Ethical Self Concept

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;127377 wrote:

Do all humans have some concept or ideal that they try to live up to?

Yes, by the time they are mature adults. I have not met ALL humans; I'm sure there are a few exceptions (who in some sense are not fully human.)

Reconstructo;127377 wrote:

Do some of us have several clashing self-concepts?

Yes. Most of us do. It is one of the tasks of Ethics, as a discipline, to help us integrate our multiple Selves, as we become more authentic.

Reconstructo;127377 wrote:

Where do such concepts come from?

They are developed thoughout a lifetime, yet largely formed during 'the impressionable years' of critical child development.

Reconstructo;127377 wrote:

How do they evolve or change?

The sciences of Anthropology and of Moral Psychology have a lot to say about this. Defer to those disciplines to learn answers to your inquiry.

Reconstructo;127377 wrote:

Do we have a sort of ethical instinct that causes us to construct an ideal self?

Joshua Greene, a neurologist/philosopher at Harvard, says his studies show that we have built-in brain 'wiring', neural paths, that make us naturally altruistic - provided there is no brain damage. Human beings do not have instincts. Maybe in some sense we are instinctoid, a term employed by Abraham Maslow.

Reconstructo;127377 wrote:

How does this ideal self or self-ideal connect to philosophical views?

"philosophical views" is a very vague expression ! [What is your boundary on the concept: philosophical views??? I'm confident you did not mean: What does the average person think of the teachings of Hillary Putnam?]
Do you mean 'one's philosophy of life'? If that is what you meant, in many ways the self-concept IS one's life philosophy, one's set of principles, one's identity, one's statement of who one is.

@deepthot,

deepthot;129608 wrote:

Yes, by the time they are mature adults. I have not met ALL humans; I'm sure there are a few exceptions (who in some sense are not fully human.)

Science is built on assumptions, yes? Like that the future will resemble the past?

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 01:55 AM ----------

deepthot;129608 wrote:

Yes. Most of us do. It is one of the tasks of Ethics, as a discipline, to help us integrate our multiple Selves, as we become more authentic.

I generally agree, but you are speaking as if from a place of universal truth. Transcendental pretense? This is your truth, which you state, like most of us do, as if it were also your listener's truth. But perhaps this is a practical necessity.

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 01:58 AM ----------

deepthot;129608 wrote:

They are developed thoughout a lifetime, yet largely formed during 'the impressionable years' of critical child development.

I can't agree with you here. Not completely. What you are neglecting to see is that your own position is an example of an Ethical Self Concept. You conceive of yourself as a maker of ethics? Or an expert?

I doubt you were like this as a child. My central focus is adult "intellectual " ethical-self-concepts. For me, you are one more case to study. You seem so identified with the universal that perhaps you don't think of your system as personal, but this system is your persona -- in a way. Or such is my view, offered without malice.

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 02:01 AM ----------

deepthot;129608 wrote:

The sciences of Anthropology and of Moral Psychology have a lot to say about this. Defer to those disciplines to learn answers to your inquiry.

I'm sure they do. But they're not what I'm looking for.

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 02:03 AM ----------

deepthot;129608 wrote:

Do you mean 'one's philosophy of life'? If that is what you meant, in many ways the self-concept IS one's life philosophy, one's set of principles, one's identity, one's statement of who one is.

Yes, this is close. But in the case of an "intellectual," it's more complicated. It requires interpretation, which cannot be universal.

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 02:03 AM ----------

deepthot;129608 wrote:

"philosophical views" is a very vague expression ! [What is your boundary on the concept: philosophical views??? I'm confident you did not mean: What does the average person think of the teachings of Hillary Putnam?]

Yes, it is vague. But I wasn't presenting a paper for the salvation of mankind but opening a dialogue. :sarcastic:

@Reconstructo,

I encourage anyone who wants to join to think about their own ethical self-concept, if they can relate to the phrase.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;129900 wrote:

Science is built on assumptions, yes? Like that the future will resemble the past?.....
---
I generally agree, but you are speaking as if from a place of universal truth. ---
your own position is an example of an Ethical Self Concept. You conceive of yourself as a maker of ethics? Or an expert?

