Thanks, glad you like the thread. I am in favour of thinking about thinking.

I raise the question of how important it is to be right in relation to the whole personal, emotional relationship which we have with the ideas which we have. On the social level, we argue our points of view in argument, often trying to defend a position. Lack of ability to defend a position can involve loss of credibility to formulate an argument, or could point to a weakness in the underlying viewpoint itself. — Jack Cummins

Think about two propositions:

It is wrong to take advantage of someone during negotiations.
It is good business to press the advantage in negotiations.

Being right ultimately boils down to having a fundamental commitment to a position. And in any non-trivial sense, this usually entails the juxtaposition of a whole value-schema on top of a set of facts. However a value-schema, by its very nature, is not susceptible to an absolute determination of right versus wrong.

In my view, being right is critical, in the sense that you commit to all the presuppositions and consequences of an idea.

Yes, I quite like the video as I do even read a bit of fantasy which involves sword fighting.

I am not really against becoming down to a specific view. When I first began reading philosophy, I came more from a fixed view because I was brought up as a Catholic and had not fully questioned this. Having done this I have a fairly open mind and if anything, it is often that when I read certain writing it is simply that I am not convinced fully.

As for developing my own philosophy, I had not done any written philosophical writing in a long time until finding this site in September. I do feel that discussions on this site have got me thinking, so I will wait and see what happens.

Perhaps, I have not found the set of ideas that I am truly aligned towards. I find ideas which I believe are important but not to be point that I would wish to defend them above all else.

I would also say that I do think in terms of systems, and see thinking about building up parts within larger parts. I am also pluralist, but definitely not in favour of sheer relativism. The big difference is that relativism is about seeing truth as being many different views but with equal value. Pluralism involves more of a picture of putting together a picture of truth by drawing upon the composite parts.

I also believe that we are at a strange time in the development of ideas. We can view the expanse of ideas from the panorama of history and geography in a way that few have been able to do in the past, especially with the internet and downloading available to us. This gives us so much reading scope and probably the need for synthesis. I am also open to the discussion of the unknown, in the widest senses possible.

Those who know they are egoist, however, do not accept their nature, eventually destroy the worlds of those who know and accept what they trully are" - This is the story of humanity. — Gus Lamarch

I suppose everybody has their own story. Thanks for sharing.

Governments in the US have taken a huge hit since the Reagan tax cuts of the 80's, so you are wrong there in the long term. — LuckyR

From what I have read since the 80's (and anecdotally), government employees now far out earn the private sector (plus generous benefits). It used to be just the opposite (you took a government job for the security, not the $).

When I was first in practice, teachers were among the poorest patients I saw, now they are among the wealthiest (of regular working folks). Here in CA, many, many government employees make incredible amounts of money.

Government is much like religion, pay no taxes yet still they never have enough.

This gives us so much reading scope and probably the need for synthesis. I am also open to the discussion of the unknown — Jack Cummins

After I graduated in 1990 I spent 3 years reading and writing every day for 6-8 hours. I was working on something called "The Art of Self-creation" which was an epistemological-cybernetic study of Self, Self and Other, and Self and Society. The culmination of that work was going to be a theoretical-historical analysis of the concept of "the unknown," its place and role in the structure of thought.

I’ve always thought this line of thinking to be exaggerated. Do you not think there are any eternal truths? Is there absolutely nothing which we have gotten right? — Pinprick

If you mean Absolute Truth, then I would say these do exist but are not intellectually accessible. Intellectually, you can have near-truths (like it is immoral to kill another) but most truths are reasonably personal and change constantly.

All things knowable are in constant flux because what makes up all things knowable are in constant flux...

It sounds like a good idea, so perhaps it might be worth finding your work if you still have it, and preparing it to launch as a book. If you put all that time into it, I am sure that you must have done a lot of work and it is an unusual idea, although that is not to say that nobody has written on the topic since the 1990s.

To me this subject seems the same as your thread about discrimination. :lol: You make me laugh as I think of how silly these discriminations are and it tickles me to see both forms of discrimination as a result of reading both your threads this morning.

Of course, the form of an argument is important for credibility. If you saw the political forum I am involved with, that statement would make more sense. Insulting someone is not at all like the debate of which you speak, and it screams some people are just reacting and not actually thinking through anything. However, we might be patient with these people and ask questions that might help them think something through. But some people just don't want to think things through and it is best to avoid them as we would avoid a dog that attacks people. The bottom line is not their technological skill, but their character and how they treat others.

