Once one starts with the three building blocks, then one has to deal with where they lead. Let's start with the nature of life within each individual.
Nature, absent Man's mind, is amoral. There is no right or wrong, no good or bad, only the fight to survive...and this is the nature of the physical side of all of us.
But the Mind allows Man to conceptualize the group and right or wrong, and all the other things that set Man apart from all other living creatures. The challenge of philosophy has always been to integrate and explain how man relates to mind, and to define "right" behavior.
By nature, each of us wants to find our own way and live with the freedom to make our own choices.
But if each of us gets our own way at the expense of others, conflict is created that ultimately leads to anarchy, and anarchy is bad for individuals.
And anarchy invites the group to come in and force behavior, removing freedom of choice, and that can be bad for individuals
The answer for this conundrum is for the individual to be willing to share with others the same freedom of choices that he wants for himself.
If morality pertains to the rules of "correct" behavior, then, an individual who allows others the choices he would have for himself, is moral, because he allows all individuals to live closer to what their nature intends, and he helps avoid conflict leading to anarchy.
This leads to the first of two rules of the "Universal Morality"
As an individual, the more I am willing to allow others to have the same freedoms and choices that I want for myself, the more moral my behavior becomes. I am doing this, not for altruistic reasons, but for the very selfish reason of protecting my personal choices.
Rule two comes in the next post.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Post #6 Transparent and full disclosure
Before we go any further, I want to disclose my personal beliefs, so that you are aware of my possible bias. My personal beliefs are compatible with "The Poor Man's Philosophy", but are not necessary to the philosophy.
As we go further into the philosophy, you may be surprised that my views on religion and morality can be coming from a Christian, but I am a Christian.
Granted, I haven't gone to church very often over recent years, but I do believe in God, the Creator. I believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
I believe in Heaven and Hell, and that by living the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, I can earn my way into Heaven
I believe that when Jesus was forgiven for His moment of weakness and ascended into Heaven, I was promised that, if I truly repent, I can be forgiven for my weaknesses and ascend into Heaven, even if I'm never forgiven in this world. My Christian beliefs give me great comfort, hope, and direction in life.
That being said, I'm aware that I cannot prove a word of it, any more than an Atheist can prove that God doesn't exist, or that a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim, or any other religion can prove that their beliefs are God's will.
Religious faith, including Atheism, may offer comfort to individuals, but, at heart, the faiths are all based on an arational concept...the existence (or not) of a Divine Being.
This distinction will become more apparent as we get further into the philosophy.
As we go further into the philosophy, you may be surprised that my views on religion and morality can be coming from a Christian, but I am a Christian.
Granted, I haven't gone to church very often over recent years, but I do believe in God, the Creator. I believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
I believe in Heaven and Hell, and that by living the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, I can earn my way into Heaven
I believe that when Jesus was forgiven for His moment of weakness and ascended into Heaven, I was promised that, if I truly repent, I can be forgiven for my weaknesses and ascend into Heaven, even if I'm never forgiven in this world. My Christian beliefs give me great comfort, hope, and direction in life.
That being said, I'm aware that I cannot prove a word of it, any more than an Atheist can prove that God doesn't exist, or that a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim, or any other religion can prove that their beliefs are God's will.
Religious faith, including Atheism, may offer comfort to individuals, but, at heart, the faiths are all based on an arational concept...the existence (or not) of a Divine Being.
This distinction will become more apparent as we get further into the philosophy.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Post #5 Whats the big deal?
The importance of the three building blocks is that they can be reached by reason. You may not agree with them, but you can make a rational case that they exist.
To try to go back further would be to go beyond reason, into that arational area that requires faith, not reason.
For the purposes of the "Poor Man's Philosophy", I do not try to to answer the questions of how, or why, the premises exist. I only make the case that a reasonable person can conclude they do exist.
Further, they exist at the point of convergence between faith and reason.
One can believe that they exist as the intent of a Creator. One can believe they came into existence as a part of the evolution of man. One can even believe they came into existence as a freak of nature...perhaps lightning struck an ape and re-wired it's brain.
My first goal has been to find this place where men of faith, where atheists, and agnostics, and doubters of all sorts can agree on a common starting point. To me, the three building blocks take us to the starting point.
From there, we use reasoning and logic to see where the road leads us, and if all can travel that road.
To try to go back further would be to go beyond reason, into that arational area that requires faith, not reason.
