|
|
|
|
REALISM part#4
COMPETITION:: My comment about my own religion is that if it can not stand up to any other religion, and it if is not demonstratively superior, then I should be allowed to examine that alternative, and select it. I am willing to consider ALL alternatives, and I feel strongly that everyone should be allowed to examine all possible alternatives, and make up their own mind. If what someone has is so weak that it can not meet this criteria, and only then, will they try to repress competition. Thus repression is a sure sign that the religion is wrong. This key will let you dismiss many religions without major mental effort. The repression allows you to know there is a major flaw, to look for that flaw, and thus easily to discard it and the attached garbage. I am willing to accept anything good from anywhere. I also am unwilling to use force to try to make others elect ethical or belief personal decisions. I believe in “Gentle persuasion”, and even the right to privacy so that I may not uninvited intrude on anyone else’s religion.-- nor they mine. But I am willing to discuss, and examine, accept and reject on merits. “CAPITALISM” (as a religion): Henry Ford is a good example of a benevolent Capitalist. he started out with very little and by mass production techniques became a billionaire. Yet in the 1920-28 period he was very proud that he paid his workers markedly more than the “union” wage at General Motors or other car plants. His workers also were far better off than they would have been working alone or in other factories. He and they both knew that they were working together for the mutual benefit of all. Thus unionization was grossly unsuccessful until he was placed an in extreme financial squeeze by an attempt to steal his company from him in about 1930. At that point he was forced to make economic cuts, which hurt his workers and the unions gained their foothold. The real culprit was a bank conspiracy to refuse to extend further short term credit & thus to get him to default on loans. He countered by requiring his dealers to buy a specific number of new cars for cash, allowing him to pay off his big loans, while providing security to allow transferring the debts to the numerous dealers in such a diffuse network that the big banks could not even trace more than a few of them to understand what had happened. They had no success in their attempt to block extending credit at the very local level by thousands of small local banks (not in on the conspiracy, and who had nothing to gain from it), to local dealers. He never allowed himself to get trapped with major short term loans again. But in the process he had to cut his work force by a factor of almost half, and drop wages to depression levels to meet the overall depressed price structure. Unions agitated and obtained excessive force responses from armed “Pinkerton” guards who killed a few people in an unruly mob, and that further angered the rest of the workers that they unionized. The total result was one unethical action cascaded into a series of crises and resulted in many more unethical actions.
This example is typical of as ye sow so shall ye reap, but in this case
Ford’s good behavior was not reciprocated. Greedy men with desire for
political control of the power represented by his money and business,
were parasitic and in effect stole from him. That unethical behavior was
not actually against the law at that time. It was never adequately redressed.
A flawed judicial system, combined with tolerated parasitic bad business
ethics to further violate the total ethical results.
In the late 1880 1890 period the “Industrial Barons” who were predatory on smaller companies, building such monopolies are Standard Oil actually looked upon their success as “survival of the fittest” applied to business. They justified their predatory bad ethics from what was actually religious beliefs, not so stated, but religious none the less. Rockefeller demanded a rebate on every barrel of oil hauled by the rail roads, whether his or that of a competitor, as part of terms for giving his business to the rail roads. Thus in effect he was taking money from his competitors pocket straight into his own via monopolistic power control. This was eventually terminated, but he was never punished for this outright theft. If it was wrong later it was wrong initially. We have yet to recognize that in our laws. We react only to stop future similar practices not to correct past harms. Thus religion and ethics at this level both need to be corrected. AGNOSTICISM: This religion or pseudo- religion was more or less formalized by Thomas Huxley (1825-1895) ca 1869 after such earlier proponents as Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536 Dutch) and well before that Sextus Empiricus (Third Century B.C. Greek for whom empiricism is named). It states that all knowledge must come from experience, and admits that there are things a person does not know; whether there is a God or not, or whether there is a future life or not, and so confines their belief as far as possible to rational observations, to what is observed. Eventually they admit that there is a limit to what we know, or even what we can know, and as Kant said “I have found it necessary to deny some knowledge to make room for faith.” Faith is somewhat the opposite of agnosticism in that faith totally without evidence or on the basis of some special and thus not repeatable and unprovable revelation of God can determine religion. The agnostic is cynical yet Martin Luther loudly rejected skepticism with “The Holy Spirit is not Skeptical”. (How did he know, or was he just criticizing the competition?) As a race we must believe from past experience that there is more to know than we now know, or more to learn than we have thus far learned, even as a race. There is always something new. Yet much of what we do is a repeat of the past since we do not seem to be able to pick up from where we left off and go on without reinventing the wheel time after time. Thus any ethical religion must be dominantly agnostic. SKEPTICISM:: Again any good religions must be skeptical. This school of thought from the Greek era also included empiricism, but that can be taken too far. What seems to be correct is to examine everything, try to negate - to eliminate the obvious frauds, and to eliminate errors. Empiricism in its extreme form rejects theory totally, and relies totally on observation without any “hidden causes” logic at all. This goes too far. We must use mental constructs, hypotheses, theories, and laws; with varying degrees of confidence to reduce the complexity of events to manageable mental units. We must discard (quickly!) any mental construct which conflicts with observation. But we need to retain as much as fits observation. I use the skeptical attitude to help with identification and “carrying out the garbage”, to help discard erroneous mental processes, or to restrict them by use of irrelevance to where they are valid. .
