Response to essay on Less Wrong

The essay is here:   http://lesswrong.com/lw/3k/how_to_not_lose_an_argument/ 

Isn't calling rhetoric "the dark arts" using the exact tactic you are advocating against?

  I like your idea, but I think it is incomplete. First, I don't like the way you demonize rhetoric. Before labeling rhetoric the "dark arts" I think it needs to be proven that it is truly fact and not rhetoric that convinces people of what is rational. Secondly, I do not think convincing someone that the universe can be moral without God is a a proper line of flight.

In regards to my first critique, I think there is a false dichotomy being draw between reason and value. I do not know how this idea will be received on a radically rationalist blog, but as far as I know no one has yet to prove that reasons can escape values. If you are aware of such an essay/ body of work, please let me know about it, though I do not see how you could ever remove rhetoric from communication. For example, the problem I have in your reasoning about the reassurance of a moral universe is one with your rhetoric.

Basic to the science of rhetoric is the idea that audience determines the nature of the argument. Audience can be interpreted as context. The context of the debate determines what is correct and what is false. You see convincing a theist of the morality of a non-theistic universe as leaving them a line of flight. The assumption that you are making, is that what is at stake for the theist is the issue of morality. The issue of existing in a moral vs. amoral universe is a transcendental one. Likewise, God is a transcendental topic. The problem with your reasoning is that just because God is a transcendental topic does not mean that a theists belief in God is for transcendental reasons. For example, a belief in God not only represents "God", it represents a history, a culture, a family.  How can you say that a person’s belief in God is the primarily of transcendental concern as opposed to filial concern (meaning believing in God because of a stronger belief in ones father or mother)?

As of now I cannot claim to have a perfect method of knowing the correct value base of a person's belief, but I am certain that there are people who are theists not for transcendental reasons, but for cultural or personal ones. Let's pretend that it is one of those people that your are trying to correct of their fundamentalist flaws.

   If you convince a person that the universe is still moral without God is that going to give them a line of flight? No, it will not. They can either: A.) except that God exists or B.) Except that their parents and loved ones were stupid and wasted their lives believing in something stupid (which would imply that they were raised stupidly). How is this any less damaging to the ego than the alternative you proposed? It isn't.

Please do not misinterpret my meaning. I am strongly in favor of rationalism. I just don't find it rational to deny the irrationality of social existence. Rhetoric and solidarity are more fundamental to human existence that rationality. I am all for increasing rationality, but not in order to eliminate values.

I am not suggesting that we should tolerate everything. There are bad ideas out there, religious fundamentalism is one of them. I like your idea of leaving a line of flight. My suggestion would be that the line of flight must take into account a base level of irrationality. For example, rather than getting rid of God, I think we should redefine God. There are plenty of theologians who are working to do just this. Religion serves a purpose. That purpose is not to define the empirical world or provide a totalitarian mantra of action and thought. Nothing should do these things, not even science. What we need is not to eliminate religion, but to rectify what it means. The same is necessary for science and for logic. A scientific fundamentalist and a mathematical fundamentalist are just as dangerous as a religious fundamentalist.

 

     

Response to Peter's Comment

... My computer was not letting me leave a comment on the last post, so I just decided to response this way. Peter's comment was:


Tom,

This sounds similar to virtue ethics, where morality is seen as dispositions to virtuous actions... except your belief is much ramped up. I liked the inclusion of Chinese.

I am in agreement that morality involves the cultivation of positive dispositions and involves developing harmony among at least humans.

But there still are definitely some questions left for you to look into:

1.) Do you think morality is about "ought" statements? What would "ought" mean? In what sense can you say I ought to have dispositions to growth, and not dispositions to destruction?

2.) Do you think morality can be used to guide individual actions? Would it be moral to rob a store? Would it be moral to have an abortion? (I'm sure it varies from situation to situation.)

3.) Should we help grow others if it comes at a cost of stunting our own growth?

4.) Does your morality say anything about interactions with nonhumans, like (nonhuman) animals? What do you think of moral vegetarianism? If not, why would you exclude these animals? (I'm not yet convinced that good moral systems require the inclusion animals.)