For the purposes of the "Poor Man's Philosophy", I do not try to to answer the questions of how, or why, the premises exist. I only make the case that a reasonable person can conclude they do exist.
Further, they exist at the point of convergence between faith and reason.
One can believe that they exist as the intent of a Creator. One can believe they came into existence as a part of the evolution of man. One can even believe they came into existence as a freak of nature...perhaps lightning struck an ape and re-wired it's brain.
My first goal has been to find this place where men of faith, where atheists, and agnostics, and doubters of all sorts can agree on a common starting point. To me, the three building blocks take us to the starting point.
From there, we use reasoning and logic to see where the road leads us, and if all can travel that road.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Post #4 The Disconnect Block #3
Block 3 The disconnect between the nature of life within each individual
and the moderating nature of the mind is at the root of all conflicts
within the individual. It is also at the root of the conflicts within
morality, politics, religion, economics, and government.
Back in the dim mists of history, when Man first realized he was not the strongest creature in a world where only the strong survived, the seeds of today's conflicts were planted. Banding together to defeat stronger creatures (or other bands of men) was a rational decision to survive a brutal world.
They probably did not realize, or care, that their pure individual freedom would end when they joined that group for protection. None of us today would decide any differently.
As time passed, the human mind continued to aid the survival of the species. Tools were created, group organization and verbal languages were formed, and written language allowed us to pass knowledge from generation to generation.
Modern inventions and conveniences could never be created and mass-produced by one individual alone, and must be produced by organized groups working in tandem.
The benefits of the group cannot be overstated, but still, the disconnect remains between the life instinct of the individual and the demands of the group.
In a perfect world, with perfect morality, we could all do as we wished, and we would not wish to abuse others. We would not need a group to protect us from others, or from the world around us.
The real world, however, is a messy, dangerous hodgepodge of individuals and groups, each with conflicting egos, goals, needs, and wants, and all vying for supremacy.
By nature, each of us wants his own way. By nature, each of us wants the freedom to choose our own faith, our own path, our own code of morality, and our own goals is life. Each of us wants to be protected from outside forces that could control our lives.
Too much individual freedom leads to anarchy. Too much control leads to oppression. And how to balance the two is the problem.
and the moderating nature of the mind is at the root of all conflicts
within the individual. It is also at the root of the conflicts within
morality, politics, religion, economics, and government.
Back in the dim mists of history, when Man first realized he was not the strongest creature in a world where only the strong survived, the seeds of today's conflicts were planted. Banding together to defeat stronger creatures (or other bands of men) was a rational decision to survive a brutal world.
They probably did not realize, or care, that their pure individual freedom would end when they joined that group for protection. None of us today would decide any differently.
As time passed, the human mind continued to aid the survival of the species. Tools were created, group organization and verbal languages were formed, and written language allowed us to pass knowledge from generation to generation.
Modern inventions and conveniences could never be created and mass-produced by one individual alone, and must be produced by organized groups working in tandem.
The benefits of the group cannot be overstated, but still, the disconnect remains between the life instinct of the individual and the demands of the group.
In a perfect world, with perfect morality, we could all do as we wished, and we would not wish to abuse others. We would not need a group to protect us from others, or from the world around us.
The real world, however, is a messy, dangerous hodgepodge of individuals and groups, each with conflicting egos, goals, needs, and wants, and all vying for supremacy.
By nature, each of us wants his own way. By nature, each of us wants the freedom to choose our own faith, our own path, our own code of morality, and our own goals is life. Each of us wants to be protected from outside forces that could control our lives.
Too much individual freedom leads to anarchy. Too much control leads to oppression. And how to balance the two is the problem.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Post #3 The Arational Mind Block #2
Block #2 A mind is the arational tool through which Man confronts the
real world and attempts to place it in a rational system. To
accomplish this, Man must be able to recognize whether he is
thinking rationally, irrationally, or arationally, and to direct his
behavior accordingly.
A baby comes into the world armed only with the basic nature of life and its peculiarly human capabilities to implement that nature. If its nature were not as it is, its human capabilities would not have helped it to survive.
The peculiar capability that most distinguishes Man from all other forms of known life is the mind. His intelligence is what has enabled Man to survive and conquer the environment around him...and pass the sum of his knowledge down from generation to generation.
