"help us all experience fascination and gratitude for the world we are in. To notice the miracle of existence, embrace whatever surrounds us, and respond with grace and wisdom to all that arises"
> rationality continually countered my search for love
Have you heard of Stefan Molyneux's rational definition of love: our automatic emotional response to virtue?
> our daily experience consist of a series of inexplicable phenomena that we need only observe and respond to in an ongoing flow, rather than try to pin down as certain or worse, fight against as wrong.
Wdym? For example Ross Ulbricht is locked away in a cement cage, probably under solitary confinement - that is *objectively* wrong/evil, surely we're all certain of that? Katherine Forrest is the *objectively evil* judge who chose to sentence him to over *two lifetimes* in this cage, beyond what the similarly evil prosecutors demanded. (Remember, Ross never hurt a single person. There are allegations, never proven in court, that he threatened to hurt an evil guy, who turned out to be a corrupt state agent who was sentenced to jail for a few years.)
> Yet the evidence for our beliefs in [...] right and wrong, [...] suggests anything but truth.
You need to read up on Stefan Molyneux's Universally Preferable Behavior or Hans Hermann Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics or Stephan Kinsella's Estoppel ... this stuff isn't evidence-based, it's logic. There is an "objective" universal answer to this timeless question. And it's not hard. And you probably already knew it, in your own words :p. All three are basically paraphrasing the same idea.
> they themselves, are perfect.
Katherine Forrest is not perfect. She deserves very very serious punishment for the hurt she has ... endorsed. I guess she isn't literally the person committing the kidnapping/confinement, but she definitely supports it.
Thank you for the book recommendations, I'll check them out. As for the rest, my premise for this book is that it's not really our business whether others are good or evil. Our job is to live up to our own ideals. Judging the behaviour of others doesn't bring me peace or create positive change, at least that's my experience. Not to say that I'm immune to judgement - I can easily say things are right or wrong and in a moment believe that very passionately. I can rage and criticize and blame, but when I hold on to those judgements, I live in hell. So with this book/essay series I'm looking at whether I can ever know those beliefs are justified. But questioning the truth of them, and discarding them if I can't find it, never means being passive - it means remaining open and able to take action where it's possible. Thanks for your comments, I appreciate that you read my essays and contribute thought provoking perspectives.
> it's not really our business whether others are good or evil.
Yes it is, unfortunately. The definition of evil is people who are intervening evilly in our lives, who won't leave us alone. That's the only reason we're here talking. Also Ross Ulbricht (for example) being locked in a cement box right now is also kinda our business.
> Our job is to live up to our own ideals.
That's synonymous with the above paragraph :p. Our ideal should be resisting evil (and doing good).
> Judging the behaviour of others doesn't bring me peace
That's because evil is inherently stressful - dealing with it, being a victim of it.
> or create positive change
Well identifying evil is surely the first step? Surely (diplomatically?) ignoring it is less likely to work?
> immune to judgement
I'm never sure what people mean when they say this! But I'm pretty sure I know why people try to avoid judgement (hint: all the uncomfortable dominos that it will cause to fall when applied honestly, to one's personal and work relationships.) Why would anyone resist calling Ross's captors/torturers evil? Or those of a murderer or rapist or thief? And, on the other side of this coin, why would anyone AVOID calling Ross a good / moral / virtuous hero? (Rational) love is based on judgement. Everything we do is literally judgement, that's what brains do.
> when I hold on to those judgements, I live in hell
It's not up to you to hold or let go to judgement. Not only can you literally not stop your brain from "judging" (thinking/pattern matching), but it's up to the evil person to stop intruding in your life and violating you. So long as they keep hurting you, it will keep feeling like hell :p.
> I can ever know those beliefs are justified.
Those 3 books/ideas that I mentioned prove they can be justified, and are objective and universal. It'd be cool if you independently came to the same conclusion though :).
> But questioning the truth of them, and discarding them if I can't find it
That's how Molyneux started off his journey with his book (UPB), on precisely this topic.
> to take action where it's possible.
Yes, this is a different topic, strategy. Stoicism is good here.