I doubt you were like this as a child. ...You seem so identified with the universal that perhaps you don't think of your system as personal, but this system is your persona -- in a way. ...
Quote:

Yes, both science and philosophy are built on assumptions. Every formal system starts with some primitive, undefined ideas.

I speak from a place of universal tentative and dated truth. Highly tentative, subject to change. I hope and trust that your modifications to and improvements upon my models will indeed enhance the field of ethics, making it into a more powerful body of reliable knowledge. In a recent thread initiated by 'reliable logic' I proposed an open-source approach to building the new (yet very old) discipline. The concept of a self-concept is very central to it, so I inferred when you wrote the o.p. of this thread you were operating within the frame of reference I have put forth in my recent three books. {No doubt I was here jumping to a conclusion, something which I often do.}

You write:"You conceive of yourself as a maker of ethics? Or an expert?" True. After putting in thousands of hours on the topic, I could be so labeled, I guess. Of course I am no master in this vast field !! Yet I think having written four lengthy treatises on the subject may qualify one as landing in the "expert" category.
You know what an expert is? Ex-spurt. Ex means a has-been. And spurt is a big drip.:bigsmile::sarcastic::whistling:

As a child of 8 I told people I'm going to be a writer. It was not until I wrote my doctoral dissertation that I started to really do any serious writing.. I was 36 by then. I published my first hard-cover book, SCIENCES OF MAN AND SOCIAL ETHICS, in 1969 when I was 39. I didn't really get rolling as a writer until I was past 60. I didn't acquire wisdom until I was past 70. This latest essay, entitled A Unified Theory of Ethics, I scribbled out at 79. So, yes, you're right: I wasn't like this as a child. I was immature then; green behind the ears, as the saying goes.

Why not read that document, to which a link is offered in the signature below, and then tell me your impressions of it. Positive suggestions as to how to upgrade it are most welcome! I respect your opinion highly.

The idea is to clarify many of the concepts used in ethics, sharpen them up. Then relate them to one another. Then propose models which employ these as terms in the model. ...All to put ethics into a more readily-teachable form, so that the upcoming generations can pick it up quickly without having to struggle all their lives. [The latter may be the way some boys and girls get their sex education: piecemeal, catch-as-catch-can, making embarrassing goofs along the way.]

I'd like to hear from you as well as from any other member of the Forum as to the merits of the proposal - which is, how to expand upon and elaborate the framework suggested the document at this link:

@deepthot,

deepthot;130125 wrote:

Reconstructo;129900 wrote:
Science is built on assumptions, yes? Like that the future will resemble the past?.....
---
I generally agree, but you are speaking as if from a place of universal truth. ---
your own position is an example of an Ethical Self Concept. You conceive of yourself as a maker of ethics? Or an expert?

I doubt you were like this as a child. ...You seem so identified with the universal that perhaps you don't think of your system as personal, but this system is your persona -- in a way. ...
Quote:

Yes, both science and philosophy are built on assumptions. Every formal system starts with some primitive, undefined ideas.

I speak from a place of universal tentative and dated truth. Highly tentative, subject to change. I hope and trust that your modifications to and improvements upon my models will indeed enhance the field of ethics, making it into a more powerful body of reliable knowledge. In a recent thread initiated by 'reliable logic' I proposed an open-source approach to building the new (yet very old) discipline. The concept of a self-concept is very central to it, so I inferred when you wrote the o.p. of this thread you were operating within the frame of reference I have put forth in my recent three books. {No doubt I was here jumping to a conclusion, something which I often do.}

You write:"You conceive of yourself as a maker of ethics? Or an expert?" True. After putting in thousands of hours on the topic, I could be so labeled, I guess. Of course I am no master in this vast field !! Yet I think having written four lengthy treatises on the subject may qualify one as landing in the "expert" category.
You know what an expert is? Ex-spurt. Ex means a has-been. And spurt is a big drip.:bigsmile::sarcastic::whistling:

As a child of 8 I told people I'm going to be a writer. It was not until I wrote my doctoral dissertation that I started to really do any serious writing.. I was 36 by then. I published my first hard-cover book, SCIENCES OF MAN AND SOCIAL ETHICS, in 1969 when I was 39. I didn't really get rolling as a writer until I was past 60. I didn't acquire wisdom until I was past 70. This latest essay, entitled A Unified Theory of Ethics, I scribbled out at 79. So, yes, you're right: I wasn't like this as a child. I was immature then; green behind the ears, as the saying goes.