A PROGRESSION OF RELIGION In an analysis of both individual people and of civilizations as a whole there was observed a distinct pattern of the types of religion that followed one another. The pattern first was noticed in conjunction with the analysis of the 700 year cycle of rise and fall of civilizations. Those civilizations which succeeded one another all seemed to follow this pattern.. Then it was also noted that individuals also tended to follow the same general pattern of growth. Individuals; however, are so variable that not all people experienced all stages. Some people skipped one stage or another, and still others “got stuck” and never progressed at all past a specific stage. This is a GENERAL pattern which should be used with caution and which should not be applied to individuals without skepticism. The “Stage” letters refer to a generalization applied to the 700 year cycles which specify which groups of civilizations were at that level.
age Stage description 0-1 1 Self 1-2 2 Mother- Father then family 2-4 3 Arbitrary rule, punishment or reward for bad or good behavior 3-5 AB Spirits, fear of bad spirits, absolute black/white good/bad and reward /punishment Santa Clause bogeyman stage. 5-6 C Totems, animism, spirits in rocks, trees etc. with humanizing animals assigning human characteristics to everything, sacrifice to spirits. 7-9 D Idols, material figures, status religions, fear reaching peak motivation (Human sacrifice to fears- and unknowns, - spirits, things can’t control) 10-11 E-F Inconsistent polytheism, (Assyria/Egypt) human sacrifice ctd.Sun/Moon 11-12 F Consistent polytheism (Greek-Roman) slow end of human sacrifice, self deification and deification of men common. Sun Moon K f 2 12-13 G Immaterial gods some with material images, negative motivation, fear “thou shalt NOT” laws, self aggrandizement, self deification 14-15 H Strictly Immaterial spirit gods NEGATIVE motivation more consistent theology, guilt trips, self mutilation, men cease self deification but “divine right of kings & claim to represent gods, priesthoods of power, concept of hell for punishment for disobeying authority or laws. 15-16 I Immaterial gods, monotheism to very few gods, positive rewards love & heaven, prophets and priest in control, old is better promised reward in heaven for tangible gifts now 16-17 J Immaterial god, attempt to be consistent, conformism, emotionalism mass psychology, hierarchy, charisma important, guilt trips, Grace 18-19 Ka Inconsistent merger with others, sacrifice of self to group encouraged & conformity by bureaucracy, individual desire to be part of whole leading to altruism, desire to merge with society as a whole (Marriage). 19-20 Kb Self suppression - Altruism- some people willing to sacrifice themselves to THE cause, True Believer, save the world movements.
20-24 11a Self determinism & responsibility, Disillusionment with imperfections, skepticism, cynicism rejection of hierarchy, organizations, do it myself, rejection of other’s conclusions control, re-asserting re-finding self after merger (Frequently - but not always - A form of Divorce) 22-24 11b (Frequently-not always) Over reaction “some is bad, therefor all is bad” & “If I can not experience it; it doesn’t exist” fallacy, leading to atheism, denial of deity, based on failures of theology & individuals in control AGE: BELOW typical age of man where this stage would normally first occur 24-26 12a Ability to understand Homo superior group responsibility, ability to maintain identity but still suppress self for good of group & start of collectivism, flawed still by sacrifice of individual to group good 26-30 12b Group Responsibility collectivism (true communism) but rejection of self immolation/sacrifice - good of all demands good of each individual 30-35 13a Fragmented Realism-merger of self with nature, worship of “nature”, children are miracle of nature, mature “natural philosophy”, save nature from mankind (mental separation of self from group identity) 35-45 13b Group Realism-merger of group into nature, social awareness political activism, attempt to better society/nature both 45-55 14 “Thou Art God” understanding Homo stellaris, recognition that deity resides in self and what we may become some day, awareness of group racial and self potential, children miracle of selves. 55-65 15 Understanding of Stellaris primus Eternal progression, actual beginning of plan to become gods, rejection or ultimate acceptance of need for stagnation and death, beginning of rejection of power and “fame” 65-80 16 Understand Stellaris secundus, Rejection of visible fame, power, seek maximal results from minimal effort, use of mental versus physical effects, use of subtlety PROGRESSION OF ETHICS: The same sort of pattern also appeared in Ethics. This is presented below in two different - hopefully non-contradictory formats. The first has a brief description of the ethical stage in terms of five “variables” 1) Consideration:: who was considered, the size of the group the individual considered. 2) Motivation, the types of motivation the individuals were using, 3) Rules: The sorts of rules that the individuals are following 4) Human Interactions, the sorts of interactions with other people that are happening, and 5) Value System- the sorts of values that the person is considering in his decisions. AGE: BELOW only typical of where this stage would normally occur in a relatively advanced person, not average or below average ability. A PROGRESSION OF ETHICS Jan 1993 J.H.L.Lawler ETHICS is defined as Human Interactions, and Considering the Harm or Benefit to Others age Stage description Consideration ,Motivation, Rule,: Human interactions, Value systems 0-1 1 Consideration 1 Self centered ONLY: I want NOW. Motivation by needs, later curiosity !!! Human interactions: property no concept property - only I want it - VALUE pleasure - pain not even sure object exists to fill needs. 1-2 2 C 2-5 Beginning to consider mother perhaps father immediate family RULES: obeys simple rules to avoid pain/ unpleasant results. M: Curiosity investigation restricted by negative reward; punishments mostly. H: beginning to understand concept of property - Mother’s Daddy’s Sister’s V: Learning value; knows “exists” or not; understands we don’t have, learning later