Whether or not one believes in "tabula rasa", when a baby first begins to use his mind, his "thinking" is completely arational. To the baby, anything he imagines or wishes is not only possible, it is a fact. He has not yet learned to distinguish between his wishes and reality. The point being that Man's mind is by nature arational, with the capability to differentiate between rational and irrational concepts.
Rationality and irrationality can be objectively proven in reality. While a child may think a fire will not burn his hand, reality will inject itself into his thinking if he happens to stick his finger in the fire.
Arational subjects are those that cannot be objectively proved (or disproved) by reality as we know it. By their nature, questions such as "is there a God?" or "is there life after death?", or "what is the purpose of life?" must be answered on faith, either pro or con, rather than on objective proof.
To survive in the world of reality, Man's behavior must be rational, but his mind is not limited by his behavior. His mind is a creative tool, free to consider alternative realities and arational subjects.
In summary, a mind is the arational vehicle through which a man confronts the real world and attempts to place it in a rational system, as well as a vehicle to confront arational questions that must be accepted on faith.
To function properly, Man must be able to recognize whether he is thinking rationally, irrationally, or arationally, and to direct his behavior accordingly.
real world and attempts to place it in a rational system. To
accomplish this, Man must be able to recognize whether he is
thinking rationally, irrationally, or arationally, and to direct his
behavior accordingly.
A baby comes into the world armed only with the basic nature of life and its peculiarly human capabilities to implement that nature. If its nature were not as it is, its human capabilities would not have helped it to survive.
The peculiar capability that most distinguishes Man from all other forms of known life is the mind. His intelligence is what has enabled Man to survive and conquer the environment around him...and pass the sum of his knowledge down from generation to generation.
Whether or not one believes in "tabula rasa", when a baby first begins to use his mind, his "thinking" is completely arational. To the baby, anything he imagines or wishes is not only possible, it is a fact. He has not yet learned to distinguish between his wishes and reality. The point being that Man's mind is by nature arational, with the capability to differentiate between rational and irrational concepts.
Rationality and irrationality can be objectively proven in reality. While a child may think a fire will not burn his hand, reality will inject itself into his thinking if he happens to stick his finger in the fire.
Arational subjects are those that cannot be objectively proved (or disproved) by reality as we know it. By their nature, questions such as "is there a God?" or "is there life after death?", or "what is the purpose of life?" must be answered on faith, either pro or con, rather than on objective proof.
To survive in the world of reality, Man's behavior must be rational, but his mind is not limited by his behavior. His mind is a creative tool, free to consider alternative realities and arational subjects.
In summary, a mind is the arational vehicle through which a man confronts the real world and attempts to place it in a rational system, as well as a vehicle to confront arational questions that must be accepted on faith.
To function properly, Man must be able to recognize whether he is thinking rationally, irrationally, or arationally, and to direct his behavior accordingly.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Post #2 Nature of Life Block #1
Block #1 The basic nature of all other life is also the basic nature of Man.
At the basic level, all life is concerned with two fundamental tasks. The first is to protect the equilibrium of the organism. The second is to continue living.
The second task is the ultimate extension of the first, but must be dealt with separately to distinguish the ultimate goal of sustaining life from the minute tasks of maintaining equilibrium.
At its root, life has no purpose but to continue living. Absent the mind of Man, there is no right or wrong, no good or bad. It would be a world of absolute freedom and of absolute anarchy.
The wolf doesn't regret eating the rabbit. The tree doesn't regret killing the grass that cannot grow in its shade. The only moral lesson to be learned is that, in such a world, only the strong (or lucky) survive.
To me, reason (or common sense) leads me to the conclusion that, absent Man, this is the nature of life.
Reason also leads me to accept that, because Man is a living creature, his basic nature is the same as all other living creatures.
But reason cannot tell me how, or why, it is so. One could believe either that (1) this was by design of a Creator, (2) this was a result of evolution, or (3) this was just a fluke of nature.
This is the first of three building blocks that can reached by reason but also can be accepted by those who rely on faith for their answers.
At the basic level, all life is concerned with two fundamental tasks. The first is to protect the equilibrium of the organism. The second is to continue living.
The second task is the ultimate extension of the first, but must be dealt with separately to distinguish the ultimate goal of sustaining life from the minute tasks of maintaining equilibrium.
At its root, life has no purpose but to continue living. Absent the mind of Man, there is no right or wrong, no good or bad. It would be a world of absolute freedom and of absolute anarchy.