"help us all experience fascination and gratitude for the world we are in. To notice the miracle of existence, embrace whatever surrounds us, and respond with grace and wisdom to all that arises"
that's so beautiful 🥰🥹
> rationality continually countered my search for love
Have you heard of Stefan Molyneux's rational definition of love: our automatic emotional response to virtue?
> our daily experience consist of a series of inexplicable phenomena that we need only observe and respond to in an ongoing flow, rather than try to pin down as certain or worse, fight against as wrong.
Wdym? For example Ross Ulbricht is locked away in a cement cage, probably under solitary confinement - that is *objectively* wrong/evil, surely we're all certain of that? Katherine Forrest is the *objectively evil* judge who chose to sentence him to over *two lifetimes* in this cage, beyond what the similarly evil prosecutors demanded. (Remember, Ross never hurt a single person. There are allegations, never proven in court, that he threatened to hurt an evil guy, who turned out to be a corrupt state agent who was sentenced to jail for a few years.)
> Yet the evidence for our beliefs in [...] right and wrong, [...] suggests anything but truth.
You need to read up on Stefan Molyneux's Universally Preferable Behavior or Hans Hermann Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics or Stephan Kinsella's Estoppel ... this stuff isn't evidence-based, it's logic. There is an "objective" universal answer to this timeless question. And it's not hard. And you probably already knew it, in your own words :p. All three are basically paraphrasing the same idea.
> they themselves, are perfect.
Katherine Forrest is not perfect. She deserves very very serious punishment for the hurt she has ... endorsed. I guess she isn't literally the person committing the kidnapping/confinement, but she definitely supports it.
Thank you for the book recommendations, I'll check them out. As for the rest, my premise for this book is that it's not really our business whether others are good or evil. Our job is to live up to our own ideals. Judging the behaviour of others doesn't bring me peace or create positive change, at least that's my experience. Not to say that I'm immune to judgement - I can easily say things are right or wrong and in a moment believe that very passionately. I can rage and criticize and blame, but when I hold on to those judgements, I live in hell. So with this book/essay series I'm looking at whether I can ever know those beliefs are justified. But questioning the truth of them, and discarding them if I can't find it, never means being passive - it means remaining open and able to take action where it's possible. Thanks for your comments, I appreciate that you read my essays and contribute thought provoking perspectives.
> it's not really our business whether others are good or evil.
Yes it is, unfortunately. The definition of evil is people who are intervening evilly in our lives, who won't leave us alone. That's the only reason we're here talking. Also Ross Ulbricht (for example) being locked in a cement box right now is also kinda our business.
> Our job is to live up to our own ideals.
That's synonymous with the above paragraph :p. Our ideal should be resisting evil (and doing good).
> Judging the behaviour of others doesn't bring me peace
That's because evil is inherently stressful - dealing with it, being a victim of it.
> or create positive change
Well identifying evil is surely the first step? Surely (diplomatically?) ignoring it is less likely to work?
> immune to judgement
I'm never sure what people mean when they say this! But I'm pretty sure I know why people try to avoid judgement (hint: all the uncomfortable dominos that it will cause to fall when applied honestly, to one's personal and work relationships.) Why would anyone resist calling Ross's captors/torturers evil? Or those of a murderer or rapist or thief? And, on the other side of this coin, why would anyone AVOID calling Ross a good / moral / virtuous hero? (Rational) love is based on judgement. Everything we do is literally judgement, that's what brains do.
> when I hold on to those judgements, I live in hell
It's not up to you to hold or let go to judgement. Not only can you literally not stop your brain from "judging" (thinking/pattern matching), but it's up to the evil person to stop intruding in your life and violating you. So long as they keep hurting you, it will keep feeling like hell :p.
> I can ever know those beliefs are justified.
Those 3 books/ideas that I mentioned prove they can be justified, and are objective and universal. It'd be cool if you independently came to the same conclusion though :).
> But questioning the truth of them, and discarding them if I can't find it
That's how Molyneux started off his journey with his book (UPB), on precisely this topic.
> to take action where it's possible.
Yes, this is a different topic, strategy. Stoicism is good here.