RESPONSE

Peter,

  Thank you for bring the field of virtue ethics to my attention. I spent some time looking into it, and you are right it is what I am advocating. Ironically, though I am very interested in morality, Western moral philosophy is a sub-field I have little to no experience in. One of the books I am currently reading is called "Elements of Moral Philosophy" I hope it begins to supplement this deficit.

 @1.) I do think morality is about "ought" statements. The book I am currently reading states that the accepted basis for moral theory in the West is that morality "is at the very least, the effort to guide one's conduct by reason- That is, to do what there are the best reason to do while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual who will be affected by what one does."

  You ask in what sense you should have a disposition to growth rather than decay. Well, perhaps you, as an individual, should not always have a disposition to growth. But morality is a collective enterprise. It deals with what is best for humans as a group/species, not individuals.

    Can you honestly say that there is a question as a species as to whether or not we should try to stop our annihilation? Decay is only considered negative because it makes a structure more susceptible to destruction. Destruction is the end of a system.

  I am sure your postulate about "ought" was to target more finite moral details like abortion. However, from my perspective, such details are arbitrary. Abortion is or is not moral depending on the context you are harmonizing within. Beyond this, I believe the base value (such as valuing the preservation of human existence) we can take as teleology. Despite the multitude of cultural variation, every culture protects and promotes the grow of children. There are exceptions to this rule within cultures (where children are discarded), but we cannot forget that these are the exceptions, not the rule. No people completely disregards their children, because without children their culture would not continue. Just as while their are exceptions that call for the destruction/sacrifice of life, the overarching rule, is that human life is valued and cherished.

  My argument is as follows:

   1.)valuing human existence is teleological. 

   2.) Because humanity is defined by a specific structure, there is a specific set of objects and actions that promote its growth. (For example, we haven't created an underwater civilization yet, because despite all popular fiction and mythology, the human structure is not designed to live in the water.)

   3.) The human structure is fundamentally a social one. It is through relations with other humans that we truly actualize our potential to grow (really don't see how you could argue against this

   4.) The duration of coexistence is dependent on a solidarity,a mutual feeling of connectedness by all the consenting parts; or in other words, a harmony.

 Thus, As humans we fundamentally value human life, valuing human life we want to promote its growth, the growth of humanity is partially (not solely) dependent on harmony (solidarity).

 *There are other components, I will discuss them soon.

 2.) Yes, I am saying that morality is essential taking a specefic orientation of action, so of course it could guide human action. The example you have given moves beyond the broad scale of this argument and requires much more contextual information to give an answer. The answer is subjective; however, in general stealing probably contradicts greater harmonization, and thus should be discouraged.

 3.)No, this will be part of the next essay on morality I will write. This essay is just to introduce the general idea, but in reality there are a couple huge parts I am leaving out. But to give you a quick answer, no, because of my social self theory.

 4.) yes it does, this is yet another essay that I plan to write. To summarize the idea quickly, human survival in addition to depending on human collectivity, depends on the preservation of the environment we have adapted to. It does not matter how well we harmonize if we destroy the context that allows our unique structure to thrive. (i.e a clean water, flora and fauna filled biome). We need plants and animals, and clean water. Extending this logic, the survival of "plants" and species of animals depends on their diversity, so that they too can adjust to environmental shifts. The more we deplete the diversity of our biosphere, the more fragile it becomes; the more fragile it becomes the more likely it will break; If it breaks, the more likely we (human species) will break. Thus, in valuing our own survival, we must value the survival of our environment.   

 Does that make sense?     

Understanding Morality through Pokemon

I would like to thank Hanyun Cai for her contribution to the development of this thought.


   In the last year the concept of Morality has become a central framework in the architecture of my thoughts and actions. As a result I have become increasingly aware of the ambiguity of the term, and the heavy connotations it carries in the English language. I have joked to myself that in the game of communication morality is a "broken" symbol, and have start several essays advocating that for this very reason it should be removed from communication altogether. However, I have yet to finish any of those essays. Because despite the dangers I see in the ambiguity and potency of the term, I still feel strongly connected to it, and believe that a conception of morality is pivotal to my cultivation, pivotal to the cultivation of humanity. SoI cannot let it go. Once again I must thank Hanyun. In a conversation with her about my perception of morality she brilliantly discerned the core of what I was saying. After talking to her, it seems so simple to divulge the underlying principle of my morals, something that I was previously finding to be a daunting task. Thank you again Hanyun! Also thanks to all my friends, those met in person, and those met in text, who have helped me get to this point.