2-4 3 C:5-10 Expand include siblings a few friends-cooperation RULES obeys arbitrary rules, punishment or reward for bad or good behavior M: beginning to respond to Positive reward motivation. V: first simple comparative values - materialistic. 3-5 AB C:5-50 including extended family (aunts, uncles, cousins) more friends R: recognition of “mine” and theirs in property rights - but takes things they want M: concept “SHARE” H: knows about property but may ignore it, V:limited comparative value system 5-6 C C: 10-100 expands to include school mates - close community R: (animism)/ Recognition of rights of others outside peers (Your rights depend on recognition of other’s rights). M: fear of spirits -boogyman, things not understood. H: human sacrifice OK for imagined benefit of self or for gain of peer local group . V: beginning to recognize value in LIFE of other humans and animals values 7-9 D C: 30-500 expanded consideration. of whole tribe- village 4-6 km radius; R: mostly thou shalt not laws (if you don’t want it done to you don’t do it to others) M: fear physical punishment, Human sacrifice even “sisters” etc. OK for “family” good (Cannibalism mentality) “Sacrifice the good of the few for the good of the many”. V values intangible approval of core family - peers 10-11 E C: 3-5,000 county/20 km radius- Motivation fear of censure verbal social controls R: understands basic social rules and beginning to ask why control by guilt, usually, not physical punishment, H: reject human sacrifice within tribe, but sacrifice of strangers (US and THEM) still used V: values includes spirits religious hereafter - fear of God 11-12 F C: 10-50,000/100 km radius M: life of others valued, but slavery (them not us) OK R: more rules -more why - beginning to understand injustices of system H: end of tolerating human sacrifice, self centered, but recognition of rights of others- particularly peer group - V: life of others valued, but slavery (group -them not us mentality) OK 12-13 G C: ca 105 city/state M: intangible negative motivation, shame modesty, R: peer equality rights -control by fear “thou shalt NOT” laws, H: self aggrandizement, pecking orders - fraternity/ social groups manhood ritual clubs V: Freedom - or start to reject slavery, forced working for other’s benefit. 14-15 H C:2-4x105 M: change NEGATIVE to positive motivation, R: concept of un-provable future punishment hell (fear) for disobeying authority or laws. peer approval important can go as far as self mutilation, others life respected more & more 15-16 I C: 106-1000 km radius Concern for others, not laws dominates thinking seeking freedom M: seeks peer approval more than family usually, H: add sexual love to philos, action for intangible future rewards (Heaven) End of acceptability of slavery V: Heaven and approval of God and peers becoming paramount. 16-17 J C: continental land masses- homogeneous groups of people R: rebellion against rules/laws H: positive rewards Concern for one of other sex dominates motivation, \ H: group conformism, emotionalism, mass psychology, joining hierarchy, charisma important. V: include guilt trips, Grace, FREEDOM of thought and action
18-22 Ka C: 107 Nationalism Racial identification with big group(s), R: conformity enforced by bureaucracy, M: sacrifice of self to group encouraged H: altruism, desire to merge with society as a whole V: individual desire to be part of whole, Women want children (Military & Marriage). 20-24 Kb C: racism ending R: self suppression - bottom of adult pyramid must conform to advance Altruism- major consideration of their own Children Mother (father) love H: some people willing to sacrifice themselves for others or “THE cause”, True Believer, save the world movements V: DIVERSITY All humans equal fallacy, Animal rights acknowledged but flawed desire good without experience. 22-26 Kc C: 108 all humanity R: self determinism & self responsibility, cynicism, rejection hierarchy, organizations, M: do it myself, H: REJECTION of War, disillusionment with imperfections, skepticism, rejection of other’s conclusions control, V: re-asserting re-finding self after merger (Realization Children are NUISANCE Frequently - but not always - leads to Divorce) 22-28 Kc2 (Frequent disorder symptom, not always) OVER REACTION REJECTION of Society, withdrawal. R: do not respect or care about laws or social rules (which they believe have failed them) M: selfishness- social withdrawal - H: over reaction “some is bad, therefore all is bad” & “If I can not experience it; it doesn’t exist” fallacy, leading to atheism, V: denial of deity, based on failures of theology & individuals in control can lead to suicide 24-30 La C: 109 one world M: wont’ steal, at worst will allow others to gyp themselves by their own bad values. H: understanding Homo superior group responsibility, ability to maintain identity but still suppress self for good of group & start of collectivism, flawed still by allowing sacrifice of individual to group, V: sees value in all others- AGAPE(1).Values become important ethical consideration 30-40 Lb C: group Responsibility R: able to reason out and make own “laws” -age of reasoning. M: collectivism (true communism- working with others as team like one person. H: ejection of self immolation /sacrifice - good of all demands good of each individual 40-55 Ma C:1010 Fragmented Realism- R: save nature from itself and rape of mankind- mankind from self ( M:merger of self with nature, mental separation of self from group identity H: Rejects lying, mental distortion of reality, worship of “nature”, children are miracle of nature, mature “natural philosophy”, V: Value systems and diversity of values valuable, evaluation error less than 1% AGAPE(2) 55-65 Mb C: group Realism- M: merger of group into nature, social awareness political activism, attempt to better society/nature both, V: Values system selected by popular vote, extreme long range centuries-future concerns 65-75 N R: won’t allow unequal exchange of value won’t allow others to cheat selves even. H: ”Thou Art God” understanding Homo stellaris, recognition that deity resides in self and what we may become some day, awareness of group racial and self potentials, V: Refusal to force own values on others, TRUTH, fraction error less than 0.001(0.1%) 75-85 O H: understanding of Stellaris primus rejection or ultimate acceptance of need for stagnation and death, beginning of rejection of power and “fame” V: TRUTH prediction error less than 0.01% concern for millennia/ eons races future and past. 85-100 P H: understand Stellaris secundus, Rejection of visible fame, power, seek maximal results from minimal effort, use of mental versus physical effects, use of subtlety, V: error less than ppm(part per million)
PATTERNS OF INCREASINGLY ETHICAL BEHAVIOR © March 1993 J LAWLER
The concept here is to define the stage of an unethical practice by four degrees of recognition of value , a) most primitive, for self benefit, then b) tribal or peer group benefit, then c) a hypothetical benefit to deity or for abstract terms, and finally d) a total rejection of the unethical conduct as unethical in all cases. The values (and anti-values) that go through these four stages are: 1) Human life (Human sacrifice) , 2) Freedom (Slavery), 3) Security (Violence) 4) Property (Degrees of theft), and 5) Diversity of Values (Forced value systems, inflicting one’s opinion on others).
