The existence of a question does not imply the accessibility of its answer whatsoever. That no answer is possible is as valid an answer as any other more informative answer to any given question.
Since a search for any (informative) answer implies its accessibility, accessibility should always be evaluated first.
the fallacy of psychological egoism
Psychological egoism is the idea that humans are always motivated by selfish desires. Depending on the various definitions of selfishness, this idea is either a falsehood or a tautology. In either case, it is not valuable in the understanding of human behavior.
As a Falsehood
Humans are often known to voluntarily: donate their time to a charitable cause for the poor, convert to a vegetarian diet for animals, and sacrifice themselves for their comrades in a war situation such as when one covers a grenade with their body. These acts do not reward the actor*, thus invalidating the premise that the idea is universally applicable, and rendering the idea false.
As a Tautology
A tautology is a logical statement that is all-encompassing, and thereby true but devoid of value. An example is, “All things are either A or not A.” If psychological egoism reasons that an action to help another is motivated an underlying (selfish) “good feeling” reward, then all actions are either overtly selfish, or covertly selfish in the case of overt selflessness. If this is true, the idea is recursively descriptive of human behavior and therefore devoid of value. Logically,
The logical statement a = a, the result of the reasoning, lacks any insight whatsoever. Moreover, it is only notable that bananas are yellow because it is logically possible for bananas to not be yellow. If yellow were the only color in the spectrum, this (albeit logical) observation would be meaningless. If the ideas of a yellow banana and a banana are always interchangeable, there is no value in labeling the color of the banana. Similarly, if motivation is always selfish, there is no value in labeling the nature of the motivation.
Conclusion
The flaws inherent in the idea of psychological egoism can also be ascribed to its inverse, psychological altruism. The underlying error common to both – the oversimplification of human motivation – implies the presence of either a pluralist or transcendental truth.
* Save a possible psychological reward which is inherent in the definition of any psychological motivation and therefore not a distinguishing characteristic of any type of motivation in particular (refer to “As a Tautology”).
As a Falsehood
Humans are often known to voluntarily: donate their time to a charitable cause for the poor, convert to a vegetarian diet for animals, and sacrifice themselves for their comrades in a war situation such as when one covers a grenade with their body. These acts do not reward the actor*, thus invalidating the premise that the idea is universally applicable, and rendering the idea false.
As a Tautology
A tautology is a logical statement that is all-encompassing, and thereby true but devoid of value. An example is, “All things are either A or not A.” If psychological egoism reasons that an action to help another is motivated an underlying (selfish) “good feeling” reward, then all actions are either overtly selfish, or covertly selfish in the case of overt selflessness. If this is true, the idea is recursively descriptive of human behavior and therefore devoid of value. Logically,
The logical statement a = a, the result of the reasoning, lacks any insight whatsoever. Moreover, it is only notable that bananas are yellow because it is logically possible for bananas to not be yellow. If yellow were the only color in the spectrum, this (albeit logical) observation would be meaningless. If the ideas of a yellow banana and a banana are always interchangeable, there is no value in labeling the color of the banana. Similarly, if motivation is always selfish, there is no value in labeling the nature of the motivation.
Conclusion
The flaws inherent in the idea of psychological egoism can also be ascribed to its inverse, psychological altruism. The underlying error common to both – the oversimplification of human motivation – implies the presence of either a pluralist or transcendental truth.
* Save a possible psychological reward which is inherent in the definition of any psychological motivation and therefore not a distinguishing characteristic of any type of motivation in particular (refer to “As a Tautology”).
covenants extorted by fear are valid
So says Hobbes in Leviathan, tautologically. In some sense every covenant is extorted by fear. When you do something because of so-called "positive reinforcement" you're doing it because you fear you won't get the reward if you don't. Both factors are in play simultaneously, and further, are inextricably related.
Hobbes goes on to explore several philosophical theories extrapolated from failed attempts to match his contrived vocabulary with the intricacies of the mind. Assigning the product of human imagination to two distinct, mutually exclusive categories, "simple imagination" and "complex imagination" serves as a stark example.
I don't see the merit in examining relationships between make-believe concepts conjured by Hobbes' "complex" imagination.
Hobbes goes on to explore several philosophical theories extrapolated from failed attempts to match his contrived vocabulary with the intricacies of the mind. Assigning the product of human imagination to two distinct, mutually exclusive categories, "simple imagination" and "complex imagination" serves as a stark example.
