Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man: My Philosophy of Non-Violence, Self-Government, Self-Discipline, and Spiritual Freedom

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I will look at the topics you have suggested, but would ask you to consider what I have said above, because you haven’t actually written anything in answer to my reaction to this topic.

I feel that I did reply but (I very strongly believe) my several very long posts addressing your points in detail were totally misunderstood.

I assure you that none of the my posts in this topic contained contradictions.

Any post that of mine you think contained contradictions (of itself or of other posts of mine) was severely misunderstood. (I'm not blaming anyone or emotionally upset or anything.)

To reiterate some points:

I do not believe we 'should' or 'ought' to use defensive force.

I have used defensive force in the past, and if the opportunity unfortunately presents itself again, I will use it again.

The above two sentences do not contradict. If you think you do, then (with no hard feelings) I strongly believe you are misunderstanding at least one of them drastically.

Likewise, I do not not believe I 'should' or 'ought' to drink coffee. Nor do I believe I 'should' not or 'ought' not drink coffee tomorrow.

I drank coffee this morning, and I can tell you whether or not I plan to drink coffee tomorrow.

I do not believe any of the sentences above two paragraphs contradict. Again, if you do, there's some kind of severe communication breakdown that will make it impossible that my OP was understood, let alone my replies up to this point, and any new ones I make about these topics.

With that said, if you have questions for me about anything, whether its related to something you already wrote, related something I wrote, or about something entirely new that are curious to know my answer to, please do feel free ask, and I will do my best to answer.

I probably could have said we agree on what we would do under certain circumstances.

Yes, I am sure we could.

But please don't think that me giving those hypothetical examples of the utilitarian benefits of the current violent plutocracy suddenly backing off so that we can enjoy the wonderful fruits of a much more peaceful society are meant to imply shoulds or oughts.

Rather, we each have to choose for ourselves what we ourselves will do. Our freedom of spirit precedes and supersedes that of any politics or fleshy happenstance.

It seems to be an anarchistic protest against a proposed “current violent plutocracy,” a government by the wealthy, and rejection of the democratic system we have in the West in favour of an unrealised ideal. We have various versions of plutocracy in the world, democratic and authoritarian, so it is useless to deny it

The comments you've quoted above from me are descriptive, not prescriptive, especially since--as I make clear in the OP--I am not a utilitarian.

I don't consider it remotely likely that the current violent plutocracy will suddenly back off, nor do I have much interest at all in engaging in political activism in that regard, in large part due to the perceived hopelessness of it.


Rather, as I wrote in the OP:

Political philosophy mostly only interests me to the extent that it acts as an analogue for my spiritual philosophy of spiritual freedom. For instance, self-government can act as an analogue of self-discipline, and self-employment can act as an analogue of both of self-government and self-discipline.

Primarily, the authorities and enslavements I seek to firmly, stubbornly, and defiantly reject are much more than merely petty political ones. I suspect generally only those people who are way too attached to the material world of the flesh could care very much about the topical human politics of a sliver of time on a tiny planet in an endless sky.

As explained in my book in detail, I don't 'try' to change the things I know I cannot change, which entails at least almost all of what the many big governments on Earth are currently doing or will, and all the huge amounts human-on-human violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery) that is going on, presumably the vast majority of which is committed by governments.

I don't expect most humans on Earth to choose to enjoy the spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) that I do. I don't expect most humans to choose to enjoy the consistent wonderful inner peace that I do, which some would call "true happiness" or "nirvana". I don't expect most humans on Earth to choose to implement the 11 suggestions in my book for inner peace in their lives, let alone to the extreme degree I do.

