Believing in...something.

[Kevin]

Hey Kevin, thanks for the welcome and the discussion. So...I seriously want to toss out the whole pleasure pain thing. Who is the master of this theory...skinner?

It's been an enjoyable conversation.

No, not Skinner. I could claim Pythagoras actually... but its primary proponent has to be Jeremy Bentham. This is a man who once wrote a detailed classification of the various levels of pleasure. I *think* he was kidding with that chapter! Well anyway... he brought about the utilitarian school of philosohical thought. As I've indicated, it was around, in one form or another, prior to Bentham but certainly he was its first systematic proponent. A short while later, utilitarianism would be aided by the more famous JS Mill. In particular, if you're at all interested, check out Mill's On Utilitarianism. Mill differed from Bentham in significant aspects, and really the term utilitarianism gives to it a far more uniform appearance than in reality it holds - there are various schools of thought. Anyway, a current proponent of utilitarianism that I've gleaned a lot from is Peter Singer. There is a wicked little book called Practical Ethics that I have dogeared like crazy. Bentham, Mill, Singer... these are the three architects. The basic gist, as I collate it is, if a being suffers there can be no moral justification for refusing to take into consideration that suffering. For a brief literary overview of utilitarianism - and rather an unflattering one at that! - check out Hard Times by Charles Dickens and Notes from Underground by Dostoyevsky. Dostoyevsky in particular can be a real sonofabitch! He claimed, via character, to find the flaw in the theory by concluding that since people do not always act rationally, let alone in their best interests, it means then that by not acting in their best interests they are being human and thus are acting in their best interests. I couldn't really figure out how it was he thought he had confounded the theory - but anyway, one fine story.

I think the dichotomy breaks down when we analyze ourselves. You make an interesting point about unworthy acts and motivations...but a lot of those are conditioned by authorities and peer groups. Which is to say we really don't know why we are doing them.

Interesting. I don't see that it matters though in the present context. 1) I was conditioned all my life to rush into a burning building to save the stranger 2) I was a lifelong selfish git who had been looking for some way to redeem myself. In both cases the motivation is still pleasure/pain, even if it is a deluded sense of pleasure or pain.

Caring for your peers and identifying with them also subjects you to their values. Depending on the social environment your actions will be conditioned very differently.

I agree. Years ago I found myself arguing with someone whose main goal in life, seemed to me, was to strike down anyone who in any way praised Thomas Jefferson. He was a slave holder! Yes, and that's not his credit but you have to consider the society he was living in... so, I'm with you here. I would feel much more disgust at someone living in the USA today who happened to hold slaves while writing about freedom!

I do actually believe the ends can justify the means. But I'm tired and I realize the issue is beyond me at the moment. I know, that's preposterous!

[nspeed]

I'm late here but I wanted to back Kevin here and agree with him. I simply support his opinion and I have nothing else to add: ultimately its all down to us feeling good or bad. As twisted as it may get for us in adulthood and society, in its core its as simple as 1 and 0 for a computer.

In the case you sauconyride read this, I would like to suggest doing what you've been doing up until now until you find what you seek (and good luck). If things like going to church and pray before meals makes you feel good, probably because of memories, it being a routine, or identification with others, then do it. So what if you don't believe in Christianity anymore? You can still believe in the actions themselves because of past experiences and a comfortable routine. If it bothers you that some people might take you for a Christian, you can explain that to them, I think they would respect you a lot for that (if the matter really arises and it probably won't).

[Preposterous]

Hey nspeed, thanks for the post. I do disagree however. I was originally writing a response about 9 days ago or so and I had a lot to say and I decided to make it a blog entry rather than a reply. Put it off and finally got around to cleaning it up and posting it today. For anyone interested its here, comments or criticism is welcome here or on the blog.

mezocosm.blogspot.com/2011/02/methods-a ... eving.html

I didn't post it here as its long and not really casual discussion more like a short post grad philosophy paper.

[Kevin]

I know you only did it out of some selfish desire to feel good, but thank you, nspeed! ...and welcome to the forums. EDIT: oh! I look forward to reading this blog entry!

[Kevin]

Hey nspeed, thanks for the post. I do disagree however. I was originally writing a response about 9 days ago or so and I had a lot to say and I decided to make it a blog entry rather than a reply. Put it off and finally got around to cleaning it up and posting it today. For anyone interested its here, comments or criticism is welcome here or on the blog.

mezocosm.blogspot.com/2011/02/methods-a ... eving.html

I didn't post it here as its long and not really casual discussion more like a short post grad philosophy paper.

Yes indeed! I tried to post a shallow reply and it wasn't accepted! But it seems that it was rejected on some technical grounds rather than on the superficial nature of my reply. It said my ID could not be established - or something to that effect. Is there some registration required in order to reply to your blog posts?