                 MORALITY and the V-O Construction.

        To understand my conception of morality it is essential to understand that I classify morality not as noun, or a verb, or object, but as a Object-Verb. The Object-Verb (O-V) is, to the best of my knowledge, a categorical construction that does not exist in the English language (Please correct me on this if I am wrong).  An O-V describes an object in a particular state of transformation. For example:

       In Chinese the word 吃饭 [chīfàn] means "to have a meal" and is colloquially used to mean "to eat" or "eating." 吃饭 [chīfàn] is a O-V.   吃 [chī] is a verb that describes the act of consuming/taking in something. To novice Chinese speakers this most commonly relates to consuming food and is translated as "eat." But 吃 does not really mean eat. 吃 is also used to describe a person experiencing difference emotions, situations, and even physical contact. To be "jealous" in Chinese is 吃醋 [chīcù], which can be deconstructed into: the verb to take in (吃), and the noun vinegar (醋). Vinegar is sour. Jealous in Chinese is " for a person to take in/consume a sourness."

     To live off of welfare:  吃劳保 [chīláobǎo]  -Take in aid
     Exhausting/ strenuous: 吃力[chīlì] - Take in  (on) a force
     To lose out: 吃亏 [chīkuī]. Take in a loss

    In each of these examples, and many more, 吃 does not mean "eat." You do not "eat force" or "eat lose." You take on a force, you take in a loss. "To eat" implies not only the act of consumption, but willful consumption of a very specific set of tangible objects by a very specific object. If it is not willful, you are not eating, you are being fed. if it is not tangible objects that nourish the human body, than you are not eating you are just consuming/taking in. If it is not a human or some other animal with a mouth apparatus, than it is not eating. Plants nourish themselves with sunlight, but this is not seen as eating because plants are not human-like. They do not prepare their food before they ingest it, and they do not willfully chose what and when they eat, they do not ingest it through a mouth. Acid is described as eating through things, but this is an analogy. People do not really think acid eats and for the the same reasons plants don't eat. Eating describes a specific type of relationship between two specific objects, a mouth bearing object and an object that nourishes the mouth bearing object. Because different objects derive nourishment from different things. To change the eater is to change what can be eaten. From this I suggest:

                - Actions (verbs) are defined by the structures (objects) that are able to carry them out.
                - Actions (verbs) are defined by the relationship between structures (objects).

      Only things with mouths and autonomously choose what and when they. Only things that are nourishing can be eaten. These are distinctions that are muddled by the prevalence of analogy in society. Acid appears to consume what it burns through so we say it eats away at it, but acid does not have a mouth, it is not autonomous, and it does not derive nourishment from the things it burns. Contrary to popular believe acid does not eat anything.
       So far I have been focusing on the verb aspect of the O-V across different objects. However, the object also exists across multiple verbs. Not only do you 吃饭 [chīfàn] you can also 喷饭 [pēnfàn] (spit up food from laughing so hard),  做饭 [zuòfàn] ( cook, make food), or 要饭 [yàofàn] (be a beggar, beg for anything). The verbs that are used in O-V relationships define the dispositions of a structure (object). 


               Dispositions of Growth, Decay, and Destruction

     All objects exist in relations that are based on actions. The actions a structure can take represent the flexibility of the structure. The actions a structure take do work on the structure, and thus transform it.  I argue that the effects of actions on a structure (object) work to either impede or progress the growth, decay, or destruction of the strucutre. Therefore all actions can be thought of as dispositions of growth, decay, or destruction. It is possible for an object to activate any of these dispositions; however, I argue that it is for the benefit of any object to progress growth, limit decay, and avoid destruction.