Rather, the OP simply explains the philosophy I use to guide how I choose to live of my life, and how I make my choices. The OP is essentially just a short version of my book. It entails no belief or claim on my part that others 'should' do the same as I do or that not adhering to my philosophy of spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) as outlined in the OP would be "immoral" or such, whatever that would mean. I do believe that for those who choose to live it, it entails a wonderful consistent inner peace (i.e. what some might call "true happiness" or "nirvana"). But the nature of freedom is that others get to choose their own path. They may not bother aiming for inner peace at all, or they may place their bets on a different path to the inner peace than the one I have used and described. Other less freedom-loving philosophies than mine are much contagious, whether they impose on people politically through threats of or use of nondefensive violence or spiritually through moral superstitions or such (e.g. "You ought to follow my philosophy and my diet plan! Shame on you if you don't! You are a naughty bad evil person if you don't copy my diet plan. In fact, you'll have bad luck and burn in hell."). Those kind of philosophies can be very contagious, analogous to an expanding imperialistic empire, expanding through nondefensive violence and slavery.

Politically, you could possibly take what I call self-government (i.e. political freedom) and can call it "anarchism" or such in some way, or say that if somehow unrealistically implemented to the utter extreme by everyone rather than just by a few people that that is the label you would give such a society, but those kind of claims may or may not be correct depending on how you define that term. Others might call it political libertarianism, or minarchism, or localism, or decentralization. None of those potentially equivocal labels are necessarily incorrect, per se, but those labels especially with an "ism" can falsely imply prescription (e.g. "that people ought to be politically free", or "archism is immoral" etc.), which are all things I do not believe. I tend to prefer the labels self-government or political freedom, one reason being that they don't have some of the partisan implications that other labels can have. But the other primary reason, again, is that describing what a free society would happen to look like is a lot different than asserting that society "should" be free or "ought" to be free or such, or asserting that infringements on political freedom are "immoral" or such, which are all things I do not believe.

Again, as stated in earlier posts, please do not me that when I say X it means Y, or it suggests I believe Y, or it sounds like a "Y protest" or such. I might sound like your best friend Ben or your uncle James, but I am not them. There is not a single human being on this planet with whom I agree about everything, and that's even more the case when it comes to mobs or group of think-like humans, as is often the case with political isms. The more in an echo chamber someone is, the less that person and I probably agree on. If I say X, I mean X, not Y. If I say X, it means I believe X, not Y. If I say X, and you want to know if I mean Y or believe Y, please ask in the form of question with a question mark. You can ask, "do you believe Y?" Or, you can ask, "When you say X, do you mean Y?" Then I can easily answer yes or no. That is a polite friendly request I make for both our sake to avoid time-wasting misunderstandings. It also helps reduce the risk of (what would presumably be accidental) scarecrow arguments.

In any case, I am not really making a political argument at all.

I use self-government (i.e. political freedom) in politics simply as an analogy for self-discipline (i.e. spiritual freedom) in spirituality to explain my personal spiritual philosophy. I'm really talking about the latter, not the former. I'm talking about the spiritual, not the political.

I don't usually choose to label it this particular way, but, sure, you could describe my spiritual philosophy as one of spiritual non-political anarchism, in the sense of it having me choose to live with extreme spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline), which more specifically entails me implementing the 11 suggestions at the end of my book to the extreme, each one generally being a form of letting go of some kind of restraint or inner-peace-stealing hindrance or illusion of some kind. As I wrote in the OP, "The authorities and enslavements I seek to firmly, stubbornly, and defiantly reject are much more than merely petty political ones".

While in political philosophy the Nazis are literal Nazis with literal guns, in spiritual philosophy the Nazis are things like addictions or the false, critical, or overly judgemental thoughts of one's own judging human mind, especially if one falsely identifies with those thoughts or that mind or its ego or mortality, and other things or situations that would otherwise potentially make one a spiritual slave or spiritual prisoner, i.e. lacking in spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) and by extension the inner peace that comes with self-discipline (a.k.a. spiritual freedom). While the OP gave a few specific examples of such spiritual slavery or spiritual imprisonment, my book gives many more.

[Pattern-chaser]

I do not believe we 'should' or 'ought' to use defensive force.

I have used defensive force in the past, and if the opportunity unfortunately presents itself again, I will use it again.

Likewise, I do not not believe we 'ought' to drink coffee tomorrow. Nor do I believe we 'ought' to not drink coffee tomorrow.

I do not believe in 'shoulds' or 'oughts' at all.

I can tell you whether or not I will drink coffee tomorrow.