Here is what I wrote:

Wow! I will look at this in more detail. I hope you stick around at booktalk for some time. ps: this has been a very shallow follow up to your post. Having just now briefly scanned over it I want to mention that utilitarianism is my framework, or the avenue through which I've found a simple code to live by. I do not think of "the greater good" before performing any act - good or bad. The code I try to live by is this: If a being suffers there is no ethical justification for refusing to take into consideration that suffering. The reason utilitarian thought is important to me is because of the emphasis it places on pleasure and pain as being the motivating force behind every action. It's not a matter of how intelligent a being is, or how cute, or whether it's more likely to be harmful or harmless that places it in the sphere of ethical concern but simply this: is it capable of feeling pain? So, from stuffy old Bentham (btw I find him to be unintentionally(?) humorous) comes an ethical code I find to be beautiful. I will look over your post in more detail. Please say hello to kitty for me! (Kevin from BT)

[VMLM]

So it comes down to how do you worship an unknown religion...and how do you make that religion known to you...?

Hey, I know I haven't really been around for a while, but this post seemed interesting. I think I can help you but could I ask you some questions first?

What's made you want to change to another religion?

Why do you choose to continue having a religious belief?

I can tell you this right off the bat: Searching for new religions can be a wonderful experience. You learn a lot about other cultures, new outlooks on life, the universe and everything... In a way it's a lot like trying on a lot of different color eye glasses. Also, You will learn to take people's opinions (and beliefs) with a grain of salt... the overly zealous, the unhappy and the intellectually lazy often have unreasonable or contradictory beliefs.
In any case, never take anything for granted; and don't let the guys here get you down. We're pretty much all atheists here, but that shouldn't keep you from trying new things. Heck it wouldn't be fair to you if we didn't let you find your own answer through your own experience. I congratulate you, inquiry is the first step towards enlightenment .

[Preposterous]

Thanks for the response Kevin!

Is there some registration required in order to reply to your blog posts?

Its a mystery to me too.

...If a being suffers there is no ethical justification for refusing to take into consideration that suffering. The reason utilitarian thought is important to me is because of the emphasis it places on pleasure and pain as being the motivating force behind every action. It's not a matter of how intelligent a being is, or how cute, or whether it's more likely to be harmful or harmless that places it in the sphere of ethical concern but simply this: is it capable of feeling pain? So, from stuffy old Bentham (btw I find him to be unintentionally(?) humorous) comes an ethical code I find to be beautiful...

I am a big supporter of animal rights and love Bentham and Singer for this....also it always boggles my mind when people say they don't care what other people feel. I had someone say that to me today actually. But of course if someone is choosing suffering rather than being a victim of it then in that situation I might not empathize. I often have to choose suffering to stand by a principal that others reject, and so there I can't expect empathy either. Pain and pleasure seems to me like a good loose framework to describe many of my daily decisions...but there seems to me to be a lot of exceptions to the rule. I generally implied in the blog that I think utilitarianism is highly useful and as something I agree with...partially...but also fails in many areas. Just as ethics are guidelines to be taken seriously indeed, but not followed like laws.
I haven't read these utilitarian philosophers directly but from comparative and historical books / lectures of multiple sources...distilled down and critically examined in some cases. (ex. Bertrand Russell, history of western philosophy)

[Penelope]

The question was:

Share your religion revelations!

You know when you love some person, like your Mum or your Dad, or your grandchild......and you love them, not because they are virtuous, or beautiful or perfect. We love people for all kinds of silly reasons. Well, when we really love somebody, we like being in their presence. We like sharing our lives with them.

My revelation is: that it is like that with God. If you don't like what they tell you God is like If you don't like the vengeful and spiteful God often depicted in the Old Testament....or the one who demanded the human sacrifice of the one he called his son. Then find an understanding of God, in which you do feel comfortable. One whose presence you do like......You might visualise a Goddess if that is how you feel more comfortable.

God is neither male nor female....he is not a person. I think of it as The Force, like in Star Wars. And I tune into it, like you would tune in to a radio station.,
I feel comfortable in its presence. I am able to pray about things in an honest manner, not feeling the need to worship or flatter or make sacrifices to it.

I don't think we can ever understand what God is like....but we can recognise the presence. Furthermore....don't worry, I've nearly finished. Furthermore....when you take tiny baby steps towards, enlightenment, it is as though IT takes great big leaps towards you.....but it will take different forms for different people.

You know in Quantum Physics....the scientists tell us that the atomic particles behave oddly. They behave differently if they are being watched!!! Well, I think they behave differently...when we pray.