Why not read that document, to which a link is offered in the signature below, and then tell me your impressions of it. Positive suggestions as to how to upgrade it are most welcome! I respect your opinion highly.

The idea is to clarify many of the concepts used in ethics, sharpen them up. Then relate them to one another. Then propose models which employ these as terms in the model. ...All to put ethics into a more readily-teachable form, so that the upcoming generations can pick it up quickly without having to struggle all their lives. [The latter may be the way some boys and girls get their sex education: piecemeal, catch-as-catch-can, making embarrassing goofs along the way.]

I'd like to hear from you as well as from any other member of the Forum as to the merits of the proposal - which is, how to expand upon and elaborate the framework suggested the document at this link:

Good answer, Deepthot. I appreciate the backgrounding. I did look at one of your documents and it seemed well written. At the same time, we may have very different "ethical self concepts" and mine might not have much use for it. But I certainly recognize your intelligence and sincerity.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;130153 wrote:

Good answer, Deepthot. I appreciate the backgrounding. I did look at one of your documents and it seemed well written. At the same time, we may have very different "ethical self concepts" and mine might not have much use for it. But I certainly recognize your intelligence and sincerity.

I appreciate your appreciation.

You will learn even more about my background HERE: http:///en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Charles_Katz

If you will, please, tell us more about your self-concept, Reconstructo.

And would you kindly tell why the frame of reference for ethics as a unified theory - sketched out in the link below - is one that you have "no use for"?

Is it that you are one of those individuals who believe that reading certain novels and seeing certain profound movies (cinematic art) is the best way for a student to learn ethics? In other words, keep moral philosophy imbedded in the Humanities rather than use any sorites to show how reasonable it can be? Or do you hold that everyone should get their ethics from a religion? [If so, which one?]
Or what?

Incidentally I do believe that, with very few exceptions, one we would usually call "a good person" will behave badly if the incentives are strong enough. I didn't elaborate upon this in my latest book, but will in a second edition - or a second volume. Any possible revisions or additional supplements depend upon popular demand and/or feedback.

@deepthot,

deepthot;130209 wrote:

If you will, please, tell us more about your self-concept, Reconstructo.

I would say that my "personal hero myth" or "ethical self concept" is tied in with some fusion of philosophy, literature, comedy, and the usual human decencies in my personal life. I expect no afterlife. Satanism is the Romantic Byronic sense is part of my concept. I tend to resist dialectically or rhetorically whatever feels like an imposition on my freedom. Houdini as meta-physician. I also resist the notion that one's cultural intentions must be social in the broad sense. If my writings are entertainment for a minority on the margins, I am fond enough of that imagined minority to feel satisfied.

To be a "serious man" one must presumably be interested in politics, ethics beyond the personal, etc. My mortality is too real for me to afford all this role-play. The word "idiot" comes as you may know from "private person." Well, screw it, I'm a decadent private person in a dank corner of some rich but rotting empire. So be it. Life is beautiful.

---------- Post added 02-21-2010 at 06:36 PM ----------

deepthot;130209 wrote:

Is it that you are one of those individuals who believe that reading certain novels and seeing certain profound movies (cinematic art) is the best way for a student to learn ethics? In other words, keep moral philosophy imbedded in the Humanities rather than use any sorites to show how reasonable it can be? Or do you hold that everyone should get their ethics from a religion? [If so, which one?]
Or what?

I'm suspicious of the possibility of a universal ethics. I take a more holistic view of ethics. Ethics cannot be seperated from ambition and what Heidegger calls Being-toward-death. Ethics cannot be separated from metaphysics. Whether a person believes in a God-given law or afterlife is no small factor on their behavior. I also haven't seriously concerned myself with universal ethics, but rather with my own liberation, self-invention, and self-entertainment on planet Earth. I'm ready but not eager for death. I'm a self-satisfied guy in cultural terms. (Sure, I could use some more money!)