           When I say growth I do not mean increase in size, but the continual adaption of the structure to the environment  it is in relation with (to evolve in a sense). Environments are dynamic. If structures do not move to adapt to them, they will eventually find themselves working against the system they exist within. To be at odds with one's environment is what is called a state of decay.  Because enviroments are dynamic, if structures are not dynamic as well they are continually creeping towards a state of decay. The act of inaction therefore can be seen as progressing decay. Another way of progressing decay is the act of improper action.
      Humans are equipped with a wide variety of actions at their disposal. Each action can be situationally used to promote growth or situationally used to promote decay and destruction. What promotes growth is proper, what promotes decay and destruction is improper. When a person consumes nourishing food 吃饭 [chīfàn] they are implementing a disposition in their structure to grow, and thus are acting properly. When they spit up nourishing food they are delaying their growth, and potentially progressing decay (Depending on how recently they have eaten), thus acting improperly. When a person consumes something toxic the proper action is to spit it up. To eat something toxic is to put your internal organs at risk, promote decay, and is thus improper. To summarize:

        -All structure (objects) exist in relations with other structures (objects)
       - All structures (objects) contain dispositions for action (compatible verbs).
        - All structures (objects) that interact do so through the mediation of action (verb). 
        - All structures (objects) contain dispositions for growth, decay, and destruction.
        - When structures (objects) interact there is a proper way to act that promotes growth, limits decay, and avoids destruction. 

    Earlier I defined O-V as objects in a particular state of transformation. Another way to say this is that O-V represent the dispositions of objects. The grammatical structure is called an O-V, but based on the nature of dispositions I have explanaed, it should really be called an  O-V-O (object-verb-object) construction.

   Now, we are ready to begin discussing morality.  

                 Morality as a Disposition of Growth 
  By stating I view morality as an O-V, I am asserting that morality is a disposition, meaning that it is a state of transformation that emerges from a specific O-V-O relationship. Because of this, it is fallacious to attempt to explain or discuss morality in abstract terms of goodness, justice, or equality. Morality cannot be discussed without first identifying: what structures are in relation when one speaks of morality, and what is the action (verb) that defines their relationship? 
           As to the first question, personally,  I believe that morality is a disposition that emerges from a relationship between humans. Before I continue let me say that this position is a Confucian one,  heavily influenced by my religious beliefs.  A Buddhist would see morality as a disposition that emerges from a relationship between existence. A Native American shaman would see morality as a disposition between living things. A nationalist would see morality as a disposition between countrymen. The broadness of categorization is dependent on the values of a persons. You will notice however that there is a common pattern across all these examples. Though the category size changes all the examples I have listed define morality as existing between two similar structures. Existence to Existence, Living to Living, Human to Human, Countrymen to Countrymen. Because of this, I argue that regardless of subjective values, morality is a disposition that emerges between two objects of a similar structure. If we accept that assertion, then all that remains is to all identify what action mediates a moral relationship?

       Though I said this would be an explanation of my conception of morality I realize I am writing this in the style of a persuasive rather than descriptive essay. I apologize for that. I have been saying "I argue" building up arguments, when I should be saying "I believe" and just telling you what I believe. That is what I will do from this point on.

   I believe the verb that defines morality is "harmony." Morality is attempting to develop harmonious relations between an other that you regard as similar. For me that is humans. Therefore morality is me, working to be more harmonious with other humans. I conceive a harmony as the union of seperate entities into a collective will, body, force. If I am with another person there are many ways I can act towards them. I can try to dominate them, to serve them, to persuade them, to move them, to avoid them, to flatter them, to ignore them, to hurt them, and I can try to harmonize with them. I do not veiw this as trying to become the person. When notes harmonize it is not that an A note becomes a B or a C, but that they all synthesize into something greater than their collective parts. There are emergent properties to harmony.

     I believe that haromonizing with other people develops a person's knowledge, happiness, and work. I view developing knowledge, implementing that knowledge into work, and being happy with one's life as EXTREMELY benefical to both indivdiual and collective survival. Therefore, from my perspective, working towards morality activates a disposition of growth within the human structure. Morality is how we evolve. I could into further detail how harmonizing with others develops knowledge, hapiness, and work; and I probably will at a later date, but not right now.
  
   I need to finish this thing, so I will move to the last section!

                          POKEMON!!!!
              I bet you were wondering where charizard was. Sorry it took so long. Initially I planned to put him in a lot earlier, but it took alot more to preface it than I thought. Pokemon is just the inital analogy that I thought of to describe morality as a disposition rather than a state. Hopefully all that stuff above this has sorted out what I mean by disposition. Basically, what I am saying is that a disposition is the potential to implement a strucutre in a specific way (In the case of morality, the structure is the human body, the choosen activity is harmonzing with other humans). Because dispositions have the potential to progress growth, they essential transform the structure.

