as you would feel overjoyed seeing good things happen.
    TimeLine

    Now society with its laws of conformation is itself a creation, created by love. It is created by autonomous and independent individuals who are driven by love, the apprehension of temporal existence, and the underlying unity which is responsible for the creation of their own being and existence. These laws provide us with a created, rational approach to all which lies around us, the natural world. The autonomous, rational human being adheres to the fixed laws, as one's relationship with the eternal, the eternal laws of nature, in its effort at timeless enterprise. But the natural world is a world of matter, potential, and becoming, so the timeless enterprise of eternal laws is not real, it's an illusion, being itself a creation of human minds. So the rational mind may be drawn into a realm of self-deception, unable to pull out from this false conception of the eternal.

    The rational mind thinks according to the laws of logic, in terms of have and have not, is and is not, and deceives itself into thinking that this "must be the case", that all questions of truth are answerable with is or is not. In this way it is in complete ignorance of the truth and reality of temporal existence. In reality, what "must be the case" is only relevant to the past. In relation to the future, there is no such thing as what "must be the case". The rational mind of the autonomous self is lost in contradiction, believing oneself to have freedom, yet at the very same time not believing the principle which allows for freedom, that with respect to the future there is no such thing as what "must be the case".

    Now anxiety is manifest because the rational mind is trapped within the self-deception of attempting to determine what cannot be determined. Anxiety is the result of a trap which the rational mind sets for itself, by not having respect for the potency and power of time. The rational mind apprehends time as something to be subdued and rendered rational, under the precepts of timeless principles. But being a falsity, this frustrates the mind to no end. By turning to the irrational "love", the rational mind gets a true glimpse at the irrational nature of time through creation and temporal existence, becoming, thus allowing for a comprehension of temporal existence which otherwise would be incomprehensible as irrational. Ultimately, the irrational "love" must be allowed to overrule the rational autonomous mind of the individual, to rid oneself of the self-deception, and provide a true temporal perspective, if the rational mind has become frustrated by these rational principles which are contrary to the truth. Following logical principles which are untrue is a sign of an unhealthy soul. Turning the mind toward love, though it is irrational, is to turn the mind toward truth.
  • TimeLine
    2.2k
    In reality love is always two-sided, the lover and the beloved, and this makes love more like a part of something which negates one's autonomy, it connects us.Metaphysician Undercover

    Love can only be possible under autonomous conditions and so many people believe love is somehow unconditional. If that were so, why - realistically - are there so many examples of how unsuccessful love is, of how miserable people can be in relationships, or how obvious it is that it is not lasting? People form attachments based on false perceptions that they have conformed to from their social environment because they are consistently told that love is irrational or illogical, that it is beyond them in someway, given to them and that they must sacrifice themselves and let things be.

    How stupid!

    This is the same with those who have anxiety or depression; that is our voice and we are speaking to ourselves but we cannot articulate what it is attempting to convey, and while it is all coming from within us, how can you assume that being rational is wrong when it is being rational that would allow us to understand what it is trying to say? Just because we do not understand what we are saying to ourselves through our feelings does not mean it makes no sense, but it makes no sense only because we are not rational enough to understand ourselves independent from the social conditions. Having transcended to autonomous agency, our agility to use our mind and our observations or perceptions of the external world, our identification with it and understanding of it becomes objective, it has that sense of clarity and only then can a person know how to love.

    You can only give love to the world rationally or appropriately when you have learnt to love and respect yourself, because only then are you even capable of giving love. Otherwise, how you give love is faux, adapting to the social requisites and indoctrinated perceptions given to you. The problem with your view about this whole negation of one's autonomy is that you assume the latter (to love yourself) to be a type of self-conceit or arrogance, probably because you have mistaken the vast majority of people who are conceited to love themselves, that, and moral worthiness to be a type of self-sacrifice or meekness and solitude.

    On the contrary, these are just archetypes and people who are self-conceited actually hate themselves just as much as moral pretenders have learnt to present themselves as meek; liars are incapable of loving. Their identification with the external world is not independent or autonomous, it is just a game or a presentation as they react or identify to the social conditions in different ways. They are mindless in their approach to love and then state love is illogical as though attempting to justify their refusal to accept their own autonomy.

    While love is paradoxical, it is a result of the human condition, of us being capable or being aware of our own existence. When we are capable of accepting this existential reality - hence overcoming the fear to let go of all the false perceptions given to us and where we have epistemically adapted to our identification to the world around us - we become rational or objective in our approach and no longer see the world as it is given to us.

    The rational mind thinks according to the laws of logic, in terms of have and have not, is and is not, and deceives itself into thinking that this "must be the case", that all questions of truth are answerable with is or is not. In this way it is in complete ignorance of the truth and reality of temporal existence.Metaphysician Undercover

    No, a rational mind thinks according to reason and common sense that includes logic and as Voltaire once said, common sense is not so common.

    Turning the mind toward love, though it is irrational, is to turn the mind toward truth.Metaphysician Undercover

    Let me break LOVE down for you.

    When you are trapped in a mind conformed to social requirements as per your learning, one continues to "love" only specific people or objects and it is usually those who "love" them return (which is really just acceptance or a type of social congratulations for following these unwritten rules), and that gives one that sense of unity because such social acceptance alleviates the anxiety we feel since it enables or justifies our conformism and silences our desire for autonomy. Ignorance is bliss. To do this, they themselves make every effort to be loving or to have the qualities that make them loving, such as physical attractiveness, popularity, wealth, even being lovable as a person. All of this is really just a group of people trying to be loving by conforming or following and no one is actually giving love.

    They are incapable of giving love and they continue throughout their lives to play games with themselves by trying to convince others that they deserve to be loved, others who can never be convinced because they are doing the exact same thing. They are not rational.

    When you are elevated to a level of autonomous agency and begin identifying with the world independently, you are capable of true love and this is love to all things and not objects. This capacity to give love to all things is really defined as moral consciousness, and so that feeling within is real or authentic. What that means is that when you have learnt to give love rather than want love, you are actually being loving and not falsely.

    An autonomous agent can see or perceive the world correctly and they can see that most people are blindly conforming. This is very isolating. I have always said that no one can see me for this reason. As true love or moral consciousness is to love all things and not something specific, all things are symbolic of the form of Good. It is our capacity to understand virtue, righteousness, justice and to apply ourselves by giving this to the world around us, rather than attractiveness, power, popularity which is just our desire to want. So, those who are capable of giving love because they are rational or autonomous form another group - albeit a very small one - and so this bond between two rational, autonomous agents is real or genuine because of how they identify with the external world.

    Because moral consciousness is symbolic to the identification of Good, our love for a person is really our love for them for adopting the principles of Good. We admire them for being virtuous, righteous, just and applying themselves accordingly. We connect with them because they are autonomous, rational. They actually communicate and understand one another rationally, unlike the cohort who blindly follow.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.