---------- Post added 02-21-2010 at 06:38 PM ----------

deepthot;130209 wrote:

And would you kindly tell why the frame of reference for ethics as a unified theory - sketched out in the link below - is one that you have "no use for"?

I don't feel a lack. I will, out of respect for you, read more of your work soon. I salute your engagement of my doubts/questions.

---------- Post added 02-21-2010 at 06:40 PM ----------

deepthot;130209 wrote:

Incidentally I do believe that, with very few exceptions, one we would usually call "a good person" will behave badly if the incentives are strong enough.

Me too. The conscious mind is only the top of the iceberg. There's a ten-million-year-old-killer in every pacifist. Mammals, so "they" say, were thieves from way back, eating the eggs of the dinosaurs. Don't quote me on that. I'm no biologist. I just read a lot.

@Reconstructo,

You write: " I will, out of respect for you, read more of your work soon."

I thank you for that.

Once you achieve the self-liberation of which you speak, you may come to care about the liberation of the destitute, the folks living in utter misery, the refugees, the land-mines-left-behind victims, the hundreds of thousands who were in the path of invading armies or combatants and died as a result, whether in Iraq or in the Congo. When you are rather affluent and comfortable - or even if you're not - you may care to assist the economic "lower classes" climb up into the "middle class" just out of self-interest alone if for no other reason. This will be true liberation on your part. And enlightenment. As you create yourself you reach a point where you want to give yourself, to reach out with a helping hand to others, or just to entertain them with your skills, or express your capacities in a way that contributes.

A unified theory of Ethics may be helpful in your reaching a state of self-liberation - which you claim is one of your goals. Once the theory is rounded out it will indicate guides to effective and efficient self-improvement, to success and happiness, viz., to moral health. People will gradually (or suddenly) come to see this as being equally valuable as physical health. Not everyone values the latter, but if they don't, they pay for it. They suffer needlessly. It is the same with regard to the former.

The essay on Ethics to which a link is offered below is a work in progress. It is an invitation to continue the process of constructing a unified theory which will suggest hypotheses to be empirically tested, employing scientific methods. Eventually this will result in a secular foundation for a universal ethics which will be both objective in its theoretical principles as well as subjective in application.

@deepthot,

deepthot;130960 wrote:

Once you achieve the self-liberation of which you speak, you may come to care about the liberation of the destitute, the folks living in utter misery, the refugees, the land-mines-left-behind victims, the hundreds of thousands who were in the path of invading armies or combatants and died as a result, whether in Iraq or in the Congo.

Once I achieve it? It's not a grocery list. It's a memoir. I see from your response how little you understand me. For all my self-liberation I am not exempt from the usual suffering, of course. I am not immune to toothaches, hangnails, or aging, of course. But "spiritually" or "ethically" I'm as satisfied as anyone I ever met, perhaps more satisfied. It wasn't free. I can tell you that. I don't resent evangelism. (This does strike me as a scientific or perhaps a scientistic sort of evangelism.) I do resent or am alienated by what seems to be your lack of interpretative finesse, shall we say? Transcendental pretension, bro.

---------- Post added 02-22-2010 at 05:15 AM ----------

deepthot;130960 wrote:

A unified theory of Ethics may be helpful in your reaching a state of self-liberation - which you claim is one of your goals. Once the theory is rounded out it will indicate guides to effective and efficient self-improvement, to success and happiness, viz., to moral health. People will gradually (or suddenly) come to see this as being equally valuable as physical health.

It's not as "moral health" has been neglected. That's what the Church was for, I can only assume. Also Socrates, Plato, etc. etc. To me this is old news dressed in scientistic jargon. I don't intend malice. I don't think you realize how patronizing you sound. Ever seen The Wire? When Marlowe has a final conversation with Proposition Joe? "I ain't the son type." But sure, "moral" health is important. Sanity as sanitation. The way I see, jargon is just cloaked metaphor. "Moral health" isn't preferable to "right with God" except that "moral heath" is more persuasive in our scientist-as-priest age. Not that I'm a theist, mind you, but I've made scientistic pretense my target as bashing God has become a cliche. (Now I get the urge to stand up for that sweet old God I drowned like a puppy in my tumescent teen-aged arrogance.)

