Worldwide Happiness

@de budding,

Arjen,

I said, "the core method is understanding what works and what doesn't work, and then spreading that understanding". Your counter amounts to, "Hitler's method didn't work, therefore your method won't work."

Hitler's method was obviously deluded and not based on understanding. I am suggesting we look freshly at what works and what doesn't work. As you said, enforcing things doesn't work. Now you are saying Hitler's method (delusion) didn't work. Great! So that's two that don't work. So we keep working like that till we are rid of what doesn't work, and at the same time we look at what does work, which is obviously going to be understanding, including understanding Kant and Arjen.

Understanding what works and doesn't work, is obviously a different "rulebase" to Hitler's rulebase of gassing Jews.

De_budding/Dan,

I understand what Arjen is saying. It's not a hurdle. Arjen is essentially saying to understand and so am I.

BTW, my original question was how to deal with scientists who say we do everything for survival. I wasn't asking about Kant, or anything else.

Regarding your question, I do fine against the average joe.

Martin Gifford.

@Martin Gifford,

Martin Gifford wrote:

Arjen,

I said, "the core method is understanding what works and what doesn't work, and then spreading that understanding". Your counter amounts to, "Hitler's method didn't work, therefore your method won't work."

Hitler's method was obviously deluded and not based on understanding. I am suggesting we look freshly at what works and what doesn't work. As you said, enforcing things doesn't work. Now you are saying Hitler's method (delusion) didn't work. Great! So that's two that don't work. So we keep working like that till we are rid of what doesn't work, and at the same time we look at what does work, which is obviously going to be understanding, including understanding Kant and Arjen.

Understanding what works and doesn't work, is obviously a different "rulebase" to Hitler's rulebase of gassing Jews.

It is the exact same thing Martin. Hitler concluded Jews "don't work" so they had to go. You are concluding everything that "doesn't work" will have to go. I see no difference.

@Arjen,

Hello Martin,
I'm all with Arjen on that one.
Freedom is the opportunity to make the wrong choice. Method is the application of limitations & rules.
Your first question was posed to in order to help you to prove other people wrong - is this a way to create happiness?
If you do not think that the meaning of life has to be happiness or anything else, why are you worried about those who assert it is survival?

@pqzod,

Arjen,

Hitler's conclusion that Jews don't work is misunderstanding, not understanding.

No, it was you who concluded that everything that doesn't work will have to go. You said my ideas don't work and have to be replaced by your ideas and Kant's ideas.

My view is that when you understand which ideas and actions create unhappiness you will cease to do them, and you will spread that information. And when you understand which actions create happiness, you will do them and spread that information. People can make up their own minds, of course, except when they are hurting others.

pqzod,

Yes, freedom is the opportunity to make the wrong choice, but only a fool would hit his head against a brick wall once he understood what the results are. We don't have to reinvent the wheel.

Method should be the application of learning from Life's feedback. It is not the application of ignorant imposed limitations and rules.

My first question was a request for philosophical information to help explaining my viewpoint in a book I am writing. Every philosophical book uses arguments and counterarguments, discussing other viewpoints, etc.

@Martin Gifford,

Martin Gifford wrote:

Arjen,

Hitler's conclusion that Jews don't work is misunderstanding, not understanding.

It is his understanding; just as your ideas are understanding from your point of view, but they are misunderstanding to me. They are a blueprint for trouble, but I do not think you are willing to reconsider.

Quote:

No, it was you who concluded that everything that doesn't work will have to go. You said my ideas don't work and have to be replaced by your ideas and Kant's ideas.

The fact that you are using a rulebase makes for that reasoning. Have you understood why I am of the opinion that rulebases have such an effect?

Quote:

My view is that when you understand which ideas and actions create unhappiness you will cease to do them, and you will spread that information. And when you understand which actions create happiness, you will do them and spread that information.

This does not really work because when one decides that a certain something is "good" one acts accordingly. Which is the main problem with such rulebases.

Quote:

People can make up their own minds, of course, except when they are hurting others.

@Arjen,

Arjen,

Understanding life in its wholeness is different to ignorant opinion, which is usually a reaction to the wholeness of life.

You don't know my ideas, so how can you disagree with them?

I agree that rulebases don't work. Fortunately, I don't have rulebases.

No, I don't understand your Kant quotes.

We can create worldwide happiness, and the way to do it does not involve any of the things you fear.

Thanks for your time and replies, but I'd rather not continue this conversation. I'll leave you to have the last word.

@Arjen,

All my awakenings of what life is about all come back to a very simple concept, that is for me to,'find God, know God, and be God. Richard

@Richardgrant,

Richard,

I have never seen anyone being God. I have met many people claiming to be God, or claiming that they can be God, but I've never seen them making universes or anything.

Personally, I believe the idea "I am God" is a questionable addition to a profound and valid experience. In other words, I think the experience is valid but the idea about it is not.

The bigger the claim, the bigger the evidence required. But if you have proof, I'd love to see it!

@Martin Gifford,

I take ages to understand philosophers and when I finally succeed, I quickly and easily find a counterargument that defeats their assertions. This has happened so many times, that I've seen a pattern where they create boxes, which I can open because I don't see the logical mind as having the answers to life, whereas they do. Logic as a trap when you believe it holds the answer to life's questions. It is only a tool, and a very limited one at that.

Logic is a process that reflects the inherent methodical discipline of articulate thought. Currently, the most effective approach in producing unequivocal consistency within the constraints of the fallible. Please provide another process that is more effective for understanding, as well as predicative testing then the rational sequence of logical discipline? Please do not entertain me with the personal path explanation of undisciplined idealistic indulgence.

Philosophy Forum

Worldwide Happiness

Quick Links

My Account

able2know