    In Pokemon, the acitivty of battling (with other pokemon) will eventually cause pokemon to evolve. Charizard started off as charmander, than through battle became charmelon, and then more battle evolved him into Charizard! For Pokemon, battling leads to a disposition of growth. If Charmander had chozen a different action to run his body, then he potentially would never have evolved into Charizard. This is important because it shows that dispositions transform structures. Morality is not just a state of action, it will actually trasnform a human, if given enough time (enough xp in the Pokemon world). 
   Where the analogy fails is that I do not see specific stages or plateus of morality. In the Pokemon world Charizard can only progress so much. However, I would argue that in the real world there is no limits to how much we can progress. Even if I somehow manage to truly harmonize with my community; there is still the rest of my society; even if I still somehow manage to harmonize with the rest of my society, there is still the rest of humanity; even if I somehow manage to harmonize with the rest of humanity, there is still the rest of existence. It is not that I disagree with the Buddhist perspective, I just believe in setting incremental goals. How could I every hope to harmonize with existence if I cannot even harmonize with the few people I see on a daily basis? Things have their proper order. Trees have their roots and their branches. To attempt to grow branches before you have roots is foolish, is it not?

 This is why I believe that for the me that exists right now, morality is an actio between humans. The me I am now will not exist in 10 years. Just as after 10 years of battle charmader is no longer charmander, he is charmelon. "Leveling up" slowly shifts the constituion of your structure, and eventually will shif the potential actions at your disposal. This is what it means to evolve.

             One Final Word on Humaneness
           This essay is one of many. Humans interact with many objects and thus have the potential for many actions. I believe morality in a person puts them in a state of growth, but this growth is only in one sphere. There are many other ways to grow. What I would call "humaneness, or the humane person" is someone who is implementing multiple dispositions of growth. This essay covers one dispostion of growth, "morality." There are others. I will write more about the others later.

 Peace Space Cowboy! Happy Trails   

Rethinking Sacrifice

    I think it is safe to say that within the context of American culture the concept of an individual  making sacrifices in his or her daily life has a negative connotation, especially so with regards to self-sacrifice. That is not to say that the American connotation is a purely negative one; to the contrary, within the sphere of nationalism sacrificing for one's country is one of the most noble and honorable things a person can do. And certainly to some extent, a person is expected to make some sacrifices for the sake of their family and friends. However, I would argue that the sacrifice of the solider and the sacrifice of the socialized individual are, for different reasons, not true sacrifices.
   
      With the case of the soldier. It is true that they are willfully endangering their life and even in extreme cases directly offering their life for their nation/tribe. But I argue that they are only willing to do so on their terms. Take the archetypal war movie. The protagonist is fully prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice, but if the stage of the battle, the methods, or the time clashes with their personal ideology they rebel. What makes them heroes is that we see their rebellion as just. It is not that they are cowardly, but that the demands on them were, or they were immoral, unjust, or wrong. Our faith in them as heroes is latter affirmed when we see them proceed to give their life to their cause when it is on their terms. Of course I am over generalizing, but the archetype of the lone hero who follows their own judgment in the face of corruption, tyranny, and incompetency does exist in American cinema and literature.      

          The reason I do not see this as a true sacrifice is because at no point does the protagonist relinquish their ideology. While hey may willingly forfeit his future, at no point does he truly sacrifice his self, the core foundation of his beliefs and motivations. If anything, the act of dying immortalizes who he is, what he stands for, in the most powerful of all symbolic gestures.This is not sacrifice. As I have hinted to in the opening of this paragraph, to sacrifice means to relinquish some part of what one covets. To let go of a piece of what is most treasured. At no point does the lone hero do this. Yes they are willing to give their life, but only because they hold the meaning that they transform it into to be infinitely greater. And that meaning is something that they themselves MUST condone. That meaning is not antithetical to them. To the contrary it is the essence of what they are. It is their self. Because of this, I would more accurately describe the hero's sacrifice as "The Hero's Transformation" where they convert their finite life into an immortal symbol. I am by no means arguing that this is not a powerful, noble, and honorable gesture; but it is not a sacrifice. The achievement of immorality fulfills not forfeits the human ideal.  As for the example of sacrificing for the family, I would call this more of a compromise.