Quote:

I want a hero: an uncommon want,
When every year and month sends forth a new one,
Till, after cloying the gazettes with cant,
The age discovers he is not the true one;

Byron's opening for Don Juan.
I'm coming from this sort of position, with a dash of neopragmatism, and a light sauce of negative theology. Make that positronic theology. My only spiritual ailment is the anxiety of influence.

Cheers!

---------- Post added 02-22-2010 at 05:22 AM ----------

deepthot;130960 wrote:

You write: " I will, out of respect for you, read more of your work soon."

I thank you for that.

I've looked at some of it again. You write clearly. Points for that.

You seem like a good guy. You touch on some good issues. But I think the subject is bigger than this. Still, good luck. I'll probably read more.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;130966 wrote:

Once I achieve it? It's not a grocery list. It's a memoir. I see from your response how little you understand me. For all my self-liberation I am not exempt from the usual suffering, of course. I am not immune to toothaches, hangnails, or aging, of course. But "spiritually" or "ethically" I'm as satisfied as anyone I ever met, perhaps more satisfied. It wasn't free. I can tell you that. I don't resent evangelism. (This does strike me as a scientific or perhaps a scientistic sort of evangelism.) I do resent or am alienated by what seems to be your lack of interpretative finesse, shall we say? Transcendental pretension, bro.

---------- Post added 02-22-2010 at 05:15 AM ----------

It's not as "moral health" has been neglected. That's what the Church was for, I can only assume. Also Socrates, Plato, etc. etc. To me this is old news dressed in scientistic jargon. I don't intend malice. I don't think you realize how patronizing you sound. Ever seen The Wire? When Marlowe has a final conversation with Proposition Joe? "I ain't the son type." But sure, "moral" health is important. Sanity as sanitation. The way I see, jargon is just cloaked metaphor. "Moral health" isn't preferable to "right with God" except that "moral heath" is more persuasive in our scientist-as-priest age. Not that I'm a theist, mind you, but I've made scientistic pretense my target as bashing God has become a cliche. (Now I get the urge to stand up for that sweet old God I drowned like a puppy in my tumescent teen-aged arrogance.)
Byron's opening for Don Juan.
I'm coming from this sort of position, with a dash of neopragmatism, and a light sauce of negative theology. Make that positronic theology. My only spiritual ailment is the anxiety of influence.

Cheers!

---------- Post added 02-22-2010 at 05:22 AM ----------

I've looked at some of it again. You write clearly. Points for that.

You seem like a good guy. You touch on some good issues. But I think the subject is bigger than this. Still, good luck. I'll probably read more.

You both bring alot to the table! One of you seems to be driven by emotions a little, but not completly. Do you think that emotions interfere with logic? Smile

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic;131227 wrote:

You both bring alot to the table! One of you seems to be driven by emotions a little, but not completly. Do you think that emotions interfere with logic?

I think the idea that thought is sometimes not emotional is a questionable assumption. I'm not accusing you of suggesting this but answering your question.

If I seemed emotional, I was annoyed by being patronized after showing respect to the soon-to-be patronizer. But no sweat. I'm addicted to exactly those issues that folks get excited about. Deepthot is quite passionate as well, by my lights. He mentions his books continually. I don't blame him for this. In fact, it fits my explanatory hypotheses. I think we all tend to play the hero, but that the particular way we play the hero is quite variable. I call it a spiritual instinct. Of course some might object to me applying the word "instinct" to humans. Oh well. I do it without regret. I recognize no "neutral" authority that forbids. Neutral Standpoint? I think Santa Clause lives there with Elvis.

Thanks for your input, by the way!

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;127377 wrote:

Do all humans have some concept or ideal that they try to live up to? Do some of us have several clashing self-concepts?

Where do such concepts come from? How do they evolve or change? Do we have a sort of ethical instinct that causes us to construct an ideal self? How does this ideal self or self-ideal connect to philosophical views?

I think clashing self-concepts is built in, it may be the only way we can consciously decide to do something, rather than just doing it.

I enjoy the concept as seen in the movie iRobot. Sunny has two positronic brains allowing him to choose whether or not to follow the 3 laws. I've often wondered if there is a parallel to the left and right sides of the brain, since both sides do somewhat specific functions.