A Recognition of property - mine theirs- but still steals ignores definition B “Share” The ability for social conformity C 1a) Kills for self gain Uses Violence for self gain D 1b) Cannibal mentality - sacrifice others lives for good of “tribe” E 1c) Sacrifice others lives to “higher cause” usually “Deity” only F 1d) End human sacrifice, but still steals time/ labor for personal gain G 2a) Pecking order- seeks status, power over others. H 2a) Rebellion against Authority/desires Freedom, self determination I 2b) End of direct Slavery to benefit individuals, indirect still practiced. J 2b) Rejection of even indirect servitude, but still racial distinctions. Ka 2b) Allows modified economic slavery to benefit small group (factory/ labor management or Labor / capital stage) but rejection of racism. Kb 2c) Limited slavery for The benefit of group (nation), military etc. (Draft) Kc 2d) Rejects war but still allows slavery for higher cause (one world, all humanity, deity, religion) Kd 3a) End slavery still steals property allows “redistribution of wealth” steals for “good” of many, and peer group and self with kickback/bribe/baksheesh La 3a) Won’t steal outright, will allow others to gyp themselves by poor values Lb 3b) Cannibal mentality applied to property, value taken “for good of many”- redistribution of wealth to “poor” and “Needy”, social security, health care Lc 3c) Property still taken by force for “children” forcing own values on others. Ld 3d) End of“taxation”and taking property by force, end of redistribution of wealth, recognition of expenditure only by own values, or benefit to taxed. Ma 4a) Rejects distortions of value, exchanges value for value, but still forces own values on others, can not recognize diversity of values. Mb 4b) Values selected by “vote” and majority values inflicted on minority, particularly done by hierarchy in self aggrandizement and exercise of power Mc 4c) Values set by “religion” or higher trans human authority inflicted on everyone particularly minority, conformity to pattern required. Md 4d) Refuses to force values on others, allows free selection of values
Generally as people mature they progress to later and higher stages of ethical development. Thus there is a typical minimal age associated with each of the above. Societies taken as a whole also progress through these stages, driven by the mixture of people, and their own stage of development. I suspect Truth(lying) will be the next stage (N) of value past the above list.
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST:: EUGENICS:: Racial hygiene Long Range Policies The fundamental principles and general intent of eugenics are highly worthwhile. The past history of attempted application of eugenics is totally dismal. Hitler in particular in Nazi Germany tried to apply eugenics, or racial hygiene, racial good health to breed a better race. Unfortunately his problem was in the definition of “better”. He aimed at a “Pure Aryan” racial definition of good, and his definition was partially faulty. He did use other criteria which were correct, but the Aryan flaw combined with excessive force turned a good idea into a nightmare. We must reject his use (abuse) of the concept, but not eugenics itself. MAJOR POINT: Good times for the individual are bad times for the race as a whole. Bad times for the individual are good times for the race as a whole. In good times the weak and unfit can survive and breed. In harsh times the weak are killed off. Any species needs be culled to remove its genetic failures. In nature, red of fang and tooth and claw, the predators cull out the old, the weak or the unfit. Humanity has a major problem in that the species basically has no predator species, other than man himself, that kills any appreciable number of humans. Man is himself a predator, but without being prey to any other species. Thus the race must supply its own competition & culling, if it is to be culled at all. What is a criteria for culling, and who decides? There are several criteria which come to mind. Intelligence is the first and main one. A lack of genetically transmitted diseases is another. I would reject both size and strength as small people may be VERY desirable in space applications, and pure raw physical strength without a mind to control it is a dead end. The decision must not be forced by society, but is a personal one. With genetic engineering it seems probable that we will be able to “operate” and remove or block bad genes from the sperm or egg entering the fertilized egg, and thus to allow people to transmit the only the good part of their genes to a baby in the near future. Thus we do not need to use physical coercion, but we can use logic and mild social pressure, and withholding rewards as a negative incentive to stop bad breeding. We need just to insist that people be responsible, and not have “random choice” breeding of people with known bad genes which will pass on all genes good or bad. Smart people tend to have smart children. Stupid people tend to have stupid children. The nurture or nature argument does not matter at all. Whether intelligence is genetic or taught, the smart people will provide both, and the stupid neither good genes nor good environment. Thus we can use this as a valid criteria to encourage or discourage large families. We have tended to provide culling via wars in the past. Thus as unethical as wars appear on the surface, they have served a function to cull the worst members with bad characteristics from our race. The smart people tended to stay alive, and the stupid ones died. But pure brute strength counted for as much if not more than brains in that situation until recently. The gun was a “great equalizer” and the knight on horseback become a dinosaur and is extinct. You would think that we would now tend to breed up to the highest possible level of competence.
