Everything You Know Is Wrong
Take the red pill.
NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS A WORK IN PROGRESS. IF YOU READ SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE, IT COULD BE THAT YOU NEED TO BRUSH UP ON YOUR ABILITY TO REASON, OR IT COULD BE THAT IT REALLY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. I'M WORKING ON IT. SLOWLY.
Background
In 1990, as I sat in a cinema in Houston viewing the film Jacob's Ladder, I experienced an epiphany. I realized that I needed to make doing the right thing as my primary goal in life. Note that, in that year, I had only just begun my studies of philosophy, and I still thought of the world in terms of right and wrong. Only later would I realize that right and wrong (as well as good and bad) are primitive concepts.
Later I would refine my statement from "doing the right thing" to "doing the rational thing", but even so corrected, that statement of purpose is meaningless without an understanding of what it means to act rationally. It would take me nearly eight years to come up with the underpinnings of a philosophy for describing truly rational behavior, and nearly ten more years to begin to define how to apply those abstract ideas to humanity.
Early on, I was wildly naive about what I could accomplish. Firstly, I thought that I could actually, by myself, create a comprehensive philosophy that would encompass all of the relevant elements of human knowledge and lay out a plan for solving the world's problems. Secondly, I thought that I could use my skill in the area of software development to amass enough wealth that I could foist my ideas on society and influence events. But as the years passed, I realized that I lacked the business skill, the raw engineering talent, and the discipline to ever create a company on the order of a Microsoft. Regardless, I still hoped to publish that comprehensive philosophy and hope that it would influence somebody who would have the resources to start putting the ideas into practice. But I procrastinated, and procrastinated, and procrastinated. Meanwhile, the World Wide Web was changing the way that information is gathered and distributed, and it occurred to me that there is no reason, save for ego, that I have to singlehandedly flesh out my philosophy. No, the rational course of action would be to make use of the Internet and those connected to it to both guide my own research efforts and to fill in areas that I might never otherwise have a chance to complete.
Philosophy Blog
First Principle
The question of how a human should live has been addressed by both philosophy and religion for thousands of years. In all that time, no idea, to the best of my knowledge, has been put forth that offers logically sound proof that a stated course of action is correct. Unfortunately, the human mind evolved with a predisposition to belief, and for that reason most of the people in the world appear to believe the ideas espoused by the world's religions, while others believe in some philosophy or another.
What most people fail to realize is that the existence of dictates in a book are not proof that those dictates are correct. Similarly, no command given by a person, living or dead, is proof that the stated course of action is correct. To understand this, you have to exercise your intellectual capabilities in order to recognize that your feelings and perceptions are a subjective product of your upbringing and your current environment, and that those feelings and perceptions do not necessarily reflect reality.
There exists one assertion in a text that comes close to offering proof, Rene Descartes "first certainty". There is confusion regarding Descartes' original statement and his restatement, "Je pense, je suis", but that is not important. The important idea is that of all possible ideas, you can be most certain of your own existence. You cannot be absolutely certain of this, and you cannot prove your existence to another human. However, you cannot make sense of the proposition that you do not exist. You cannot imagine yourself not existing, and you cannot imagine what you would do if you did not exist. In order to think about what actions you should take, you must accept that you exist.
To the extent that you can be certain of anything, you must be certain that you exist, though you must realize that you cannot assume yourself to be mind and body. All that you perceive outside of your mind, including your own body, could be an illusion. Elsewhere in his writing, Descartes gives a satisfactory explanation of why the things you see and hear and touch and smell might be illusions. In order to transcend the mental weakness that is belief, you must realize this. However, if you choose to accept that you possess free will (you cannot prove this), then you must accept that you have the power to act. Again, you cannot prove that you can act, but if you cannot act, then why should you breath, eat, or move? Why not simply sit and think?
Even though you can be certain only of your own existence, if you accept your ability to act, then you must also accept the existence of something outside yourself, for if nothing besides yourself exists, then what is the meaning of the term "to act"? Furthermore, the ability to act implies the ability to effect change on what exists; otherwise, how can you attach meaning to any action other than thought.
more...
Rationality
The way that I use the term has to do with choosing the correct actions in order to achieve a goal. You should research the term "rationality" yourself, and you will likely find no shortage of material. There exists also a good number of belief systems that assert what a person's goal, in life, should be. In a narrow sense, if you adopt a goal and then take actions that, based on probability and empirical evidence, are most likely to lead to your accomplishing that goal, then you are acting rationally. What I have not yet encountered is a satisfactory justification for any goal, in an absolute sense. For example, Christianity, as I understand it, commands you to follow a god's law in order to ensure a place in "heaven". But I have never heard a justification for why going to heaven is a valid goal. Desirable, yes. But valid? Why is going to heaven more valid than opposing a god and going to "hell"? Can you prove it?