@Scottydamion,

Scottydamion;131251 wrote:

I think clashing self-concepts is built in, it may be the only way we can consciously decide to do something, rather than just doing it.

I agree. I would say that as we mature, the network becomes more and more organized in relation to a more and more dominant self-concept. This self-concept and its network of beliefs are, arguably, what we are.

Of course you could say that our multitude of self-concepts are parts of our belief web. Our views about what "external" reality are and what we are in an ethical sense are node perhaps on the same web. This holistic model of the self transcends/dissolves the mind/matter self/world dichotomy.

It also presents the self as a continual becoming. A web that must assimilate experience, sometimes excreting beliefs (un-weaving).

It may be that the common idea of the unified self is just a useful fiction. Of course fiction is only fiction in relation to non-fiction. So "fiction" is dependent upon context. In other words, relative.

---------- Post added 02-22-2010 at 08:32 PM ----------

Scottydamion;131251 wrote:

I enjoy the concept as seen in the movie iRobot. Sunny has two positronic brains allowing him to choose whether or not to follow the 3 laws. I've often wondered if there is a parallel to the left and right sides of the brain, since both sides do somewhat specific functions.

Good mention. It just occurred to me that the self-as-network metaphor seems to correspond the neuron network.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;131243 wrote:

I think the idea that thought is sometimes not emotional is a questionable assumption. I'm not accusing you of suggesting this but answering your question.

If I seemed emotional, I was annoyed by being patronized after showing respect to the soon-to-be patronizer. But no sweat. I'm addicted to exactly those issues that folks get excited about. Deepthot is quite passionate as well, by my lights. He mentions his books continually. I don't blame him for this. In fact, it fits my explanatory hypotheses. I think we all tend to play the hero, but that the particular way we play the hero is quite variable. I call it a spiritual instinct. Of course some might object to me applying the word "instinct" to humans. Oh well. I do it without regret. I recognize no "neutral" authority that forbids. Neutral Standpoint? I think Santa Clause lives there with Elvis.

Thanks for your input, by the way!

I do apologise as I must have been reading another post as I went back and reread and I was not able to find the main thing that I was refering to. Both of you have alot of good info and yes your are correct,[I think we all tend to play the hero, but that the particular way we play the hero is quite variable. I call it a spiritual instinct. ] as we are not able to see our selves as others see us, and it seems so much easier to see other people's faults than our own. Smile

I thought that I was the only one that thought Santa Clause lives there with Elvis. Laughing

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;130966 wrote:

Once... For all my self-liberation I am not exempt from the usual suffering. I am not immune to toothaches, hangnails, or aging, of course. ...am alienated by what seems to be your lack of interpretative finesse,....

It's not as "moral health" has been neglected. That's what the Church was for, I can only assume. Also Socrates, Plato, etc. etc. ... You write clearly. Points for that.

You seem like a good guy. You touch on some good issues. But I think the subject is bigger than this. Still, good luck. I'll probably read more.

If the 'ethical enterprise' develops further and succeeds in its work, much of the "usual suffering" won't be necessary! It is needless and avoidable. The optimists will see the advantages that aging has to offer, and will enjoy them. The aches and pains due to physical causes health science even now teaches us how to dispense with them. They too are largely avoidable. (We need to be more fussy as to what we put into our bodies, and careful about how much sleep we get. And exercise and really fresh air can compensate for a lot of mistakes. One of the main ingredients of health is to have a loving attitude.)

You say that ethics is what the Church has been for, and traditional moral philosophy. Have they done such a good job in clarifying our values? Or are the people tday confused about how to practice what they know is right, or perhaps as to how to tell right from wrong? (While I agree with the Jains that every proposition has some truth to it; I cannot agree with those who deny the principle that every person's dignity is to be recognized. I hold that everyone is to be treated as an Intrinsic value. I want to be ethical and am willing to practice for 10,000 hours until I become fully ethical, until it is ian ingrained habit.) This insight didn't dawn on me until I was well along in years. I'd like to arrange things so that kids in future learn this at a very young age.

The models proposed in my three documents, linked here at this Forum, are in a very early stage of development. The "interpretive finesse" will, I trust, will be coming along as we go, for it is a work in progress. I want it too. And I want average folks to have a greater appreciation of poetry. Both of us have quoted some here at the Forum.

