The law of causality is necessarily entwined with the law of identity. The law of identity states that an entity is what it is. A is A. It's pretty simple which is why it's so basic to the philosophy of truth. It also proves key to the battle against self-delusion.
An entity must always act in accordance with its nature. If it did not, it would not be that particular entity. For example, if I were told that a particular entity were a tiger, I would know that it is orange with black stripes and that I should not provoke it or be near it without some sort of protection. That is the nature of a tiger. If these things were not true about the entity then the entity in question is not a tiger.
The law of identity tears apart semantic arguments. A word like 'love' can mean different things to different people. This is one of the weaknesses of language. If we identify the nature of what we're talking about by stating the causal relationships that define the entity in question, there will not be any confusion about the entity being described. In mathematics or physics the law of identity is more straight-forward. If someone mentions the number pi then the audience can immediately think of many identifying characteristics of the entity: approximated by 3.14159 or 22/7, the convergence point of the Taylor series 4 * (1-1/3+1/5-1/7+1/9-...), the ratio of any circle's circumference to diameter, etc. Any number that does not meet all these criteria cannot be pi. And there are other characteristics of the number pi that are currently unknown but that does not mean that they cannot be known or that the characteristics have not always existed.
The identity of an entity is experientially defined. We come to know the nature of an object through interaction with it. In order to systematically deal with reality we must extrapolate upon our experience to predict future experiences with the same entity. We form what may be called prejudices or stereotypes. In a past experience I remember that I did not like tuna. I may extrapolate that I still do not like tuna. I may or may not be correct but I have a reference point. And as always, the eternalist craves to know when he is wrong so that he can correct himself and not be wrong in that point again.
Because we have finite experience with entities our knowledge of the nature of the entities is incomplete. We will be wrong from time to time in our assumption about the nature of the entities but we must start with what we know by experience and always be glad to gain more experience and more knowledge. As we gain more experience and more knowledge about an entity we will be wrong in predicting its nature less and less frequently.
A thing is what it is and cannot be other than what it is. A is A, A was A and A will always be A unless some causal force changes the nature of A into another entity defined by A and the nature of the causal force. Sawing a wood board in two creates two boards, not a chicken or a ship or anything else.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Spiritual Holocaust
There seems to be a ubiquitous undercurrent of 'love' and 'peace' in modern culture. I'm not exactly sure what these 'love' and 'peace' are, but I do know that the majority of people espousing them live miserable and frenzied lives. If these are the fruits of love and peace then let it be known: I want nothing to do with them.
It's so easy to lose focus of priorities in life. We get caught up in incidental details of our lives and forget that that's just what they are: minute details that were originally designed to bring us closer to our ultimate goals. What are the ultimate goals of the eternalist? The happiness of number 1. Pure and simple. Now it's true that I will donate time and talents to helping those around me, but that is done because I know the 'sacrifice' will lift me up. It will bring me closer to my ultimate goal. When I examine possible pursuits in life (whether daily, weekly, yearly or lifetime pursuits) the first and foremost question to have answered is 'how is this endeavor going to increase my quality of life?' The amount of time and attention devoted to it is adjusted according to how directly it brings me to my goal.
I have heard many 'religious' people attempt to explain hardship or troubles in life as the 'will of God.' I have even read one figure who is quite popular in the mainstream for supposed spiritual virtues speaking of and embracing a Spiritual Holocaust as though some how it would bring one closer to God. The very idea is an offense to all self-respecting rational beings. Once again: any being that would will your misery in any degree is the foulest, most disgusting sort of creature. Such a being is a much more natural definition for 'enemy' than 'God.'
In traditions of God the Nitpicker, there are large numbers of strict rules (rather than principles) that define wrongdoing. In such a tradition it would be relatively easy to find a possible exception to the rule: where a majority of people would agree that the right or ethical thing to do in a particular set of circumstances would be to break the rule or commandment. Now imagine such a situation but on a large scale: imagine a situation where if you, personally, were to perform a single action you would guarantee the eternal well-being of your family and friends. But in the very completion of the act you would damn your own soul to misery forever. If you honestly believe that people go to a better place in death, why not send them there now yourself? You would be a savior would you not? Would this not be a supreme manifestation of love and service on your part?