I don't see the merit in examining relationships between make-believe concepts conjured by Hobbes' "complex" imagination.
cells are to humans as humans are to x
We tend to think of the atomic grain of human life as the individual. Realistically we are made of cells that live and die, and interact in a community of scarce resources - they have a life of their own.
Perhaps cells are to humans as humans are to x. x then is a single life form, made of cells (individual humans) that live and die, and interact in a community of scarce resources.
Moreover, x meets the biological criteria of a living organism. Reproduction is satisfied by evolution.
Perhaps cells are to humans as humans are to x. x then is a single life form, made of cells (individual humans) that live and die, and interact in a community of scarce resources.
Moreover, x meets the biological criteria of a living organism. Reproduction is satisfied by evolution.
short sell shortcomings
Man is compelled to rationalize the insignificance of his immutable shortcomings. The strength of this impulse is the product of the shortcoming's significance and degree of immutability.
transition between states in nature
To exemplify the concept of a state in nature, consider the temperature of water, the position of a planet, or the charge of a magnet. While macroscopically the states of all things in the universe, from an atom to a galaxy, appear to be cyclic, microscopically they are not. The macro or cyclic scope provides for a TSN that is a smooth gradient (ultimately a spectrum) while the micro or non-cyclic scope provides for a TSN that is characteristic of an abrupt oscillation. When analyzing anything in nature, including ourselves, in anticipation of the transition between one state and another, it is important to note scope and its corresponding TSN to form an accurate prediction.
Take, for example, the daytime-temperature transition between fall and winter. Macroscopically, this transition is smooth and cyclic. Each year, the seasons change in the same pattern, one gradually becoming the other without a definitive stop. Microscopically, however, the transition is not smooth, but rather a gradient of oscillation between two states, the interval between which fluctuates on a bell curve over time. Moreover, the temperature on days at the end of fall and beginning of winter never looks like this: 65, 65, 64, 64, 64, 63, 61, 61, 60, 59, 59, 57, 56, 56, 56 and so on until it is steadily about 45 degrees. Rather, it is more likely to oscillate between groups of warm and cold days, like this: 65, 65, 64, 55, 54, 65, 63, 65, 56, 64, 64, 63, 53, 54, 52, 65, 62 … 54, 56, 56, 55, 45, 44, 55, 55, 54, 53, 56, 44, 45, 43, 53, etc. The bold temperatures are one state while the unmodified text is another. Notice there were two days in the fifties, then three days in the fifties, at the end of the transition there was a similar pattern in the forties. The groups of days oscillated back and forth.
Take, for example, the daytime-temperature transition between fall and winter. Macroscopically, this transition is smooth and cyclic. Each year, the seasons change in the same pattern, one gradually becoming the other without a definitive stop. Microscopically, however, the transition is not smooth, but rather a gradient of oscillation between two states, the interval between which fluctuates on a bell curve over time. Moreover, the temperature on days at the end of fall and beginning of winter never looks like this: 65, 65, 64, 64, 64, 63, 61, 61, 60, 59, 59, 57, 56, 56, 56 and so on until it is steadily about 45 degrees. Rather, it is more likely to oscillate between groups of warm and cold days, like this: 65, 65, 64, 55, 54, 65, 63, 65, 56, 64, 64, 63, 53, 54, 52, 65, 62 … 54, 56, 56, 55, 45, 44, 55, 55, 54, 53, 56, 44, 45, 43, 53, etc. The bold temperatures are one state while the unmodified text is another. Notice there were two days in the fifties, then three days in the fifties, at the end of the transition there was a similar pattern in the forties. The groups of days oscillated back and forth.
relativism in education
“All educational topics, for which there exists verifiably popular, polar explanations, should be represented in terms of all such explanations. Each explanation should be represented with a pre-disclosed bias.”
Humans necessarily operate with an associative psychology. This means that all understanding can only be possessed in the context of our associations, or biases. In this way we are incapable of communicating an idea without bias, being contrary to this nature, and any attempt at this is inherently imperfect*. In the case of controversial topics, where unique perspective can be a source of resolution, such attempts are intellectually dangerous. Moreover, while the concept of the educational process being defined by internalization and personalization of neutral ideas is easily understood and theoretically convenient, it is not attainable when humans are the means of idea transmission.