I don't intentionally patronize anyone. Smile

My humiilty doesn't permit it ....and my modesty doesn't permit me to speak any further about my humility.:bigsmile:

On the contrary, my ethics advocates Intrinsically-valuing oneself and others, which means self-respect and respect for others. No one is inferior; we all have something to contribute.

I couldn't agree more that, as you say, "the subject is bigger than this." It sure is. We have to start somewhere. Analysis before synthesis. Simples before subtleties. Models by their very nature reduce complex data to simples, just as Galileo reduced "movement" to r = D/t. {He really started something: take a look at how many volumes portray natural science today. Many subtlies have been added to that simple formula. Some show its relation to F = ma.}

I am no Byron. Yet I thank you once again for perusing my manuscripts anyway. Maybe they contain something of value.

@deepthot,

deepthot;131274 wrote:

I couldn't agree more that, as you say, "the subject is bigger than this." It sure is. We have to start somewhere. Analysis before synthesis. Simples before subtleties. Models by their very nature reduce complex data to simples, just as Galileo reduced "movement" to r = D/t. {He really started something: take a look at how many volumes portray natural science today. Many subtlies have been added to that simple formula. Some show its relation to F = ma.}

I am no Byron. Yet I thank you once again for perusing my manuscripts anyway. Maybe they contain something of value.

It's not that I think your system, as I understand, is bad. It's just that I'm skeptical whether such a system can or should persuade toward universal application. Have you read Notes From Underground by Dostoevsky? What do you make of Jung? Is there a man on Earth without his sublimated Santa Clause? Maybe's it's himself in a red cap, if not the books of dead men or the applause of his fellows. Can your system prevent Napoleons? Should your system prevent Napoleons? Do you see your system as useful for some but not for others? Is this system more like the Gospel of John or a chain saw? The truth or a useful lie?

Yes, I agree with you on the nature of models. Precisely proportional mental models. It seduces the neo-cortex. The eros of mathematics. It's austere beauty. My "ethical self concept" is just such a reduction. It's arguable that that's what our thinking is -- the generation of reductive-productive-reproductive fictions concerning the obscure causes of our experience. Consciously tentative explanatory hypothesis on one side, and a faith so thick it's as invisible as God on the other. Analysis before synthesis? I why you say that, I think, but the two are inseparable. I don't know about frameless pictures as far as the human mind is concerned. But that's my transcendental buffoonery again.

I know you weren't playing Byron. I just thought it would add to the dialogue.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;131283 wrote:

It's not that I think your system, as I understand, is bad. It's just that I'm skeptical whether such a system can or should persuade toward universal application. Have you read Notes From Underground by Dostoevsky? What do you make of Jung?...
Yes, I agree with you on the nature of models. ...mathematics. It's austere beauty. My "ethical self concept" is just such a reduction.... Analysis before synthesis? I why you say that, I think, but the two are inseparable....

In offering this novel paradigm, - including the richer contents it will have once you work into it the insights of Dostoevsky and Jung - and others suply the subtlties of Husserl, Buddha, Mencius [ 372 BC], Putnam, de Gasset, etc. - I am working to increase the amount of useful information in this world.

For example, Shinto teaches that challenges will come along into our lives, and that as we overcome them we grow stonger in spiritual development; if we don't, we get weaker, and less able to meet the next challenge that will come our way. The process of overcoming will cause us to feel happier, and spiritual growth - the byproduct of which ishappiness and joy - is the purpose of life and why we were born

Much of this is really compatible with the frame of reference in my paradigm.

It would be the same for what Jung, Adler, Erikson, Piaget, Kohlberg, Mill - On Liberty, Emerson - On Compensation, and many many others have to say, once they are blended in, its terms are defined with more precision, and the relationships among its terms are clearly explicated. N'est pas?

You seem to be disvaluing science but you are employing some of its creations, namely the computer, and the internet (the world brain.) All things considered, I will take thaat intended put-down, the allusion to 'scientism' as a compliment. If, by the launching of my paradigm, Ethics can achieve even a fraction of the impact of such creations, the whole effort will have been quite worthwhile.

@deepthot,

deepthot;131342 wrote:

I am working to increase the amount of useful information in this world.