The wolf doesn't regret eating the rabbit. The tree doesn't regret killing the grass that cannot grow in its shade. The only moral lesson to be learned is that, in such a world, only the strong (or lucky) survive.
To me, reason (or common sense) leads me to the conclusion that, absent Man, this is the nature of life.
Reason also leads me to accept that, because Man is a living creature, his basic nature is the same as all other living creatures.
But reason cannot tell me how, or why, it is so. One could believe either that (1) this was by design of a Creator, (2) this was a result of evolution, or (3) this was just a fluke of nature.
This is the first of three building blocks that can reached by reason but also can be accepted by those who rely on faith for their answers.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Post #1 The Beginning
This blog is the result of my search for something to believe in. You may feel it is ridiculous or that it is profound. However you feel about it, I hope you will consider it with an open mind.
It will definitely be a different way to look at life, and, even if you don't agree with me, I hope it will spur you to look deeper into your own value system.
The first challenge was to cut through the conflicting values, information, and fog of modern life and use logic and common sense to track back to the original concepts (or "givens") that a philosophy can be based on.
From there, the next step was to proceed with logic and common sense from the "givens" and attempt to...
1. Reconcile religion with reason
2. Recognize and reconcile the conflict between individual and group
3. Identify a "Universal Morality"
The purpose of the "Poor Mans Philosophy" is to provide a means to visualize and understand how God (or not), Man, mind, morality, religion, politics, and government can work in harmony. Far too often, the differences between these pull us apart instead of bringing us together.
So, I want to start off with the three "givens" of my philosophy. It took a long time to get to these building blocks, and I will go into more detail as to how I got there, and what it all means, in later posts.
For now, let's just say that I believe that each of these three blocks can be accepted by the religious (who can believe that a Creator designed life this way), by atheists, agnostics, and evolutionists.
Block #1 The basic nature of all other life is also the basic nature of Man
Block #2 The mind is the arational tool, through which Man confronts the
real world and attempts to place it in a rational system. To
accomplish this, Man must be able to recognize whether he is
thinking rationally, irrationally, or arationally, and to direct his
behavior accordingly.
Block #3 The disconnect between the nature of life within each individual
and the moderating nature of the mind is at the root of all conflicts
within the individual. It is also at the root of the conflicts within
morality, politics, religion, economics, and government.
At least two of the three "givens" might strike you as crazy. You've probably never heard anyone talk about this before. Please, keep an open mind. Try to reason backwards from your current beliefs to their origins, and try to find the pillars that form the basis of your life.
Hang in with me as we discuss the three building blocks of the philosophy in further postings, and follow the direction in which each premise leads us.
It will definitely be a different way to look at life, and, even if you don't agree with me, I hope it will spur you to look deeper into your own value system.
The first challenge was to cut through the conflicting values, information, and fog of modern life and use logic and common sense to track back to the original concepts (or "givens") that a philosophy can be based on.
From there, the next step was to proceed with logic and common sense from the "givens" and attempt to...
1. Reconcile religion with reason
2. Recognize and reconcile the conflict between individual and group
3. Identify a "Universal Morality"
The purpose of the "Poor Mans Philosophy" is to provide a means to visualize and understand how God (or not), Man, mind, morality, religion, politics, and government can work in harmony. Far too often, the differences between these pull us apart instead of bringing us together.
So, I want to start off with the three "givens" of my philosophy. It took a long time to get to these building blocks, and I will go into more detail as to how I got there, and what it all means, in later posts.
For now, let's just say that I believe that each of these three blocks can be accepted by the religious (who can believe that a Creator designed life this way), by atheists, agnostics, and evolutionists.
Block #1 The basic nature of all other life is also the basic nature of Man
Block #2 The mind is the arational tool, through which Man confronts the
real world and attempts to place it in a rational system. To
accomplish this, Man must be able to recognize whether he is
thinking rationally, irrationally, or arationally, and to direct his
behavior accordingly.
Block #3 The disconnect between the nature of life within each individual
and the moderating nature of the mind is at the root of all conflicts
within the individual. It is also at the root of the conflicts within
morality, politics, religion, economics, and government.
At least two of the three "givens" might strike you as crazy. You've probably never heard anyone talk about this before. Please, keep an open mind. Try to reason backwards from your current beliefs to their origins, and try to find the pillars that form the basis of your life.
Hang in with me as we discuss the three building blocks of the philosophy in further postings, and follow the direction in which each premise leads us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)