Therefore it is incumbent upon us to look to a method of education which is not only capable of fairly transmitting an idea, but also compatible with the means by which we must communicate. If an educator considered their duty to be the transmission of biases, the true form of human understanding, the recipient would be able to evaluate these poles according to their own associations and arrive at a unique bias or position, the classification of which would be incidental but ultimately as fair as is possible.
* When we perceive information, it is instantly mixed with our associations and at ultimate understanding becomes a conclusion. Once reached, because our intellect operates in the environment of our associations, it cannot extract those associations from a conclusion, a process necessary to reproduce the original information. One cannot consciously extrapolate information from a conclusion by subtracting realized associations. This is because conclusions are formed by both the conscious and subconscious mind, the latter of which has complete access to one’s associations, whereas the former does not. The weaker (in terms of access) cannot reverse-engineer the product of the stronger. Even if extrapolation were possible, the result would be information skewed by the original propagator.
Humans necessarily operate with an associative psychology. This means that all understanding can only be possessed in the context of our associations, or biases. In this way we are incapable of communicating an idea without bias, being contrary to this nature, and any attempt at this is inherently imperfect*. In the case of controversial topics, where unique perspective can be a source of resolution, such attempts are intellectually dangerous. Moreover, while the concept of the educational process being defined by internalization and personalization of neutral ideas is easily understood and theoretically convenient, it is not attainable when humans are the means of idea transmission.
Therefore it is incumbent upon us to look to a method of education which is not only capable of fairly transmitting an idea, but also compatible with the means by which we must communicate. If an educator considered their duty to be the transmission of biases, the true form of human understanding, the recipient would be able to evaluate these poles according to their own associations and arrive at a unique bias or position, the classification of which would be incidental but ultimately as fair as is possible.
* When we perceive information, it is instantly mixed with our associations and at ultimate understanding becomes a conclusion. Once reached, because our intellect operates in the environment of our associations, it cannot extract those associations from a conclusion, a process necessary to reproduce the original information. One cannot consciously extrapolate information from a conclusion by subtracting realized associations. This is because conclusions are formed by both the conscious and subconscious mind, the latter of which has complete access to one’s associations, whereas the former does not. The weaker (in terms of access) cannot reverse-engineer the product of the stronger. Even if extrapolation were possible, the result would be information skewed by the original propagator.
communicative barrier of the importance threshold
“The resources consumed by the communication of a thought to another necessarily imply a heightened degree of the thought’s importance, which can obscure the meaning of the thought itself.”
This barrier prevents humans from accurately communicating a considerable portion of one’s thoughts. Though the thoughts obscured by this problem are inherently unimportant, they may provide context to (what we consider to be) more important thoughts.
A thought in communication should be viewed as existing on a position relative to two informational axes: one of content and one of importance. As it stands, the latter is often assumed according to the former. The result of this assumption is ambiguous at best, and at worst a gross mischaracterization of the original thought. For the accurate transfer of complete thoughts via language from one person to another, a method or style would have to be devised to simultaneously communicate both axes of information. Without this, we are communicating two dimensions of information with one.
Normally the importance axis is communicated via voice volume, body language, and textual formatting such as bold and italics for audio, visual, and written interpretation, respectively. Two flaws accompany these means. The first relates to the more general issue that these are only applied to thoughts that cross the threshold of importance determined by the consumption of communicative resources. The second is that these means are not similar and
disparate to those employed by the information axis. Moreover, the information axis is expressed in words, which is (arguably) also the self-interpretive method by which thoughts exist in our minds. However, the importance of thoughts in our minds does not self-interpretively exist in terms of volume, body language, or formatting. Importance of a thought exists in our minds as an emotional association derived from our collective life-experience which is, needless to say, incommunicable. Even if it were possible to transmit this information, it could inherently never be perceived accurately because it would be skewed contextually by the experiences of the recipient.
This barrier prevents humans from accurately communicating a considerable portion of one’s thoughts. Though the thoughts obscured by this problem are inherently unimportant, they may provide context to (what we consider to be) more important thoughts.
A thought in communication should be viewed as existing on a position relative to two informational axes: one of content and one of importance. As it stands, the latter is often assumed according to the former. The result of this assumption is ambiguous at best, and at worst a gross mischaracterization of the original thought. For the accurate transfer of complete thoughts via language from one person to another, a method or style would have to be devised to simultaneously communicate both axes of information. Without this, we are communicating two dimensions of information with one.