      Something I often find myself talking about with my friends is the nature of relationships. In these discussions there is generally a distinction made that sacrificing for a relationship is bad, while compromising for one is good. What is this distinction? As I have previously addressed, to sacrifice means to relinquish something of ultimate concern to the individual. Because there is nothing of more concern to the individual than him or her self  (self here is referring to the basis of a person's beliefs and motivations), true sacrifice is always self-sacrifice. Anything short of giving up that of which is most valued must be seen as a compromise. To compromise is to relinquish something while still protecting that which is most important. Returning to the relationship example, let's say your boyfriend/girlfriend wants you to comb your hair more. Combing your hair is annoying, but it is not integral to your self. You lose nothing you truly covet in succumbing to her request besides perhaps time. However, I would suggest that despite what is found in many maxims and cliche sayings, time is the cheapest part of our self and the part that is most readily compromised to avoid true sacrifice. Now Let's say that you are unwilling to comb your hair. That not combing your hair to you symbolizes autonomy, freedom and rebellion from conformity (or any number of other values) in this instance you are not as accommodating. One of three things can happen. First, you could battle it out with your girlfriend/boyfriend until one of you successfully breaks the reality of the other and colonizes their mind with a new set of beliefs that clearly understands why combing your hair is unacceptable or why you must comb your hair. The second thing that could happen is that both of you refuse to yield, and ultimately it is not either of your inner worlds but your relationship that breaks. Or lastly, you could both refuse to yield, but instead of breaking off your relations you offer tribute to your boyfriend/girlfriend in the form of some other comprise, an offering of time or capital that counteracts your inability to sacrifice. This last case is called a sacrifice in the semantics of our language, but in reality it is a compromise. It is a compromise because instead of yielding your self, a greater quantity of something less valued, but still significant, is alternatively presented as an offering to the other. This offering states "I refuse to yield, but I still value our bond, only to a lesser degree."

     Now the question that stands is: is there anything wrong with this? I would guess that the initial impression of the Western reader would be a strong NO! You should never forfeit who you are! If your boyfriend/girlfriend cannot accept that, then they are not right for you! This cry is a cry for the supremacy of individualism. The author of the italicized statement is undoubtedly a voice whose mind is filled with images of a tattered, timid soul feebly offering up chunks of its own flesh to appease the voracious appetite of an abusive and domineering "other." I do not question the validity of such an image. I am sad to say that such an abusive relationship is the reality of many people, both privileged and not. I am not contesting this image, but suggesting that it is on of abuse, not of the norm. Just as a person should not use the criteria of an abusive relationship to base their relationships off; they should also not use the criteria of an abusive sacrifice to base their own conception of sacrifice off of. I will state now that in almost all cases (with some exceptions) a one-sided sacrifice is an abusive one. You should never relinquish yourself to someone or something that does not value you. And if you are truly valued , as you value them/it, than the other will be moved to sacrifice as well. Again, there are some examples where this is not the case, but I would say that in general any positive sacrifice should be a mutual one.

    I think positive sacrifices are nesseacry to build truly democratic, stable, productive individuals. For in a positive sacrifice two or more people have surrendered some territory within their hearts so that they have room for the presence of others. To Sacrifice is a gesture of love and an extension of self. The notion that sacrifice is bad comes from a strong belief in the self as a stable and quantified entity. Or in other words, the belief of the Western construction of the soul. Each person has their soul, which is unique and separate from everyone else. To relinquish even a part of that is to destroy not only what makes you you, but what defines humanity.

   This however is a position of faith, and one that I do not hold for that matter. I do not see myself as a discrete entity. I believe that the nature of reality is not stagnation but flux. The self is not a constant essence, it is a collage of all the various pieces of the reality we move within. As we move geographically, historically, culturally, the pieces change, and thus the collage changes. I do not think that The me of now and the me of 10 years ago are the same self. If you were to ask anyone who has  known both of these people you would find that they are almost contradictory of each other. If you still do not believe me, I would urge you to keep a journal. Write each day what you feel, or on a particularly emotional day, and make sure to really flesh it out. Look at that journal just 3-4 months later and I guarantee you will be astonished by the things you wrote. If you look at that journal a decade or two later I would bet that you would not even recognize yourself.