If you believe that the point of life is service, then serve all the way to your hell. If you believe the point of life is to be miserable for the sake of others, by all means go ahead. No person can serve two masters. Your life will always have a central focus and you will always reap the natural rewards for your actions and the intent for which they were performed. The central focus can be happiness or something else. Simple. The self has and must always have primacy over others. Your happiness must have primacy over all else. That is, the end reason for all action is to bring about happiness. Service, compassion, generosity and all else are a means to that end and are not the ends themselves. Notice that when properly applied, the parent giving their life to save the child is correct; the soldier jumping on the grenade to save his friends is correct. These actions presuppose the immortality of the soul and eternal nature of character and exemplify the virtue of primacy of self.
Peace and love and joy, in their true sense, cannot be realized until we each establish a philosophy centered on our own happiness. If we each do what will make us happy, by lifting those around us, developing character and living a life of achievement extolling the honor of work of the hands and mind then we will have achieved something great indeed.
It's so easy to lose focus of priorities in life. We get caught up in incidental details of our lives and forget that that's just what they are: minute details that were originally designed to bring us closer to our ultimate goals. What are the ultimate goals of the eternalist? The happiness of number 1. Pure and simple. Now it's true that I will donate time and talents to helping those around me, but that is done because I know the 'sacrifice' will lift me up. It will bring me closer to my ultimate goal. When I examine possible pursuits in life (whether daily, weekly, yearly or lifetime pursuits) the first and foremost question to have answered is 'how is this endeavor going to increase my quality of life?' The amount of time and attention devoted to it is adjusted according to how directly it brings me to my goal.
I have heard many 'religious' people attempt to explain hardship or troubles in life as the 'will of God.' I have even read one figure who is quite popular in the mainstream for supposed spiritual virtues speaking of and embracing a Spiritual Holocaust as though some how it would bring one closer to God. The very idea is an offense to all self-respecting rational beings. Once again: any being that would will your misery in any degree is the foulest, most disgusting sort of creature. Such a being is a much more natural definition for 'enemy' than 'God.'
In traditions of God the Nitpicker, there are large numbers of strict rules (rather than principles) that define wrongdoing. In such a tradition it would be relatively easy to find a possible exception to the rule: where a majority of people would agree that the right or ethical thing to do in a particular set of circumstances would be to break the rule or commandment. Now imagine such a situation but on a large scale: imagine a situation where if you, personally, were to perform a single action you would guarantee the eternal well-being of your family and friends. But in the very completion of the act you would damn your own soul to misery forever. If you honestly believe that people go to a better place in death, why not send them there now yourself? You would be a savior would you not? Would this not be a supreme manifestation of love and service on your part?
If you believe that the point of life is service, then serve all the way to your hell. If you believe the point of life is to be miserable for the sake of others, by all means go ahead. No person can serve two masters. Your life will always have a central focus and you will always reap the natural rewards for your actions and the intent for which they were performed. The central focus can be happiness or something else. Simple. The self has and must always have primacy over others. Your happiness must have primacy over all else. That is, the end reason for all action is to bring about happiness. Service, compassion, generosity and all else are a means to that end and are not the ends themselves. Notice that when properly applied, the parent giving their life to save the child is correct; the soldier jumping on the grenade to save his friends is correct. These actions presuppose the immortality of the soul and eternal nature of character and exemplify the virtue of primacy of self.
Peace and love and joy, in their true sense, cannot be realized until we each establish a philosophy centered on our own happiness. If we each do what will make us happy, by lifting those around us, developing character and living a life of achievement extolling the honor of work of the hands and mind then we will have achieved something great indeed.
Monday, March 23, 2009
In Fear Is No Way To Live
We have so far assumed the law of causality and individual desire for happiness. Causality implies the consistency of reality, consistency of truth. The primacy of reality has been asserted in that everything that is real is bound by the natural laws of reality. It was shown that if a God were to exist he must abide within reality and be bound by reality.
It was just shown that since believing in a God will lead to a better life than not and since living by truth must always be followed by greater happiness than living by a falsehood (opposition to reality), a God does exist. Now we must begin to establish what this God is and what it is not.
The entire argument is based on a God that we are better off for having. The first defining attribute of God then must be that God is a being whose existence enriches our existence. This is the type of God that belief in will lead to a more happy life than not believing in.
A God being has two motivation potentials: fear and joy. These are completely opposite motivation styles and are not mutually compatible; a being that motivates by fear cannot also motivate by joy and vice versa. A God who motivates by fear would threaten things that are feared by people. Separation from loved ones, loneliness, destruction, abyss, the unknown are possible threats. All of these have been threatened by supposed Gods in history. A God who would will your misery is a bastard of the foulest kind. This God does not enrich your existence and cannot be God. In fear and misery is no way to live. These things can only be indicators of attempting to live in opposition to reality and the source must immediately be found and corrected.