As for those ideas we are passionate about, I don't like discussing religion with Christians and unless religion is being debated, I normally just smile at the Christian comments and keep my mouth shut, however, if people are debating religion, then I am compelled to argue against Christianity. I am compelled to do this because I am passionate about democracy and religion with a God who has favorite people because that religion is not compatible with democracy. This is difficult because historically Christians have promoted democracy, they have also discriminated against people who are different, and opposed science when it goes against what they believe. The sun shines equally on everyone and believing a God has favorite people can be a problem to democracy and world peace.

It is quite funny that you see this thread as being similar to the one I wrote on prejudice because I see them as rather different. I suppose that the similarity is that obviously I am the same person on my various threads. Generally, I think that some people have engaged in both, but I have noticed some different people replying to the different threads.

This is the first forum I have ever used. So, even though I have written many posts and threads, I only joined in last September, so I am relatively new. I can't believe that it is only just over 5 months that I have been using it because it seems like much longer. I think that it is as if time has slowed down with all the lockdown restrictions. I don't know if I would ever join another one. I certainly wouldn't right now as this one is keeping me busy enough. I have sometimes felt recently that I have taken up philosophy as a full time pursuit, but it definitely feels like a worthwhile one for the present time.

Me too!

I love your example of not taking advantage of others or intentionally trying to get the advantage because I am such a looser. I could be a great salesperson because I know the tricks salespeople use because I have had the training, and by nature I was an attractive person physically and personality, but I am a lousy salesperson because I can not take advantage of someone. I always take "no" for an answer, because if I say "no", I want my "no" respected, and if a salesperson tries to push me beyond "no" I am offended.

I am not a good business person because I give away my service. I love to be needed but don't love taking money for what I do. :lol: I have a pile of money in my kitchen that I must give back to someone who paid me too much for a favor. She knew I would not accept what she gave me so she dropped it in my bag when I was not looking. Something inside me just says I should not accept money for doing a favor. :lol: This goes with my problem with Christianity. I am not Christian but I was strongly influenced by it and I wish I could go for all the money I know I could get but I can't.

Anyway, I am a looser and I can't change this and at the same time be right with me. I blame Bible school for that. :lol: No, in the past women took care of everyone because that is what a good woman did. Once, when I had to support my family I asked for more pay and the woman snapped at me that caregivers put caring for people first. It is terrible for women that people's lives and certainly how they feel, can depend on good givers and yet we pay them very little, not enough to support our families. Teachers and nurses had to get over this barrier when they fought for better working conditions and better pay and we resent them for taking our tax money or what we pay for medical care. But is it right for us to put money first? What does that do to our society?

I am a Democrat and Republicans have a very different point of view. :lol: Republics are best known for being Christians and there is a rumor that Democrats are not Christian. Who is right?

I am not a good business person because I give away my service. I love to be needed but don't love taking money for what I do. — Athena

Story of my life.

Thank you. In another forum, a political one, the reaction to what I said would be very different. Folks there would see me as weak and undeserving. I am very glad to have government assistance. The Older Americans Act speaks of older citizens as being entitled, and we had Senior Centers and we have senior housing and nutrition sites and the Senior Companion Program, and we can have free bus service and audit college classes for free, all as benefits of making our working years contribution to society.

The flip side of all those benefits is to enable us to remain participants in society and to continue to make a social contribution. Because of what I get, I am secure and can volunteer. Because I am struggling physically I am very thankful for Social Security and I think it is insane to consider ending it. If I had to work a 40 week, I would be on the streets until I figured out a way to end my suffering. As a volunteer, I can work as much or as little as I want.

I do college classes by buying them from the Great Courses company. I could ride the bus free and audit college classes for free, but I can't keep my mouth shut and I know I would be correcting professors. :rofl: I didn't do well in college many years ago, because I clashed with professors and I am so thankful for the Great Courses and self-education. I am so glad I don't need a degree and employment, to make a contribution to society. I wish everyone was into lifelong-learning and enjoying making a social contribution and evening all this out with assuring everyone decent housing and nutrition and those things that increase our value to be contributing human beings.

