[Al_U_Card]

There is one heck of a lot of intelligence around here. Since goodness and truth and reality are subjective experiences it kind of comes down to;

Experience your existence to the best of your abilities.

Do everything that you can to improve and increase your understanding of yourself and that with which you are involved.

Know that the eventual result of your presence will be a product of the actions that you undertake or refine.

Realize that you and your evolution are both part of an intricate balance that exists and continues to evolve so integrate yourself into the harmony that you observe.

Being

There is no flight from desperation
Nor any way of marking time.
Each moment is, as it should be,
Precious, to be found so fine.

If held and cherished, no misspending,
Value and interest will accrue
Until such time as it is able
To serve in ways and things we do.

So in our method there’s no madness
But sight and sound and perception.
Of what was once a special purpose
That will with you, as one, become.

[Codo]

I doubt that you can reduce social life into a few axioms.
But if you will ever try, try: Do to others like they should do to you.

This axiom covers most possible scenarios.
Of course there is a grey side too. If I am weird or really extreme in my social behaviour, this sentence is not enough. But for the majority, it should be enough.

[whereagles]

Todd: wouldn't a textbook on philosophy elucidate you on these subjects?

[Fluffy]

mikeh, on Sep 30 2007, 09:29 PM, said:

The obvious problem with deferring to a higher, god, power is that except for the claims of the mentally ill or astoundingly arrogant, there is no evidence that any such higher power actually communicates with us

He sent us his son, remember?

[DrTodd13]

whereagles, on Dec 12 2007, 12:09 PM, said:

Todd: wouldn't a textbook on philosophy elucidate you on these subjects?

Not really. AFAIK, there are no universally agreed upon such axioms so I was just asking what other people use. As I suspected, most of what have been suggested as axioms aren't really axioms or at a minimum they are underspecified. Somebody suggested something like "do not harm." I don't think harm is specific enough or clear enough to be part of an axiom. What is "harm?" I think a lot of these things boil down to something like "the minimization of human misery is good" where misery is defined totally subjectively. Personally, I'm not too happy with this subjectiveness but moreover I see no reason to accept this as an axiom. My misery feels like it matters a great deal to me but science so far tells us that people do not have free will so anything that happens to me will be either deterministic or random and there is no "meaning" or "value" to be found in anything that is deterministic or random. The whole question of one having ought to do one thing versus something else presupposes, I think, not only free will but also the existence of objective value.

[mike777]

"do no harm" do no harm to what? I thought our very existance means we kill some gene that reproduces because we can?

[gwnn]

Harm might be defined as "human pain", which has biological definition, but this has two problems, one that pain can be stopped relatively easily and two it is not 100% clear why this should be a basic axiom. But I suppose that's what do no harm was meant to mean.

[mike777]

Human pain is more important in doing no harm,,,,

What an ego that species/virus/gene has. First that it thinks its' pain is most important in the Universe and secondly it thinks it can live, make extremely difficult choices, and produce no human pain simply by existing and making decisions.

[DrTodd13]

gwnn, on Dec 12 2007, 02:48 PM, said:

Harm might be defined as "human pain", which has biological definition, but this has two problems, one that pain can be stopped relatively easily and two it is not 100% clear why this should be a basic axiom. But I suppose that's what do no harm was meant to mean.

This just reinforces my point. I don't know what they meant to mean when they said "do not harm." I suspect they didn't think about this at the next level and assumed that harm is obvious when obviously it is not. If biological pain is what is meant by harm then stealing is okay unless you want to introduce another axiom or you want to include mental anguish as pain. This has its own problems.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on Dec 10 2007, 12:55 PM, said:

An axiom is unprovable by definition, so I don't see the point in bringing that up.

Fair enough Admittedly an "unprovable axiom" seems tautologous. Although you could quibble that choice of axiom set is arbitrary: axioms in one set can be theorems in another.

blackshoe, on Dec 10 2007, 12:55 PM, said:

Not sure how you're defining "religious belief", Nigel. I am pretty sure you're not defining it as I would.

Probably not I'm not sure either It's hard to define. Humpty Dumpty's first crude attempt:
Religious Belief is reliance on hypothetical entities that suggest what we ought to do.

[helene_t]

DrTodd13, on Dec 13 2007, 12:15 AM, said:

AFAIK, there are no universally agreed upon such axioms so I was just asking what other people use.

In mathematics, you don't believe in axioms, you just accept them for the sake of a particular argument, and you might accept the opposite axiom for the sake of the next argument.

Maybe more relevant to this thread I could mention Occam's Razor. And Popper's criterion. The two have somewhat different status I think. Popper's criterion reflects the "truth" in some sense, while Occam's Razor is more like an aesthetical preference.