   From the perspective of the self as a dynamic force, self-sacrifice is no longer destructive, but merely a choice in direction. It is a willful push towards a certain configuration of identity rather than passively waiting for your current self to unconsciously erode into a new form.

 I have much more to say on this, but I need to wash some dishes and than go to bed. So that is it for now. 

What It Means To Be Strong

 In my twenty-two years of life nothing has stung more than the realization that there are many ways to be strong; and that each is an endless depth unto itself. I do not know why it took me so long to see it. It should have been obvious. Confucius says, "to take what is close at hand as an analogy for what is far" and you will not stray too far. I know that when I was a young boy I wanted to be strong more than anything;  judging from my interactions with them, I think most young boys do. This is what is close at hand. So what is far? I would say that when I was a young boy the farthest thing imaginable was a young girl. In some ways I still find young women hard to comprehend... but that just goes to show I need to do a better job listening. Confucius says, "to take what is close at hand as an analogy for what is far." The young boy in my past is close at hand and girls were and are still far. If I, as a young boy, wanted to be strong more than anything, I am going to assume that young girls do too. It is from this assumption that I can clearly see that strength is multi-facted.
    Young boys are (not unanimously, but predictably, at least in our culture) obsessed with fighting and their muscles. Why, because we see this as what makes a person strong, and we want to be strong. Young girls, (not unanimously, but predictably, at least in our culture) are obsessed with their beauty and grace. Is this not also because they see this as what makes a person strong? Beauty gives you power over others just as physical dominance does, but in a different way. Then you begin to think about it, and you realize that someone who is beautiful or muscular can still be psychologically weak. So there is strength over others and there is strength over yourself; and within each of these categories there is a wide variety of methods for obtaining said strength. Strength is a plurality.
     But as a young boy (and perhaps a young girl too) you want to be able to say that your strength is the supreme strength. The strength that stands on top of all others. But you can't; and it is hard to accept, the promiscuity of what is strong.
     Harder still, is accepting the fact that your strength, the world you live and breathe in, is just as unknowable as strength in the broader more absolute sense. If you are a thinker, a runner, a drawer, a breather,  and you are concerned with being strong, you cannot imagine the ends of your world. To love an art (all those just listed and more) is to chase it to infinity knowing full well that it is a place we will never be able to go. I am such a man that loves strength, and so I love the Don Quixotes of the world. the men and women who follow that star all the time knowing just how far a star is from where they are. To me that is what it means to be strong. That is what it means to be beautiful.
    But it is hard. More so than you could ever possible imagine. I do not know if it is the culture that I was raised in or if it is should be attributed to a facet of the human condition, but I find myself incredibly prone to floating. There is a quote, I apologize that I do not know if I am quoting it properly, or who it should be attributed to, but it goes something like, "the enemy of great is not bad, it is good." Once we reach some level of proficiency we are satiated at a remarkable speed. And this applies for every single thing a person does. We learn to think, we learn a couple interesting facts or tricks, we give up on there being another way. We learn to walk and never once think that we could differently and that it would be better. To some extent I suppose this is necessary. If we meticulously went over every minute piece of existence we would never get anywhere. But I think we are at a point that is of the opposite extreme. Where even with the things we love and care about we have lost all sense of humility, all sense of passion, or curiosity and have assumed our own superiority self-evident. In all fairness, I am a step beyond this where I vocalize said arrogance, but I do not think it is that big of a step. And I do think that the majority of people are not that far from me. Perhaps they keep it to themselves, perhaps they do not actively try to change people, but the are every bit as stagnant with their methods of loving, problem-solving, thinking, living.

    Confucius says that in a hamlet of 20 homes you would find people as smarter than him or more courageous, but that no one excels him in his love of learning. To love learning, truly love learning, is to constantly be plumbing the depths of the world you have chosen to reside in (By world here I am referring to a body of knowledge that comprises a way of life that you believe to be strong/good/right and have chosen to partake in).