A God who motivates by joy would do things that earn trust, that demonstrate to us how accomplishing his will accomplishes our goal of happiness. This God must be tried. Experiment is the only way to rationally build trust and what might be called faith. Faith in its true sense is believing something that is true, rationally and causally defined. It is possible to believe something is true without yet knowing how it's true; without knowing all the causal relationships that make it true. But those causal relationships must surely exist and an explanation that is wholly in harmony with natural law will be forthcoming for all true principles if sought. Those who seek the principles have faith; those who do not seek are blind and faithless regardless of the truthfulness of the principles. God must earn our trust, little by little, just like any other person. The God who will enrich our lives is different in that he will never let us down, never do anything to setback our trust like people would from time to time. This type of God surely does enrich our lives by providing an anchor to our character and establishing a perfectly happy being which we can emulate; he would want us to emulate him because his happiness is increased by our happiness.
It was just shown that since believing in a God will lead to a better life than not and since living by truth must always be followed by greater happiness than living by a falsehood (opposition to reality), a God does exist. Now we must begin to establish what this God is and what it is not.
The entire argument is based on a God that we are better off for having. The first defining attribute of God then must be that God is a being whose existence enriches our existence. This is the type of God that belief in will lead to a more happy life than not believing in.
A God being has two motivation potentials: fear and joy. These are completely opposite motivation styles and are not mutually compatible; a being that motivates by fear cannot also motivate by joy and vice versa. A God who motivates by fear would threaten things that are feared by people. Separation from loved ones, loneliness, destruction, abyss, the unknown are possible threats. All of these have been threatened by supposed Gods in history. A God who would will your misery is a bastard of the foulest kind. This God does not enrich your existence and cannot be God. In fear and misery is no way to live. These things can only be indicators of attempting to live in opposition to reality and the source must immediately be found and corrected.
A God who motivates by joy would do things that earn trust, that demonstrate to us how accomplishing his will accomplishes our goal of happiness. This God must be tried. Experiment is the only way to rationally build trust and what might be called faith. Faith in its true sense is believing something that is true, rationally and causally defined. It is possible to believe something is true without yet knowing how it's true; without knowing all the causal relationships that make it true. But those causal relationships must surely exist and an explanation that is wholly in harmony with natural law will be forthcoming for all true principles if sought. Those who seek the principles have faith; those who do not seek are blind and faithless regardless of the truthfulness of the principles. God must earn our trust, little by little, just like any other person. The God who will enrich our lives is different in that he will never let us down, never do anything to setback our trust like people would from time to time. This type of God surely does enrich our lives by providing an anchor to our character and establishing a perfectly happy being which we can emulate; he would want us to emulate him because his happiness is increased by our happiness.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
The God Hunt Continues
The time seems right to approach and consider a very fundamental question. God. First a quick review. We have established the type of god that cannot truthfully be believed in. An inconsistent god; a god that is unknowable, incomprehensible, indefinable, contrary to law, imperfect, undeserving, vengeful, unduly merciful, or in any way deficient. Conversely, the God that can be believed in is perfectly consistent; a being that is comprehensible, definable, real, operates according to universal law, perfectly just, and in every way deserving of admiration.
But first a more basic question must be dealt with. What reasoning is there for the existence of any god whatsoever? The denial of all the inconsistent gods that have been suggested leaves two remaining options. It's either a perfectly consistent God or no god whatsoever.
First, let us examine the main tenants of atheism. Atheism proposes that no god exists. There are many implications that follow from this premise. Among them are the following. First, man is merely a part of a logical progression of natural law; another species among billions. Second, man's existence begins with birth and ends with death. There is no suggestion of an immortal soul or special significance. Third, no ultimate progressional goal exists, only our experiences in this life matter. Obviously there are more implications, however, these three will suffice for the present discussion.
I will examine these points in order. First, man's existence as a coincidental result. The study of science is essentially the study of causation. Science inquires over and over, how does this happen? What makes this occur? Why does it occur in this particular way? Chemists concern themselves with the causal relationships and interactions of different elements and molecular structures. Biologists examine the interactions of species. Physicists characterized and attempt to understand the laws of kinematics and electromagnetics. Each of these sciences works from simple causal relationships back to more and more basic conclusions. However, eventually, the chain runs out. The first cause (essentially the "why" question) in any chain has never been explained. If humanity is simply a inevitable step in a progression of causal relationships resulting from natural law, what set off the progression?