What I propose is that, in the absence of proof that a given goal is absolutely valid, the only truly rational course of action is to seek out knowledge of what the goal actually is. I mean not just an individual human's goals, but the goals of the human race, the planet, other rational beings that may exist in the universe, and, ultimate, of the universe itself.
Privacy
The Constitution
The Constitution of the United States of America is only a document created by men. Flawed men. Men with a limited understanding of the world, and thus a limited world view. Neither the world nor the country are served by attempting to interpret and adhere to the original intent of our founding fathers.
Good and Evil
"Good" and "evil" are, to the best of my knowledge, universally used terms to describe human actions. Humans are raised to think of the world in terms of good and evil. Rarely, outside the field of philosophy, are people encouraged to take a more sophisticated approach towards the evaluation of human actions.
I have never seen proof that good and evil, nor a continuum thereof, exist in an absolute sense. It is very important to note that I am not asserting that good and evil do not exist. I am saying that in all of human history nobody has been able to prove it in a way that has become accessible to the general public. As a result, judgements of what is good and what is evil often come down to emotions.
In order to reduce the level of conflict in the world, a different standard for judging human actions must be implemented, one that can be accepted by the widest number of people, people who are educated and capable of exercising rational thought.
Rather than judging human behaviour as good or evil, I suggest we judge them as by two standards: constructive versus destructive, and rational versus animal.
Some might fall into a trap of thinking that, if a person's actions cannot be judged as evil, then how can we justify imposing sanctions against that person. To even ask the question is an indication that focus has been lost. As long as the focus remains on the goal, and a person's actions are judged according to that goal, then the rational course of action is to oppose actions that impede the goal.
Values
Though the root cause of the world's problems is human nature itself, and the ultimate solution is to change that nature, there are other problems that need to be addressed more immediately. Human nature cannot effectively changed overnight, not without killing billions, and so other steps need to be taken in the interim. One of the most beneficial improvements that could be made to the society of existing humans is to address the issue of values. At present, much, or most of the world's societies are motivated by what will call, until I find a better term, "animal values".
What are "animal values"? These are values that have arisen not from reason, but rather from instinct, emotion, and conditioning. Take, for example, one of the most often touted values, the value of family. This is an animal value, because most humans do not reason that placing family above others is the best course of action. Most humans feel a natural attraction to family that is bolstered by social conditioning. Some humans will, in certain situations, be able to make a logical argument that acting in the best interests of family will benefit them as individuals. But few, if any, humans can make the argument that acting in the best interests of family will offer the best benefit to the world.
In constrast to animal values would be what I will call, again for lack of a better term, "rational values". An example of a rational value would be conservation. I have never heard any evidence that humans possess a natural instinct to conserve resources on a global scale. Hoarding behaviour, yes, but that is not what I mean by conservation. I mean creating institutions and habits that minimize the amount of resources consumed by a society and the world. Valuing conservation has arisen from reason, from studying the effects of consumption on the environment and drawing conclusions about what the eventual outcome of unchecked consumption will be.
NOTE: I know that the writing in the above two paragraphs is atrocious. I apologize, but my mind is so scattered, and my writing ability so unpolished, that, in general, it will take me much editing, and great effort, to translate my ideas to the page with style and coherence.
Faith
Abundance Is Not Enough
Even if humanity learned to manage its resouces in a manner that would assure that every human's needs were met, the many flaws in human nature would ensure that many of humanity's problems would remain. If you doubt this, merely look at the behaviour of the wealthy within their own communities. Surely the rich have all their material wants met, yet they enter into conflict with one another over power relationships, status, mates, and more--just like animals. There simply is no solution to human conflict without changing human nature.
Immigration
The Negative Effect of White Nationalist Groups on Legitimately Rational Anti-Immigration Viewpoints
Conflict
Environment and Populatio
Progress
Law
Things Happen For a Reason
Privacy
The Root Cause
Intrinsic Value of Life
Subhumans
Morality
Procreation
Parenting
Brain Damage
Euthanasia
Morality
The Elderly
Poverty
Survival Mode
Activist Bias
Misguided Activism
Weakness, Vulnerability, and Exploitation
Culture Is No Excuse
Do Not Judge, Instead Conclude
Complicity
Pride
Conservatism
Rational Justificaiton for Power and Responsibility Link
Social Engineering
Patriotism
The Fundemental Problem With Longer Life
The Importance of Recognizing Humans as Animals
Folly of Reliance on the Constitution
The Harm in Unnecessary Conflict
Human beings, being possessed of free will, often come into conflict with one another. This is necessary. If human beings, acting as rational beings, are free to choose independent goals and pursue them in a world with limited space and resources, it is inevitable that conflict will arise. Two persons cannot both build a house on the same plot of land.