Yet that is not true. The “best minds”, those who were most patriotic, and most altruistic volunteered to go to war,.... and got killed off. The culls stayed home on the farm and “fed” the war machine, but survived and bred more clods so dumb that the Army could not use them. Many of these are in the cities on welfare since they cannot get or hold a productive job. Or they find welfare more lucrative than the pay for any job that they can get. Today the race is breeding more and more the worst possible class of people. Welfare not only allows but encourages those people to breed who are so unfit and inept that they need subsidy just to live, and even worse to breed as many children as possible to increase their ADC subsidy. We socially are increasing the numbers of the least able and least intelligent. And simultaneously our society via propaganda about the “population problem” is encouraging the better minds who understand the arguments and who are able to control their breeding habits to limit breeding. By this method we have defined stupid, lazy, and inept as “fit” and intelligent active worker as unfit by the only long range criteria that nature recognizes. This folly obviously must be reversed. . Hitler’s eugenics methods were a bit draconian. He sterilized some millions of people by force. Any person who was defined by the government bureau as mentally defective or had what was believed to be a genetically transmitted disease was sterilized (or killed). In addition he offered subsidies to “Pure race Aryans” who had children. An “Aryan” couple could receive a loan equivalent to about one year’s salary if the wife would drop from the work force and stay home to have babies. That loan was forgiven and reduced for each child born, and three children would in essence pay off the whole loan. The SS were the male Aryan elite. All the “Aryan” girls wanted to marry one of these super race men. There were not enough SS men to go around. So the SS set up special “maternity houses” Lebensborn, where pure Aryan girls who were not yet married could go to meet these SS males, and become pregnant by them (without getting married but the parentage was carefully recorded, and baby and mother were very well taken care of). The child would be supported by the state. “Give the Fuhrer a child”. was a national motto for all “good” Germans. Failure to have children was taxed. Non Aryans were penalized via taxes for having children, and Jews were prohibited to marry outside their race, and other unions might be approved or rejected by a complex relationship on the basis of the fraction of “impure blood” that the prospective couple might have. . Thus the basic intent was beneficial, but the actual actions stepped well over the bounds of tolerable ethics. What are the ethical bounds? In rejecting part of the above the key was the excessive use of FORCE. Those who were voluntarily in mental institutions and who could not or would not earn their own living could be required ethically as a condition for receiving a “welfare handout” to undergo sterilization. Any government being in the welfare business is dubious in the first place, but placing that limit on the receipt of benefits given to anyone is within ethics. The mass killing of some hundreds of thousands of helpless elderly people in “old folks homes” and patients in mental institutions is totally intolerable. Those killed were a provable drain on society, costing many thousands of marks a year each to maintain. But that does not constitute a license for murder.
Taxes and unethical charity revisited:: That “charitable” expense was in reality not an expense that the German state should have been involved in paying from taxation in the first place. All taxes are taken by force. If they are returned to the person taxed exactly, value given for value taken, then taxes can be ethical. An example of a valid tax is one to pay for a police force, or perhaps a fire department, or other governmental services given to everyone. But when value is taken from one person, by force, and given to someone else who in no way benefits the person from whom the value was stolen, that is pure unethical theft. This is the first misuse of force in the Hitler Nazi eugenics example above, but one example of charity that all governments so far seem to be unable to avoid. The fallacy of all socialism, including NAZI, (National Socialism), is to take over value judgements and self responsibility from individuals and turn people into a hive of worker bees or ants all in service to the queen and the rest of the colony, “state”. People are NOT insects and insect ethics do not apply to them! To govern implies taking away options, giving up certain choices, and control of behavior by use of force. The dichotomy happens when government is combined with the concept of charity which implies a freedom of choice freedom of values and self responsibility. Thus charity in any form, given from taxes must be avoided. If people within the society wish to establish and provide an organization to collect VOLUNTARY contributions, and redistribute them, that is ethical. That mechanism has run the Boy Scouts, the Red Cross, and other charities too numerous to list for years. Since these organizations are close to the people “with the gold”, and also are closely scrutinized by the donors, they also tend to be relatively efficient. If they are not efficient, the donors seek alternative better (competing) means of doing the same thing. Thus the whole basis for governmental collectivism including virtually all socialism (including socialized medicine) and communism is basically unethical, and opposed to efficiency. Eugenics as a general concept is not only ethical, but we as a race must start to practice ETHICAL eugenics. We need to discourage stupid and inept people from breeding, and offer incentive for the most intelligent to have more children. We must stop rewarding bad behavior by termination of all incentive to breed when a person is not self supporting, and provide in fact a negative incentive. The use of force is prohibited, but we at least can withhold any positive incentive, and express our verbal opinions and even apply social sanctions. We are not required to cooperate and aid in what we believe is wrong. On the other hand we also may not use force to stop it either. The social pressure must be simply a refusal to sanction and cooperate with such actions as we disapprove of. This concept is important, we must be free to exercise our conscience, and to cooperate or withhold cooperation from activities involving value judgements. There are certain actions which destroy value which can and must be prohibited or halted by use of force. Example, those who are destroying Redwood trees which took many centuries to grow for “profit” and are not able to undo the damage that they are doing can and should be halted. The lumberjacks do not have a “right” to that employment and the owners should not be allowed to make a profit at the expense of permanent damage to the environment of future generations.