[Al_U_Card]

Endeavor to create the greatest amount of well-being possible.

Understand that the duality of existence and the subjectivity of reality requires being open to other points of view and that diametrically opposed positions can be intimately related.

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Dec 13 2007, 12:00 PM, said:

Endeavor to create the greatest amount of well-being possible.

for whom? to what end? what about those for whom your endeavors cause harm?

Quote

Understand that the duality of existence and the subjectivity of reality requires being open to other points of view and that diametrically opposed positions can be intimately related.

why must i accept a duality of existence, much less a subjectivity of reality?

[Al_U_Card]

Well, Jimmy, other than being argumentative, what is the real nature of your questions (problem) with the statement?

Your subjective reality may not include any dualities.....

[luke warm]

i've tried to argue before re: subjectivity vs. objectivity but haven't gotten very far... it seems that a lot of people buy into subjectivity but run into philosophical brick walls somewhere along the way

besides, i was just asking questions... i can't go much farther without the answers

[kenberg]

DrTodd13, on Sep 26 2007, 04:58 PM, said:

Here's the Catch-22, how can a rational person try to get me to believe something for which (by definition) there is no proof?

There is no Catch here. The answer is simple. He cannot "get you" to believe it. He can't stop you, either.


This general question has been brought up many times. In, I believe, the The Brothers Karamazov it is argued that if there is no God then anything is possible. Rape, murder, what have you. Michael Gerson has recently been writing Op-Ed pieces and in one of them he made a similar argument which he felt that atheists have no answer to. But of course the answer is simple: If you can believe in God, without proof, surely I can believe that it is wrong to rape and murder, without proof. Neither belief can be forced with inexorable logic, but neither belief is precluded by logic. We might look to Lennon (not Lenin) here: You may say that I am a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

[helene_t]

Al_U_Card, on Dec 13 2007, 07:00 PM, said:

the duality of existence

What's that?

Quote

the subjectivity of reality requires being open to other points of view

I'll try to give you a counter-example: I firmly believe that my own (subjective) Weltanschauung is the only sensible one and that everyone who disagrees with me is nuts! Or at least that other Weltanschauungs wouldn't work for me. Of course this is just my personal subjective opinion but that doesn't make it any less firm.

codo said:

I doubt that you can reduce social life into a few axioms.
But if you will ever try, try: Do to others like they should do to you.

That is my preferred guideline as well. Not that I can live up to it.

[mycroft]

kenberg, on Dec 14 2007, 10:28 AM, said:

There is no Catch here. The answer is simple. He cannot "get you" to believe it. He can't stop you, either.

...[T]he answer is simple: If you can believe in God, without proof, surely I can believe that it is wrong to rape and murder, without proof. Neither belief can be forced with inexorable logic, but neither belief is precluded by logic.

Sure. And I don't have a problem with that. It's just that many who make the "you're silly/deluded/insane to believe in a God" argument, make it with "it's not logical/rational/you can't prove existence." *Those people* don't get to make your argument, because then they are, by their own logic, silly/deluded/insane. If, however, they *want* a Gorian world, where might truly is the only Right, fine. I don't. Otherwise, I have yet to see an argument that can't be "why'd" into statements that are not provable by rational logic.

Michael.

[mycroft]

I prefer the alternate reading of the Golden Rule:

Do unto others as you would *wish them* to do unto you.

For many, there is a firm belief that others "should" them destructively, because "they deserve it". I was one, for many years. I would not have wanted, then or now, to be known as someone who treated others that way.

Michael.

[Al_U_Card]

luke warm, on Dec 14 2007, 11:13 AM, said:

i've tried to argue before re: subjectivity vs. objectivity but haven't gotten very far... it seems that a lot of people buy into subjectivity but run into philosophical brick walls somewhere along the way

besides, i was just asking questions... i can't go much farther without the answers

QUOTE (Al_U_Card @ Dec 13 2007, 12:00 PM)
Endeavor to create the greatest amount of well-being possible. 


for whom? to what end? what about those for whom your endeavors cause harm?

QUOTE 
Understand that the duality of existence and the subjectivity of reality requires being open to other points of view and that diametrically opposed positions can be intimately related.


why must i accept a duality of existence, much less a subjectivity of reality?

For everyone.
To enable the universe to continue it's evolution.
They will benefit by the eventual improvement to their overall condition.

You believe in a diety that teaches the difference between good and evil, you understand the above and you question duality? One man's truth....

What we perceive at the macroscopic level is more myopic than anything else. At the quantum level, intention is everything. The state depends on the observer, the ultimate subjectiveness of reality. More people are realizing this and science is backing it more and more as we understand which questions to ask.

Answers are what you need them to be. Evolution is the process of understanding the nature of your questions.