Experience tells us that conflict interferes with human progress. War is an excellent example of this. One consequence of war is to set back the progress of the losing society, and sometimes even that of the winning side. While it is true that progress can and often does result from war--computing technology is an example--it is hard to see that such progress could ever compensate for the destruction that war creates.
If we stop short of actually defining "progress", most rational humans would agree that progress is desirable. If we further accept the evidence that shows that conflict interferes with progress, we must also conclude reducing conflict is also desirable. Assuming that we wish to retain a society of free-thinking individuals, outright elimination of all conflict is not a realistic goal. A reduction of conflict, however, is eminently achievable, and one avenue for reducing conflict involves the elimination of unnecessary conflict.
To use the term "unnecessary conflict" implies that some conflict is in fact necessary. In the world of humans, some conflict very much is. For example, if a person needs his vehicle in order to accomplish his goals, and another person wishes to take that vehicle against the owner's will, it is rational for the owner to resist the theft. Conflict will thus ensue.
What, then, is unnecessary conflict? To answer this question, it is helpful to define conflict in terms of action and opposition. Conflict is the state created when one party opposes an action undertaken by another party. Understood in these terms, the question that one must ask regarding a given conflict is, "does the action being opposed necessarily threaten to do harm?"
If an action is causing harm, or would likely cause harm, then of course a rational invidual must oppose it even if it brings her into conflict. Take the example of a factory dumping toxic waste into a river. By merely allowing the dumping to continue and allowing the community to suffer the ill effects, conflict could be avoided. However, if we determine that those effects will lead to social ills, such as diseases and birth defects, that will in turn affect the course of progress, then we must rationally initiate conflict in order to stop the dumping.
Of course, many actions cannot be shown to be harmful by any logial reasoning. A great number of expressions of sexuality fall into this category, and a great number of these selfsame acts and expressions are opposed by some people for no reason other than defect of mind. It is important to realize at this point that a mental defect is any condition that interferes with rational thought. The psychiatric establishment holds a much more restrictive definition of mental defect, and thus they fail society by squandering an opportunity to raise public awareness of mental conditions that are not currently categorized as illnesses. The conditions I am most concerned with are those that arise from any form of belief, whether it be the belief in a god to a belief that one "race" of humans is inferior to another race. Many will express surprise and even indignation that faith and racism are mentioned in the same sentence, but I, with absolutely no background whatsoever in neuropsychology or other relevant fields of study, submit that faith and racism and all other forms of belief are fundamentally the same thing,
Regarding sexual expression, a great number, perhaps a majority, of people seem to suffer from the mental defect of believing that some forms of sexual expression are wrong while others are right. These beliefs lead to an immesurable degree of human suffering raging from the genital mutilation of African girls to the abuse of homosexuals to the stigmatization of prostitutes and other sex workers.
Many forms of sexual expression that are currently opposed by groups across the globe cannot be logically shown to be harmful. As such, all conflict that arises from the opposition of benign sexual expression is unnecessary conflict. Accordingly, individuals who are truly interested in promoting human progress instead of impeding it must recognize that they have a responsibility to transfer this uncessary conflict from their environement and into their own minds. And once unnecessary conflict is internalized, individuals should then alter their mental states so as to dissolve the conflict and be at peace with themselves.
For example, in the case of an individual who opposes homosexuality, that individual has a responsiblity to society to first cease externalizing that conflict, to cease antagonizing other people, for that conflict impedes human progress. Secondly, that individual must learn to eliminate those negative feelings towards homosexuality in order that her consciousness can be fully dedicated to some positive goal.
Of course we cannot assume that all individuals, if thinking rationally, would necessarily desire to reduce conflict. Some people might actually try to create conflict to satisfy their own desires and goals. On a larger scale, organizations may seek to increase conflict. One such example would be elements involved in the struggle between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It has been reported that some parties actively oppose peace because an end to the conflict would result in a lessening of their own power.
Individuals and organzations with such selfish motives would not be persuaded by arguments in favor of reducing conflict, and they are not my intended audience. Frankly, I have at present no ideas for how to deal with such individuals other than to eliminate them. But I do have hope that the vast majority of people do care about human progress and can somehow be persuaded to take steps to evolve their minds into a state in which they no longer create conflict that is not necessary.
Tribalism
Ideas Deserving of Consideration
Pets
Eating Meat
Eating Locally
Farming as a Way of Making a Living
Single-Family Houses
Families
Private Property
more to come...