By contrast those companies such as Boise Cascade or Wyerhauser who are planting large areas of trees should be encouraged and allowed to harvest and make a profit from them. The companies who are attempting to cut virgin forest should be severely punished for past bad behavior, even to the point of extinction of those companies, and all who took part in the unethical rape of the forest should be forced to change employment into something totally divorced from forest and land management since they have proven themselves not of good judgement and to have bad to nonexistent ethical value judgement in that area. We must in places inflict our values on those who would burn off square miles of rain forest to make farms which probably are doomed to fail in the next few years and the damage done will be semi permanent, virtually impossible to reverse. WE DO OWE THE FUTURE GENERATIONS CONSIDERATION, and OUR VALUES TODAY MUST INCLUDE BEING CERTAIN OUR ACTIONS DO NOT IRREVERSIBLY HARM FUTURE GENERATIONS. What profit we make now must not cost more to reverse that what we gain now. Growing a crop must not damage the land more than the value of the crop. If it does, then the crop must not be allowed. WHO OWNS THE LAND? I like the Indian story which illustrates a correct attitude about land ownership. “There were two fleas on the back of a dog arguing about which one of them owed the dog. The mountain was there long before I was born, and will still be there long after I am dead. Is it not very presumptuous of us to try to own the mountain? Should we not instead realize that we co-exist and may use it while we are here, but we must respect that mountain and not try to rape it or damage it. We must preserve it, and if possible leave it in better shape than we found it, for those to enjoy who will follow. We must cherish nature, and it will cherish us. Let me reiterate that part of a beneficial value system from the American Indian religion again as it is a lesson I have tried to understand, and which is part of my religion. We are part of nature, we do not “own” it, (her) and it is not here for our sole benefit. We are part of it. We are given opportunities to live WITH the rest of nature, and we must try to live in HARMONY with it, not fight it. IF we destroy nature, she will in turn stop providing for us. If we help her, she will help us. “As ye sow so shall ye reap”. We need to learn to “love” nature and learn to value nature, with Agape love, and in turn to teach that love to our children as it will benefit everyone. Thus religion can not and MUST not be divorced from politics. The separation of church and state was invented to cure the feudal ills of a serf/master monopoly which was being perpetuated by “State religions”. The exclusive right to bear arms was part of that same package, which led to universal right to bear arms in the US. This now is being attacked by the very same elite who want control of force so they can “govern” without fear of armed retribution. Their fears betray them. If they were just and did not intend enslavement, then they would have no fear of arms. Their desired for a monopoly on use of weapons under their control signals their intentions, - to abuse power in such a way that they would be the targets of guns owned by the general populace. Their fears betray their real motivations.
AN OUTLINE OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY AND PHILOSOPHERS Thales of Miletus 636-546 BC founder of philosophy, predicted eclipse of 535 BC assumed earth was “supported” and from fossils hypothesis all (life) came from water/sea (note MIletus was remote “unimportant” town) Anaximander of Miletus (611-547 BC) & Diogenes, Origin of “Cosmos” from apeiron (apeiron) without form; separated into hot-cold(wet), dried to from earth & evaporated(=air mist) believed in indestructibility of matter and order of astronomy Life from sea animals Diogenes Apolloniates ca 575 BC physician used AIR as basis of all things condensed Anaximenes of Miletus ca 550 Air was origin of all things by condensation Xenophanes of Colophon b ca 520 BC (to Elea Italy) first of Eleatic school Man made Gods in own Image, Unity pantheism One Universe identified with One God. Parmenides of Elea ca 478- BC nothing does not exist, motion also does not exist static world of Belief doxa (doxa)- defended static unity of Xenophanes Heracleitus of Ephesus(ca 490 BC contemp of Parmenides) all is in motion changing opposites- positive and negative - life & death, day & night opposed Unity Paramenides of Eleaticism, things change. FIRE is key element. Empedocles of Acragas ca 450 BC survival of fittest 4 “elements” (air fire water earth) 2 forces mixed by love & separated by hate (founded Pluralists) Anaxogoras of Clazomena 500-428 BC believed in world order as opposed to chaos and was student of Thales & pluralist everything contained in every- thing nous (nous = intelligence) set things in motion, mixing to form combinations & once set into motion foresees results but does not interfere - Leucippus of Miletius ca 450 BC “Atomist” Empty space does exist, & filled space= atoms Democritus 460-362 BC after Leucippus, developed atomic & evolutionary theory Zeno of Elea ca 450 BC younger friend of Parmenides paradoxes showing Achiles an not outrun tortoise-(1/2 of distance but has moved), derived from problem of continuum - “solved” by convergent series Pythageras of Samos (582-507 BC resident Crotona S Italy) geometry, but believed in Mystical ( the regular polyhedrons but reserved duodecahedron for the elite pentagons) transmitigation of souls, all things are numbers Hippasus of Metapontum ca 450 BC anti Pythagoras showed incommensurability side and diagonal of square pentagon can not be expressed in integers and split into two sections - obtuse speculation and practical Hippocreates 460-377 BC Father of Medicine. Protagpras of Abdera Sophist skeptical of all traditions particularly philosophy “man is measure of all things”. soyizesqai professionally clever or inventive Gorgais of Leontini art of oratory made fun of philosophers -Peri tou me ontos e peri yjseos (On that which is not or on nature) 1) nothing exists, 2) that if something existed man could have no knowledge of it & 3) that nevertheless if someone knew it he could not communicate it to others.