I raise the question of how important it is to be right in relation to the whole personal, emotional relationship which we have with the ideas which we have. — Jack Cummins

How important it is "to be right in relation to ... the ideas we have" depends on how much tolerance one has for ambiguity, ambivalence, and dissonance. I have a very strong preference for consistency. Let me compare thinking to interior decoration: Replacing an incongruous lampshade is a small matter. Taking out walls and raising the ceiling is a very big deal.

I was raised to be a good Protestant and did not have major problems with God until I was in my late 30s. I found I didn't believe, and didn't want to be counted as a believer, and one day announced to myself that I was not a believer. This was a much bigger change than replacing the incongruous lampshade. This was changing the floor plan of my mental house. I wanted to live in a knowable world, and a world run by an unknowable God was causing way too much cognitive dissonance and emotional distress. (It is much easier to remodel ideas than remodel emotions.).

The upshot is that the ideas we have, and may wish to change, are supported by emotion (and/or instigated by emotion). Being right (consistent, clear, consonant, content) is very important. That's why discussions become heated. That's why we toss and turn in our beds trying to solve a conflict. That's why the intellectual merry-go-round keeps spinning.

Humans don't do well with a tangle of conflicting, unresolved questions squirming around in their brains like a can of worms. Either we get the worms straightened out and pinned down or we toss the whole thing out.

I guess I have a high tolerance for ambiguity and that is because I was raised a Catholic and have moved away from what I believed but it did not happen overnight, but over a few years. As a teenager I was extremely religious and even when I started university. It was during that time, based on reading and many factors that I really began exploring and entering into a sort of limbo wilderness. I think I was uncomfortable with the limbo for some time, but grew used to it.

Also, I am used to being in the situation of having to not vocalise my views and feelings at work in mental health care. This has been mainly in working with patients, because one cannot disclose about one's life or views in this work. So, I am used to having to try not to get heated.

So, when you speak of conflicts being like 'a can of worms' , I am probably used to keeping the worms encased in my brain. Perhaps my head will explode like a nuclear weapon one day, just like the title of one of my favourite albums, by The The, 'Mindbomb.'

It was during that time, based on reading and many factors that I really began exploring and entering into a sort of limbo wilderness. — Jack Cummins

College often erodes religion, not so much because of what is taught in classes (though that may well have an effect) but more because of the social aspects of college -- especially if one lives on campus where everyone is trying out new roles for themselves.

Leaving home, working in new environments with varied people, establishing new social circles--all that can undermine old pieties (religious and political). Then having to establish a sex life (especially if one is gay, back when) further undermines one's homespun virtues.

Before long one has become a different person than the child our parents sent off.

Yes, it is interesting how much going to university does bring a lot of changes to thinking. I am probably aware that I changed a lot more in relation to those I went to school with who did just left school and got a job. But perhaps that was because I was less conventional deep down than those people in the first place.

It is hard to know how much is about studying and how much is about experimentation in campus life. Initially, I gravitated towards the religious students but after a while I started to realise that I did not fit in with them really. I was studying religious studies as one of my first year options and this involved comparative religion and I started to discover an affinity with Hinduism and Buddhism. This was probably the beginning of my sliding away from Catholic ideas, and I do still have a sympathy with such systems of belief.

But I suppose that an underlying issue is to what effect does life experiences have on our ideas. I think that it was really the whole experience of having 2 friends commit suicide within a couple of years that led me to question absolutely everything. I do wonder if I would have ever really questioned to the extent that I did otherwise. Even though I had read a lot of philosophy, I do think that I might not have really entered into the limbo wasteland if I had not been pushed into emotional discomfort. I would also say that I have also had a fair amount of setbacks since university and this has made me open to speculation a lot.

So, I do think that apart from the whole question of whether university life and its opportunities for experimentation, there is the other one as to how much our life experiences pushes us out of our comfort zones. I would say that for most of my adult life I have felt pushed beyond the threshold of feeling 'comfortable', to the point where, at times, so in many ways I am prepared to explore and experiment with ideas. So, it is not that I don't wish to be right, but that I feel that I have gone beyond the stage of clinging to a specific set of beliefs.

Perhaps the question which I would pose for anyone reading this, is how far their experience has led them to question their systems of belief?

At what point can you be sure you got it right and are not just making a mistake? — khaled

I guess when your explanation can predict outcomes reliably.

If you mean Absolute Truth, then I would say these do exist but are not intellectually accessible. — synthesis

How are you so sure of this?