I believe in can and cannot. And, from can, I believe in do or do not.

I do not believe in 'ought' or 'should'.

I do not believe in ought-statements.

I believe in is-statements (including has been and will be) [and including probably is, probably was, and probably will be].

An "ought" is an expression of (personal) preference, a subjective value judgement of some sort. I assume this discussion is in the context of philosophy, and on the face of it, it would appear that preferences ought () to play no part in philosophy. This is not because preferences are wrong in a philosophical context, but that they are irrelevant. Just as discussing the arrangements for your daughter's forthcoming wedding would probably be irrelevant, too.

And yet, there are aspects of our world that are under our control, and to which we could make changes if we chose to. Some such potential changes might be considered desirable. That is to say, some might feel we ought to make such changes. Some aspects of such discussions — whether we should make changes — must surely include a philosophical element, and for this reason, I don't think it appropriate to introduce a blanket ban on 'ought'. 'Ought' has its uses, IMO.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I do not believe we 'should' or 'ought' to use defensive force.

I have used defensive force in the past, and if the opportunity unfortunately presents itself again, I will use it again.

Likewise, I do not not believe we 'ought' to drink coffee tomorrow. Nor do I believe we 'ought' to not drink coffee tomorrow.

I do not believe in 'shoulds' or 'oughts' at all.

I can tell you whether or not I will drink coffee tomorrow.

I believe in can and cannot. And, from can, I believe in do or do not.

I do not believe in 'ought' or 'should'.

I do not believe in ought-statements.

I believe in is-statements (including has been and will be) [and including probably is, probably was, and probably will be].

An "ought" is an expression of (personal) preference, a subjective value judgement of some sort. I assume this discussion is in the context of philosophy, and on the face of it, it would appear that preferences ought () to play no part in philosophy.

While I am initially eager to agree with your argument against using oughts in philosophical discussion, since I have my own other reasons for preferring they don't be there, I don't think the premise is philosophically agreeable. You may use moralistic claims (i.e. "ought-statements" in terms of the infamous "Is-Ought Problem") to describe subjective values. Many others use them to describe objective values and/or consider them to be objective. Of course, while there is the moral subjectivists on one hand and the moral objectivists on another hand, we will need at least a third hard for amoralists (a.k.a. moral nihilists) like me, who don't believe morality really exists at all, and who consider all moral claims (i.e. so-called "ought-statements") to be incorrect and/or meaningless. I don't believe anything "ought" to be or anything "ought" to not be.

And yet, there are aspects of our world that are under our control, and to which we could make changes if we chose to. Some such potential changes might be considered desirable. That is to say, some might feel we ought to make such changes.

I don't understand what you mean here. Can you explain a bit more? I suspect perhaps I am getting thrown off by the word "our", since what is under Pattern-chaser's control is not the same what is under Scott's control.

For example, whether or not Scott drinks coffee today is not under your control.

I can say whether or not I desire having coffee. Consider the statement, "Scott desires coffee." Such a statement would be a meaningful objective proposition, with an objective truth value, much like saying "Scott has a beard." (In terms of the infamous "Is-Ought Problem", the statement "Scott desires coffee" would be an is-statement not an ought-statement.)

In contrast, statements like "It is immoral for Scott to drink coffee" or "Scott ought not drink coffee" or "Scott ought to drink coffee" or "It is morally good for Scott to drink coffee" are all statements that I consider to be nonsense and/or disagreeable. (Those four statements would all be ought-statements in terms of the infamous "Is-Ought Problem".)

If you are looking to connect the different two different sets of statements in the above preceding two paragraphs, I am not sure how you mean to do that, but if you can do it, then presumably you have resolved the infamous "Is-Ought Problem" as described by David Hume as well as resolved the long-running philosophical debate between moral subjectivists/relativists versus moral objectivists/absolutists, in which case you might have two Nobel Prizes coming your way soon. But on that last playful point, please don't hold your breath. With my new book, I've claimed to have both resolved the so-called Problem of Evil and resolved the so-called Is-Ought Problem, and I haven't received a single Noble prize yet. There's probably a problem at the Post Office or something.