Second, the finite existence of man. Atheism argues for a definite beginning and end to a person's existence. There are a number of problems with this approach. There is not sufficient room to fully consider these problems at present. Currently, only two points will be mentioned. First, the eternal nature of causality and consistency (both of which have already been established) would be violated. The absolute end of an intelligence would supposedly release it from all causal obligations based upon prior choices and negate the consistency of the universe. Secondly, as previously discussed, happiness is my aim. The postulate of an immortal existence of my intelligent self will increase my happiness both in this life and allow for an infinite excess of happiness in futurity. As already shown, a perfect understanding of truth and life consistent with it will result in maximized happiness. Therefore, the postulate of immortality must be true, otherwise a deception would result in increased happiness, an impossibility. I take the immortality of my intelligence as a true premise.
Third, the lack of ultimate aim. Removing a perfect God from the equation results in a life without any necessity for ethics or progression. Without God, everything that exists is completely and utterly pointless. The universe degenerates into essentially a waste of time and hedonism should result in absolute happiness. As hedonism does not result in absolute happiness and a pointless universe could not come into existence according to the law of causality, there is a purpose to this life.
Therefore, I conclude that atheism is not consistent, not logical, does not increase happiness, and is not eternalism. In all truth, atheism as it is generally practiced is lazy. The common atheist has managed to conclude that some particular popular god has an inconsistency and then somehow manages to extrapolate that no god can exist. Rather than explore alternative possibilities or believing in a God that is worth believing, the atheist quits looking. Often the name of science, the most logical of human pursuits, is somehow invoked in this irrational decision with a supposed air of authority. Worse yet, agnosticism entirely denies the ability to know, conveniently releasing a supposed proponent from the obligation to try. Both atheism and agnosticism are simply an incorrect response to the fear of not understanding. The correct response is to think, the only way to understanding.
I conclude, that atheism is false. A multitude of daily evidences speaks to the existence of the consistent, scientific, and logical God. God exists. Now it's time to try and better understand God's attributes.
But first a more basic question must be dealt with. What reasoning is there for the existence of any god whatsoever? The denial of all the inconsistent gods that have been suggested leaves two remaining options. It's either a perfectly consistent God or no god whatsoever.
First, let us examine the main tenants of atheism. Atheism proposes that no god exists. There are many implications that follow from this premise. Among them are the following. First, man is merely a part of a logical progression of natural law; another species among billions. Second, man's existence begins with birth and ends with death. There is no suggestion of an immortal soul or special significance. Third, no ultimate progressional goal exists, only our experiences in this life matter. Obviously there are more implications, however, these three will suffice for the present discussion.
I will examine these points in order. First, man's existence as a coincidental result. The study of science is essentially the study of causation. Science inquires over and over, how does this happen? What makes this occur? Why does it occur in this particular way? Chemists concern themselves with the causal relationships and interactions of different elements and molecular structures. Biologists examine the interactions of species. Physicists characterized and attempt to understand the laws of kinematics and electromagnetics. Each of these sciences works from simple causal relationships back to more and more basic conclusions. However, eventually, the chain runs out. The first cause (essentially the "why" question) in any chain has never been explained. If humanity is simply a inevitable step in a progression of causal relationships resulting from natural law, what set off the progression?
Second, the finite existence of man. Atheism argues for a definite beginning and end to a person's existence. There are a number of problems with this approach. There is not sufficient room to fully consider these problems at present. Currently, only two points will be mentioned. First, the eternal nature of causality and consistency (both of which have already been established) would be violated. The absolute end of an intelligence would supposedly release it from all causal obligations based upon prior choices and negate the consistency of the universe. Secondly, as previously discussed, happiness is my aim. The postulate of an immortal existence of my intelligent self will increase my happiness both in this life and allow for an infinite excess of happiness in futurity. As already shown, a perfect understanding of truth and life consistent with it will result in maximized happiness. Therefore, the postulate of immortality must be true, otherwise a deception would result in increased happiness, an impossibility. I take the immortality of my intelligence as a true premise.
Third, the lack of ultimate aim. Removing a perfect God from the equation results in a life without any necessity for ethics or progression. Without God, everything that exists is completely and utterly pointless. The universe degenerates into essentially a waste of time and hedonism should result in absolute happiness. As hedonism does not result in absolute happiness and a pointless universe could not come into existence according to the law of causality, there is a purpose to this life.