Normally the importance axis is communicated via voice volume, body language, and textual formatting such as bold and italics for audio, visual, and written interpretation, respectively. Two flaws accompany these means. The first relates to the more general issue that these are only applied to thoughts that cross the threshold of importance determined by the consumption of communicative resources. The second is that these means are not similar and
disparate to those employed by the information axis. Moreover, the information axis is expressed in words, which is (arguably) also the self-interpretive method by which thoughts exist in our minds. However, the importance of thoughts in our minds does not self-interpretively exist in terms of volume, body language, or formatting. Importance of a thought exists in our minds as an emotional association derived from our collective life-experience which is, needless to say, incommunicable. Even if it were possible to transmit this information, it could inherently never be perceived accurately because it would be skewed contextually by the experiences of the recipient.
the ultimate futility of philosphical analysis
Axiomatic systems cannot be used to justify themselves. This has been empirically demonstrated with the quantitative system of mathematical number theory. The result of axiomatic justification using the axioms themselves bears an asymptotic relationship to the justification we wish to reach. That is, by infinitely increased semantic analysis we can arrive infinitely closer to justifying the axioms but never actually intersect with the justification we approach.
As the number theory results reflect, the most accurate conclusion possible in justifying axioms using themselves is proof that no conclusion is possible. Otherwise, we can speculate as to the source of the justification we seek, without ever actually knowing it. Specifically, since we know that the subscribed subjects of axiomatic systems can be justified by such systems, and these subjects may represent embedded axioms for their subjects, it can be inferred that our more fundamental axioms may be the embedded subjects of a greater axiomatic system that is then, inherently, transcendent.
Our asymptotically semantic analysis of our axioms using themselves was perhaps advanced the most by Hume, who implied that the fundamental axioms of our thought are the embedded subjects of our nervous system. To further the asymptotic analysis, we may further explore this relationship or the properties of the nervous system itself. Regardless of either pursuit, however, is the certainty that the objective such analysis seeks can inherently never be reached.
As the number theory results reflect, the most accurate conclusion possible in justifying axioms using themselves is proof that no conclusion is possible. Otherwise, we can speculate as to the source of the justification we seek, without ever actually knowing it. Specifically, since we know that the subscribed subjects of axiomatic systems can be justified by such systems, and these subjects may represent embedded axioms for their subjects, it can be inferred that our more fundamental axioms may be the embedded subjects of a greater axiomatic system that is then, inherently, transcendent.
Our asymptotically semantic analysis of our axioms using themselves was perhaps advanced the most by Hume, who implied that the fundamental axioms of our thought are the embedded subjects of our nervous system. To further the asymptotic analysis, we may further explore this relationship or the properties of the nervous system itself. Regardless of either pursuit, however, is the certainty that the objective such analysis seeks can inherently never be reached.
beer goggles mandatory
Did you know that beer is estimated to be between 7,000 and 11,000 years old? Consider the implications.
For several thousand years, humans have wanted a drug to escape from the reality they created.
For several thousand years, humans have wanted a drug to escape from the reality they created.
wisdom
Wisdom and intelligence are not equivalent.
Intelligence is a measure of how efficiently your mind is able to process tasks. Wisdom is a measure of lessons gleaned from experience.
Intelligence is a measure of how efficiently your mind is able to process tasks. Wisdom is a measure of lessons gleaned from experience.
sshh
The common nature of most animals is to be silent. When an animal is being hunted, it is more likely to survive if it is able to remain silent, and when an animal is hunting, it is more likely to succeed if it is able to remain silent. It would be interesting to see the vocal expressions of an animal which evolved in an environment where producing perpetual noise was a strong advantage.
the end
The human obsession with predicting the end of the world or the end of humanity comes from an insecurity about our own mortality and a conflict in coming to terms with our insignificance as an individual in the scope of the world. Even the most influential thinkers in human history are insignificant when examining the human population as a whole. The struggle to matter as an individual in the scope of humanity, especially in the scope of humanity's history, fuels much of human progress while, interestingly, being very out of reach.
The mistake is to assume that significance in life is correlated with recognition. If this is the assumption driving your life, the impossibility of your goals will disappoint you, or you'll imagine your success.
The mistake is to assume that significance in life is correlated with recognition. If this is the assumption driving your life, the impossibility of your goals will disappoint you, or you'll imagine your success.