[Stoppelmann]

I do not believe we 'should' or 'ought' to use defensive force.

I have used defensive force in the past, and if the opportunity unfortunately presents itself again, I will use it again.

The above two sentences do not contradict. If you think you do, then (with no hard feelings) I strongly believe you are misunderstanding at least one of them drastically.

Since we are talking about your philosophy of non-violence, self-government, self-discipline, and spiritual freedom, there is a clear way of understanding the first statement. Under the header “non-violence,” to say that you do not believe we 'should' or 'ought' to use defensive force means what it says. The emphasis on the two words makes no difference. You are corrupting language if you say that it doesn’t contradict the statement that you will use defensive force.

The problem with our conversation is that you delete those statements that are opposing your views, and focus permanently on your creed, and therefore you do not engage but preach. The problem with this is obvious, just as the Roman Catholic church also releases statements that fail to address the questions that believers have, you have a dogmatic position that you refuse to discuss.

As explained in my book in detail, I don't 'try' to change the things I know I cannot change, which entails at least almost all of what the many big governments on Earth are currently doing or will, and all the huge amounts human-on-human violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery) that is going on, presumably the vast majority of which is committed by governments.

This is a sweeping statement in your creed, but it is a statement from an ivory tower, which has no bearing on human lives. The world has successfully reduced the amount of violence perpetrated, although we obviously still have a long way to go. If we had listened to you, this would never have started. There are oppressive regimes committing such violence but not only those, the number of women who die due to domestic violence even in liberal “civilised” societies is alarming. It is not something we can achieve as individuals, but as groups we can achieve quite a bit. If we all deny our support for such measures, we achieve nothing.

I don't expect most humans on Earth to choose to enjoy the spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) that I do. I don't expect most humans to choose to enjoy the consistent wonderful inner peace that I do, which some would call "true happiness" or "nirvana". I don't expect most humans on Earth to choose to implement the 11 suggestions in my book for inner peace in their lives, let alone to the extreme degree I do.

I find it interesting that you use the word “suggestion” because the way you use it, it means “an idea about what someone should do or how someone should behave.” They constitute a calling, a prompting to behave differently, whether or not you expect people to be drawn by the spiritual freedom, the wonderful inner peace, or the “true happiness” you enjoy.

Suggestion One — Be Honest. Let go of denial, delusion, and self-deceit.
To explain this suggestion, you quote (“the wise”) Socrates, saying “be as you wish to seem,” which to means act and be like how you want people to see you as. But you then use the examples, “Whether it is an adulterer pretending to be faithful, a coward pretending to be brave, a selfish man pretending to be kind, or any other of countless examples, how much inner peace is sacrificed by people who desperately try to seem to be something they could actually be but choose not to be?”

If you act like how you want people to see you, then it is understandable that an adulterer pretends to be faithful, because that is how he “wants to seem.” To then ask, “how much inner peace is sacrificed by people who desperately try to seem to be something they could actually be but choose not to be?” seems to me to confuse the issue. The quote from Socrates is here misplaced, because what you mean is to be what you can be, and stop losing your inner peace by appearing to be something else. The question is then, should he be honest, retain his inner peace and remain an adulterer, because that is what he is, or should he be faithful, because that is how he wants to seem? (As you see, as the meaning of suggestion indicates, I cannot do without the word “should.”)

What is the real delusion? What is he really? Isn’t the self-deceit seeming to be faithful? The same applies to the coward and the selfish man, who are what they are, and to be the opposite would require a concerted effort. It isn’t a case of retaining their inner peace, but requires an exertion. However, if these examples were to follow the next suggestion, they wouldn’t even start.

Suggestion Two — Let go of trying. Accept the unchangeable.
There are many things about yourself that you can change, such as your attitudes, behaviour, and personal neatness. Admittedly, you cannot change some things, such as your basic physical features, family heritage, time in history, or the fact that you age and you will die, although people are working on it. There are also things outside of yourself that you can change, and those you can’t, but if you don’t try, you don’t know.