Therefore, I conclude that atheism is not consistent, not logical, does not increase happiness, and is not eternalism. In all truth, atheism as it is generally practiced is lazy. The common atheist has managed to conclude that some particular popular god has an inconsistency and then somehow manages to extrapolate that no god can exist. Rather than explore alternative possibilities or believing in a God that is worth believing, the atheist quits looking. Often the name of science, the most logical of human pursuits, is somehow invoked in this irrational decision with a supposed air of authority. Worse yet, agnosticism entirely denies the ability to know, conveniently releasing a supposed proponent from the obligation to try. Both atheism and agnosticism are simply an incorrect response to the fear of not understanding. The correct response is to think, the only way to understanding.
I conclude, that atheism is false. A multitude of daily evidences speaks to the existence of the consistent, scientific, and logical God. God exists. Now it's time to try and better understand God's attributes.
Habit
Habit is another one of those life-simplifying tools, same as beliefs and prejudices. Habits reduce the amount of time we need to spend planning or deciding what to do with our time. But the trade-off is similar to those for beliefs and prejudices: by reducing the time we need to spend thinking about what we're doing, we may fall prey to stopping our thinking about what we're doing completely.
Good habits enrich life. Being in the habit of getting regular cardiovascular exercise increases the total quality of life. The body adjusts to the habit and releases more endorphins and serotonin in the brain. Habits of planning daily schedules or making regular to-do lists can reduce average long-term mental stress. Keeping a journal can ensure that previously made mistakes are not repeated and also that previously made good decisions are repeated.
Bad habits are addictions. The total quality of life is decreased because of actions that we delude ourselves into thinking will make us happy for at least a little while. All addictions force us to live in opposition to reality: we strive to live in a fantasy where the addiction will make us happy and are made permanently miserable when the fantasy collides with reality as it always must. Fighting reality always guarantees a loss.
Sometimes the same habit can be good, bad or neutral depending on circumstances. What's the intention of the habit? Am I attempting to enrich my own life or to be seen by those around me? What was the source of the habit; did I choose this or is it only what I've always done?
Is it possible to have a bad addiction to something good? I believe everyone can think of an example of someone taking a good thing to excess: the track runner who runs instead of eating or the health-food nut who has become a slave to food labels. The ancient Aristotle believed that virtue and vice were not opposite extremes of one continuum but that either extreme was a vice and the virtue is attaining a mean between the vices. For example, courage is the virtue in between the extremes of cowardice and rashness. All virtues are a kind of moderation.
All habits must also be an iterative reflective process. Is this habit helping me accomplish my goals? If so, can it be modified at all to help me obtain my goals more quickly or efficiently?
Habits, like prejudices, if left unchecked will take us to one extreme or another. In everything we do let us examine what the goal of our action is and how well it is accomplishing that goal. May we always have a reason for every action we take and delight to take full ownership of every choice we make.
Good habits enrich life. Being in the habit of getting regular cardiovascular exercise increases the total quality of life. The body adjusts to the habit and releases more endorphins and serotonin in the brain. Habits of planning daily schedules or making regular to-do lists can reduce average long-term mental stress. Keeping a journal can ensure that previously made mistakes are not repeated and also that previously made good decisions are repeated.
Bad habits are addictions. The total quality of life is decreased because of actions that we delude ourselves into thinking will make us happy for at least a little while. All addictions force us to live in opposition to reality: we strive to live in a fantasy where the addiction will make us happy and are made permanently miserable when the fantasy collides with reality as it always must. Fighting reality always guarantees a loss.
Sometimes the same habit can be good, bad or neutral depending on circumstances. What's the intention of the habit? Am I attempting to enrich my own life or to be seen by those around me? What was the source of the habit; did I choose this or is it only what I've always done?
Is it possible to have a bad addiction to something good? I believe everyone can think of an example of someone taking a good thing to excess: the track runner who runs instead of eating or the health-food nut who has become a slave to food labels. The ancient Aristotle believed that virtue and vice were not opposite extremes of one continuum but that either extreme was a vice and the virtue is attaining a mean between the vices. For example, courage is the virtue in between the extremes of cowardice and rashness. All virtues are a kind of moderation.
All habits must also be an iterative reflective process. Is this habit helping me accomplish my goals? If so, can it be modified at all to help me obtain my goals more quickly or efficiently?
Habits, like prejudices, if left unchecked will take us to one extreme or another. In everything we do let us examine what the goal of our action is and how well it is accomplishing that goal. May we always have a reason for every action we take and delight to take full ownership of every choice we make.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