Socrates 469-399 BC claimed he possessed no wisdom but was trying to find it asked questions (Socratic method) ETHICS::: precepts:1) Never do wrong, nor participate even indirectly in wrong doing, 2) nobody who really knows what is good and right could act against it. Time of unrestrained democracy he believed in individuals. Eucleides1 of Megara founded Megaric school of Socrates- 1 of 4 “minor schools” combined with Eleatic doctrines. Eubulides Successor of Eucleides invented puzzles. Diodorus Cronos ca 300 BC followed Eubulides Phado2 of Elis founded second Socratic minor school Elean Xenophon general & adherent of Socrates Aeschines of Sphettus 389-314 BC adherent of Socrates (at death of) Aristippus3 of Cyrene (435-356BC) adherent of Socrates founded Cyrenaic school stressed independence from material needs, and Ethics. (became Hedonists) Arete dau of Aristippus followed him; Aristippus grandson followed Arete later was Theodorus (the atheist) & Anniceris hegesias Antisthenes4founded the Cynic fourth minor school Cynics. which subordinates physics and logic to Ethics. Diogenes of Sinope 412-323 BC adherent of Socrates freedom from conventions took poverty to extreme looked for “honest man” & and was of Cynics PLATO 367-347 BC adherent of Socrates (what is the idea Eidos that makes good? Believed also in importance of political institutions (The Republic politria) as well as individual founded Academy Athens showed human rules require restraints (laws nomoi) rejected equality of anything (anyone) despite the fact that was foundation of math. - what appears to sense are imperfect copies of eternal ideas (shadow on wall) Knowledge begins with perception of earthly shapes and ascends to ideas transcendentalism. Speusippus nephew Plato d 339BC successor 347 of Academy at death of Plato 347 Eudoxus of Cnidus mathematician and Geographer ran Academy in Plato’s absence Xenocrates (d 314) third head of Academy (339-314 BC) Polemo d 270BC) fourth head of Academy (314-270 BC) Hipparchus 2nd Cent BC Astronomer & math * catalog precession of equinoxes ARISTOTLE 384-322 studied under Plato 367-47 went to Assus 347, then to Lesbos (where met Theophrastus) and founded Peripatec school taught Alexander “the Great” {342-335} philosophy invented :logic rejected transcendentalism, siuyght human improvement to as near perfection as possible. Empirical Theophrastus (?-287 BC) followed Aristotle (322-287) wrote on History of philosophy, on botany and mineralogy Strato third head Peripatetic School (287-269 BC) Lyco fourth head of Peripatetic School (269-225 BC) Eudemus of Rhodes follower of Aristotle wrote Math and Astronomy Meno follower of Aristotle wrote Medicine Dicaearchus of Messene follower of Aristotle wrote on History of Civilization Straton of Lampsacus suggested physics based on experiments Aristarchus of Samos (Ari star’ kus) - 310-230BC Key Heliocentric astronomer
Euclid - ca 330-260 BC founded school at Alexandria under Ptolmey Soter(323-285 BC) Compiled “Elements” of Geometry built on earlier works such as Hippocrates of Chilos (of 400 BC), Theudies, and Theaetetus (Pythagorean of 369 BC) & Eudoxus. ***STOIC and Epicurean and SKEPTIC schools a 100 BC to 100 AD *** Zeno of Citium (Syria)336-264 (alt 350-258)BC founded 305 stoic system taught at public “painted porch” Stoa Poikile Stoa Poikile dogmatist Socratic philosophy - human happiness is to agree with one’s self, (later to agree with nature) only real good is virtue; all else (wealth etc.) indifferent. Virtues = knowledge of right, self control (sophrosyne soqrosyne) Emphasis learn form past & give credit, acknowledge debt to earlier philosophers. “Suffer quietly” was promoted by Romans to pacify the oppressed. Cleanthes (second head stoic school) four stages: 1) sense perception, 2) memory, 3) experience and 4) notions or concepts combinations of experiences Chrysippus (third head stoic school) developed Propositional logic (questionably superior to Aristotelian conceptual logic) Panaetius of Rhodes adopted Stoic philosophy to Roman needs Poseidonius of Apamea Historian: looking down impartially as spectacle observer Cato the Younger (Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis great grandson of Cato the Elder 234-149 BC Consul) 95-46 BC; leading Stoic committed suicide at victory Julius Caesar Seneca the Younger 4BC-65AD advised Nero(37-68 AD Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus emp 54-68) & tried to restrain him, failed, & committed suicide at Nero’s order
Epicurus of Samos 341-270 BC founded Epicurian “garden” school 306 BC opposed Zeno’s, claimed 100% his own thinking but simplified Democritus’ “Atomism” took Ethics from Aristippus: Pleasure criteria of good life, and sought simple pleasures (Hedonist) (later evolved into excesses & debauchery reverse & opposed to origins) assumed Gods pay no attention to humans. Lucretius Carus (Roman Poet 95-55 BC) .praised promoted Epicurus
Pyrrhon of Elis 365-275 BC founded Skeptic school - no man can know everything nor ever be certain of what he observes with senses; it may be anything, all is illusion, so be skeptical of everything (at one extreme) Timon of Phlius (ca 315-225 BC) pupil of Pyrrho in Athens ca 240-225BC - wrote dialogs “with” Xenophanes to refute him Crates d ca 270 BC head of academy Arcesilas of Pitane (ca 315-241 BC) Critical skepticism & from 270 New Academy influenced by Megaries also as well as Pyrrho Carneades of Cyrene (ca 213-129 BC) ctd academy left no writings but oft quoted Cleitomachus (Hasdrubal) ca90BC preserved views of Carneades above disagreed with Chrysippus of Stoic school (who refused to refute thus “becoming a sceptic”), (wrote down many fallacies: Liar fallacy::(A Cretean says “I Lie”. Is he a liar?) Philo of Larissa ca 80 BC and Antiochus of Ascalon ca 69 BC end of New Academy Aenesidemus (ca 100-40 BC)return to Pyrrho “later sceptics”-taught @ Alexandria Agrippa ca 80 BC (second); Zeuxippus 3rd); Zeuxis (4th); & Antiochus (5th) Menodotus of Nicomedia ca 150 AD taught Herodotus of Tarsus below
Herodotus of Tarsus succeeded Menodotus taught Sextus below Sextus Empiricus ca 160-210 AD Codified skepticism, wrote against dogmatics (Pros dogmatikous) quoted them (and thus preserved their works for Hume and Kant !!) Based all on direct observations and only observations, virtually no theory or hidden causes- avoids “logical” extension “science” allowed. only Direct DO IT and observe results experimentalism. Saturninus followed Empiricus as head of school ca 210