Truly, a good answer. I salute this.

---------- Post added 02-23-2010 at 03:52 AM ----------

deepthot;131342 wrote:

The process of overcoming will cause us to feel happier, and spiritual growth - the byproduct of which ishappiness and joy - is the purpose of life and why we were born

I generally agree. I think one might want to elaborate on "spiritual growth." I like the "by-product" metaphor, but why not the product?

Interesting that you present happiness as the by-product and spiritual growth as the purpose. Why not happiness as the purpose and spiritual growth as the evolving art(ifice) of happiness? I 've used the phrase "technology of morale" to include the "spiritual growth" encouraged by philosophy, religion, art, marriage, [place-holder], etc.

---------- Post added 02-23-2010 at 03:58 AM ----------

deepthot;131342 wrote:

It would be the same for what Jung, Adler, Erikson, Piaget, Kohlberg, Mill - On Liberty, Emerson - On Compensation, and many many others have to say, once they are blended in, its terms are defined with more precision, and the relationships among its terms are clearly explicated. N'est pas?

Yes, if you present it as a synthesis, this is better perhaps. For Jung had individuation and another has self-realization. The concept of moral/spiritual ascension/evolution/sophistication is an old one, yes. But a synthesis can suggest the possibility that the whole is greater than the parts. Perhaps it could be. But then I feel that all of us passionate thinkers/readers are always already synthesizing. That we ourselves are networks of sentences, sensations, emotions.

---------- Post added 02-23-2010 at 04:07 AM ----------

deepthot;131342 wrote:

You seem to be disvaluing science but you are employing some of its creations, namely the computer, and the internet (the world brain.) All things considered, I will take thaat intended put-down, the allusion to 'scientism' as a compliment. If, by the launching of my paradigm, Ethics can achieve even a fraction of the impact of such creations, the whole effort will have been quite worthwhile.

No, I don't disvalue science. Not at all. I just like to draw attention to certain rhetorical devices. The jargon of science is sometimes used where the method of science is not or can not be used, or not in the same way. We cannot directly describe first-person human experience. We invent mental models of the psyche, fabricate faculties. The psyche is a pizza that pretends to slice itself. The psyche uses myth/concept/music/sensation to see its environment/reflection/object of desire.

I assure you, I'm not anti-science. I just don't want ossified science. (Not saying yours is.)

Yes, if it works it's indeed worthwhile. I wish you well, Deepthot.

@Reconstructo,

Profound thanks for your kind remarks, and for already contributing to the advancement of the project.

Did you notice my chapter What is Science? in the paper, ETHICS: A College Text. ...And its concluding sentences about the relevance of those methods to Ethics? A link to it is HERE: http://tinyurl.com/2mj5b3

See especialy pages 20-25 and pages 38-46.

@Reconstructo,

Quote:

Katz agreed with Hartman that peace could be brought into the world by demonstrating the scientific connection between facts and values.

Sounds promising.

Quote:

Hence, for Ethics we are postulating that everyone, under
normal conditions, at one time or another in life, has a selfconcept.

To me, this concept could be called psychological or perhaps even metaphysical.
In any case, we both find this concept interesting as we are in this thread together. Whether we agree or not we are both interested in psychology, ethics, science, value.

Quote:

Hartman believed that every science originates from a basic
concept which is fertile: it has what Carl Hempl has spoken
of as empirical import.

Yes, this issue is also one of my concerns. I like this presentation and the breakdown of the various sciences.

There's much wisdom in your system. It's a nice fusion that is clearly presented. I haven't read it all, but I probably will. I can't say that I "adopt" it, but it's got a good spirit and it's not boring. My self-concept encourages only partial assimilation (anxiety of influence to name it mockingly...)

Quote:

Certain norms when taken seriously and made part of a
person's self-image can as a matter of fact make our lives
beautiful and happy; and there are many other personal
norms, and resulting behaviors, which will as a matter of
fact lead to misery and suffering. There are certain things
that we ought to do if we want to be happy. Making these
clearer is a task for a good prescriptive (normative) ethics

I generally agree. It's somewhat vague, but that's not always bad.

Philosophy Forum

Ethical Self Concept

Quick Links

My Account

able2know