  I'll accept it if you think you know how to tie your shoes and brush your teeth, but anything beyond that level I cannot.        

Review: The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation

The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation by Roger T. Ames

My rating: 5 of 5 stars



This is a great book for anyone who wants to get a good introduction to the core values of Confucianism. The translation of the Analects itself is not my favorite. Though I like parts of it better than others on the whole I like Burton Watson's translation better. That said, the introduction of Ames Philosophical translation of the Analects is the best I have read. It gives the reader a clear understanding of some of the fundamental differences between Eastern and Western thought, and accurately portrays the ideal of confucianism.

Too many academics in their writings on Confucianism have written based on the reality of history rather than the ideals that Confucianism tries to set. To judge any belief-system religious, philosophical, or political by the way it has been put to practice rather than what it strove for is to demonize it. If you look at the implementation of confucianism in Chinese or Korean histories you find authoritarianism, sexism, machoism and a long list of atrocities. However, the same can be said for christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Democracy, or any other belief system. Yet we do not judge Christianity based on the Crusades, or democracy based on the genocides it has led to in India and Rwanda. So we should not judge confucianism by the worst of its perversions. In attempting to see the ideal for which confucianism strives, this book is perfect.





View all my reviews

The Irony of Human Persuasion

      I spend a great deal of my time thinking how to convince people to change their habits. How to convince my family,  my friends,  my community, my country, and humanity in general. I do this because I am convinced that specific values and customs that they hold are wrong; and by wrong here what i mean is dangerous. I do not think I am alone in this. To the contrary, I think a concern for the actions and beliefs of loved ones is something that consumes most people. And that ultimately is what an attempt to change something about a person really is, a concern for their and your well-being. What I want to discuss here is not the validity of such an endeavor, but the illogical way in which the majority of us go about it.

   Thinking about my own life, when someone i love holds a belief or practice that i feel is dangerous my response is to show them why what they believe is wrong and what they should believe instead. Or to put it in other words, to attack the belief or practice. Does that make sense?  At first it appears to make sense. After all, I care about them, so of course I would look out for their best interests. But let's think about it a different way. I want to prevent people I care about from experiencing danger, but I attempt to reach this goal by attacking them, which to the human mind is synonymous with danger. Does this make sense?

   I don't think it does. And yet, from my experience this is the way most people attempt to change people. They might attack the idea by calling it stupid or ridiculous. If they have obtained a liberal arts education, there is a good chance they will attack the idea using the tools of western logic to show the other that they are being irrational in their belief. If they have any sort of higher education the use of scientific knowledge is generally a part of the assault, and if not, there is always the sword of experience and age to thrust into the belly of youth and inexperience. This variety of methods of persuasion are all an attack of some form or another.

  Why do we attack when we want to save? Isn't this just taking a perceived threat and substituting it with a real threat? Is it any wonder that people respond defensively to these attempts? You will rarely change someone's mind by attacking them, because we as humans are naturally distrusting of what hurts us. When touching a stove burns a baby the baby reflexively puts distance between its body and the stove. We react in the same way to hurtful ideas. The only reason our loved ones tolerate continued verbal assaults is because we are so integral to their self conception. This again is a reference to my notion of self (an essay I have not written) but the quick version of the idea is that a "self" is a network rather than a discrete body. Your most intimate relationships are literally a part of who you are. When your finger burns do you chop it off? No. In this respect, even though a particular relationship may continue to attack you, because it is a part of your self as whole you learn to cope with the attacks. However just as with attacks to your body, damage can be so severe that you have no choice but to amputate the limb or undergo some other sort of corrective surgery. I argue that the same is true from the self. We are defined by different relationships, some more important than others, but ultimately we are the heart-mind of our self, and if necessary can cut any and all other relationships to save ourselves. However, amputation or surgery are always painful events that leave the body irrevocably different from what it was before. In an ideal life, we would be able to avoid such things, and thus in our real lives do attempt to avoid such things at all cost. Even if it means dealing with a constant source of pain.

 To summarize, I am suggest that the most common form of human persuasion (attack, which could also be defined as argument/debate) is one that we are naturally adverse to and suffer from. In the following essay I will suggest some alternative methods of persuasion that I am personally trying to integrate into my daily life.