GAP in other schools to Neo Pythagoreans and Neo Platonists Ammonius Saccas ca 250 AD Neo Plato - assumed Several levels of being, 1) The One or The GOOD (indefinable in human language) followed by 2) Pure intellect Nous (nous) 3) soul or souls 4) perceivable world of matter, the cause of all evil. Seek to attain oneness with THE ONE or GOOD. Poltinus disciple Saccas experienced bliss oneness with “The One” 7 times in life. Porphry disciple Poltinus who wrote notes etc. experienced bliss once Iamblichus of Chalcis in Syria ( ?- 330 AD) mingled neo Platonic with Neo Pythagireanism, and added levels to add all “Greek Gods” into system- Aedesius founded the Pergamum branch of neo Platonic school Maximus disciple of Aedesius both tried to revive Mystery Religion Orphism Julian (331-363)Emperor Rome(361-363) (Flavius Cladius Jullianus, Nephew Constantine) tried to revive Paganism, including Greek schools; was unsuccessful. Justinian I 483-565 (Byzantine Emperor 527-565) closed all “schools” in Athens 529AD as “Pagan” (one branch survived at Alexandria for a while)
Summary of Philosophical basis:: The basic tenant could be called Skeptical, in that it rejects all transcendental “hidden causes” as a basis for realistic actions and observations. I does not extend to the totally empirical extreme of basing everything on only upon direct observation of results, but allows mental processing by theory to make “scientific predictions” to evaluate possible actions prior to experimental verification, in order to avoid possible bad results. The mystic and transcendental worlds are indeed totally rejected, but also admitting that there are things we do not know, things we have never yet observed so that we may expect to find new things, to experience new things, as time goes on. So we have “hope” of things not yet seen. We do skeptically accept historical data, but place higher credibility on reproducible data and even mental extension using hypotheses, well tested theory, or laws. The ultimate “judge” however is empiricism. In case of conflict, accept the observation, reject the mental construct. Thus this philosophy places an almost religious status on the scientific method, but formalizes it, and rejects “magic”, mysticism, and transcendentalism, while preserving the expectation, the hope, of eternal progression. It does remain skeptically silent recognizing the impossibility of “proof” concerning God, and allowing full free will or free choice, faith on that subject.
TRANSCENDENTALISM:: In the History of Science there was a major philosophical dead end which caused a more than a millennium long dark age. This dead end needs very clearly to be understood so that we will not repeat it again. The prime cause was an acceptance of mysticism, a transcendental “perfect” world, and miracles, and a rejection of realism, skepticism, and empiricism. Historically science and philosophy started out as one, and traceably started with Thales of Miletus ca 600 BC Philosophy developed further in the “Golden Age of Greece” and eventually fragmented into several major “schools” all of which were competing with one another. The early arguments were about prime causes, and each of the ‘elements’ of “water, air, fire, and earth” were proposed at one time or another as The prime cause. Each “school” had reasons and fallacies. The pluralists eventually combined these arguments using all four. Another major disagreement hinged on transcendentalism or mysticism versus perception; for accepting sensations as reality or whether what we perceived from our five senses was just a shadow of some more fundamental “perfect” reality. The great mathematician Pythagoras unfortunately was a mystic, claiming numbers were perfect, and our world was not, and his views eventually prevailed over that of his contemporary rival Democriticus. The Greek schools were relatively unified again at the time of Socrates, and of Plato his student. Both were more concerned with Ethics than science. Aristotle who followed after Plato formalized logic and rejected transcendentalism, but the his followers reverted to transcendentalism to such an extent that realism and experimental method were eventually totally suppressed. The skeptics who rejected everything, tried to remain impartial and not to prejudge without facts continued for some time. They rejected “hidden causes” and included use of observation or empirical method so named for Sextus Empiricus ca 200 AD who wrote 10 books “against” just about every other extant philosophy. But Christianity became so entangled with “hidden assumptions” from Aristotelian logic and from his successors that they accepted the mystical principles of Pythagoras and rejected the embryonic scientific method of that time. In 529 AD. all competing “pagan” schools were totally closed down by Byzantine Emperor Justinian I. All that was left was a Christianized transcendentalism grafted onto “perfect” pseudo Aristotelian concepts. The Western world had to re-discover the earlier Greek realism and Scientific Method via re-translations from Arabic books found in Spain post 1100 AD back into Greek and thence into Latin or the local language. Thus from about mid 400 or 500 AD to 1100 AD the Western world was locked into a dead end philosophy and religion. The traumatic religious changes which happened circa 1200 AD were at least partially because of inherent fallacies in Transcendentalism and the eventual rejection of mystic concepts. That rejection has reached a point of virtually being a religion in itself in the last century or two. The atheists for example are an extreme pendulum swing away from transcendentalism and mysticism. The lesson is “skeptical” in content - never forcibly suppress competing philosophies without compelling reasons. Until we have “proof” we must tolerate and even encourage diversity. Diversity is a major value in itself. We must try to preserve diversity. What is truth? It may be in the “other” arguments.
|
|
Send mail to
Jhlawr@wmconnect.com with
questions or comments about this web site.
|