Intellectually, you can have near-truths (like it is immoral to kill another) but most truths are reasonably personal and change constantly. — synthesis

Is this itself a truth? What is personal about knowing getting kicked causes pain, or that when a ball is dropped it falls? Opinions are personal, but facts aren’t.

Seems rather cynical to argue that that’s the only motivation behind not being dogmatic with your views..... — khaled

What you mistakenly call "Dogmatic", in reality is an "Affirmation based on extensive research".

Egoism is the human nature, and it can be studied and proven to exist by language, culture, the individual psyche, and history.

Philosophy cannot be realized when thoughts are based on mere opinions without any research basis - which, ironically, seems to be the rule of the participants in this forum -.

All things knowable are in constant flux because what makes up all things knowable are in constant flux... — synthesis

But we are able, at least sometimes, to predict change, and the effect the changes will cause. Weather is a good example. It’s constantly changing, but we are sometimes able to predict accurately whether or not it will snow, for example.

If you mean Absolute Truth, then I would say these do exist but are not intellectually accessible.
— synthesis

How are you so sure of this? — Pinprick

How is anybody sure of anything? And why would you want to be?

Intellectually, you can have near-truths (like it is immoral to kill another) but most truths are reasonably personal and change constantly.
— synthesis

Is this itself a truth? What is personal about knowing getting kicked causes pain, or that when a ball is dropped it falls? Opinions are personal, but facts aren’t. — Pinprick

Facts are relative to a specific set of circumstances that can only occur one time, so is it really a fact?

Is it always painful when you get kicked? What does the ball do if you drop it out in deep space?

All things knowable are in constant flux because what makes up all things knowable are in constant flux...
— synthesis

But we are able, at least sometimes, to predict change, and the effect the changes will cause. Weather is a good example. It’s constantly changing, but we are sometimes able to predict accurately whether or not it will snow, for example. — Pinprick

A long time ago people thought all kinds of crazy things and made it work. The things we believe today will be just as crazy to the folks in the future.

It's always been my impression that what we can know happens before our intellect kicks-in. We just know like a bird or wolf or termite just knows. It is our intellect that mostly distorts this knowing into all kinds of gibberish.

I would bet that we are well down on the list of animals in terms of weather predicting skills, don't you think?

We thought Newton's theories could predict outcomes reliably for the longest time. Turns out they couldn’t and we were making a mistake.

What you mistakenly call "Dogmatic", in reality is an "Affirmation based on extensive research". — Gus Lamarch

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Affirmation of research can become dogmatic at which point it’s no longer scientific.

Egoism is the human nature, and it can be studied and proven to exist by language, culture, the individual psyche, and history. — Gus Lamarch

No doubt. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to overcome it when we can. Why are you treating it as an inevitability.

Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to overcome it when we can. Why are you treating it as an inevitability. — khaled

I do not, in any way, treat egoism as an inevitability, which is why I argue that today's human society, along with its psyche, is shaped in a completely different way from what existed when egoism was used and appreciated by individuals. The individual - negative egoists - choose to become this.

What I treat as inevitability are the consequences of human acts, which, directly or indirectly, will only be used for the exacerbation of the ego of the "self".

If we deny it, we will only see it as something negative, as a pejorative term.

If we accept it, we will only enjoy a future without more nihilistic shadows of "no purpose"; and, indirectly, we will reach the maxim of humanity - Man as its cause, means and ends -.

The starting point for the search for the true sense of the ego must be the following questioning:

"If I own myself, and in this existence, I can only be I, why shouldn't I, above all and everyone, worry only about myself?"

You'll have no answer to that. And that same silence, that is cold as the void, is everything you need to know to see that:

1 > ∞

I don't have any evaluation of "important". But to my way of thinking, your question gets at a core human quality, that being the nature of our opinions as they relate to reality.

Ultimately, jumping way ahead, the entire issue is a wash intellectually [not emotionally necessarily] when one comes to embrace, "I could be wrong." That is, when one holds that reality, truth is not knowable, that all that can be had are protoplasmic interpretations of reality and the opinions that are generated from those interpretations, then being right or wrong in one's beliefs is illogical.

I could be wrong.

You assume it is impossible to overcome so no wonder you think people trying to overcome it are wasting their time. And you don’t seem to question that assumption.