Playing with language doesn’t help. You say, “There is 'can' and 'cannot'. From 'can', there is 'do' and 'do not'. When it comes to your choices, there is no try. In this context, to try is to lie because there is no try, so there is only pretending to try.” Sorry, no, you are wrong. A baby come into the world and cannot stand, but it tries and tries and tries, and finally can. The artisan, or artist cannot achieve excellence to begin with, but they try and try and try and then they can. To sell this suggestion as wisdom is quite the opposite.

Suggestion Three — Let go of fighting that sacrifices inner peace. Surrender to truth.
I wasn’t sure at first what you meant by this, but it appears to follow on from the last suggestion and is therefore equally wrong: “Trying is lying, and lying is a futile fight against reality. Reality is, whether you like it or not. Whatever it is, it is what it is, whether you like it or not, so why not like it, at least in the spiritual sense to the degree you have a choice? Why fight unchangeable reality?”

I don’t know how you can arrive at a statement like “Trying is lying, and lying is a futile fight against reality.” To try means “To make an effort to do or accomplish (something); attempt.” As above, “trying is lying” is gobbledygook. You might have succeeded in making your suggestion make sense with other examples, but not this way.

Suggestion Four — Let go of moralizing or similarly judgmental language.
“Moralizing is another form of unnecessary worrying, dishonest pseudo-trying, and needless futile fighting of reality. In other words, moralizing is simply another form of inner-peace-stealing resentment. That is, resentment against eternal reality for being the way it inexorably is.”

To moralize means “to think about or express moral judgments or reflections.”
To judge means “to form an opinion or estimation of after careful consideration.”

There is no worrying here, nor anything else you suggest above.

What you could have said is that we should not judge others out of a supposedly higher opinion of our moral standing. We shouldn’t talk down to people, condemn them, or denounce them as morally unfit. But you don’t like the word “should.”

Suggestion Five — Let go of resentment, hate, and unforgiveness towards others, including your past self. Accept their choices and accept them as they are.
This makes sense, it is just amusing to read how you manoeuvre around the word “should.”

Suggestion Six — Let go of possessiveness.
This might be easier said as “do not cling” and is the main reason that Buddhism puts forth for suffering. However, you begin with, “Your ego is mortal. You are not your ego. Your body is mortal. You are not your body,” which to me is something you have to develop more. Without a meditation practise, I don’t know how you could expect someone to experience this. The normal experience of life doesn’t teach you this, but only an inward seeing. Your ego is also your self-preservation instinct, so it isn’t natural for people to want to overcome it.

Suggestion Seven — Let go of the false idolization of positivity and superficial happiness. Accept the
shadow of all things including yourself.
The problem I have with this is that the shadow is figuratively the other side of the coin. One side is our conscious awareness, and the other side is the shadow. If I wish to reach equanimity, I don’t deny the one positive side and bring in the shadow, but accept that both are what I am. This is what Carl Jung says in the quote you use: “How can I be substantial if I do not cast a shadow? I must have a dark side also If I am to be whole.” The whole is important, and research has found that positive thinking can aid in stress management and even plays an important role in your overall health and well-being. Happiness isn’t superficial, and being positive about outcome isn’t idolisation, but rather enables you to get up in the morning.

Suggestion Eight — Embrace discomfort. Let go of comfort addiction.
It is true that we take the easy road very often, but as my Sergeant-Major used to say, “Any idiot can make his life hell!” Even in the sweatbox, suffering is limited, and the pause between pulls is necessary. To embrace means to affectionately clasp or hold on to, which isn’t how I see anyone accepting discomfort. I use discomfort to train, knowing that my tiredness is getting me somewhere. We can raise the threshold for being uncomfortable, and step outside our comfort zone for a purpose. I don’t like it, I use it.

Suggestion Nine — Let go of future idolization. Embrace the present.
Living in the present moment is a practise in mindfulness and not something we can just do. I value the present moment, but if I don’t prepare for future events, I won’t cope with what comes at me. Your American Dream is also the problem here, which is the projection of an imaginary outcome, which, under the condition that you work hard, people are encouraged to believe they can achieve.

Suggestion Ten — Let go of restlessness and overcommitment. Do less, better.
Here also, the suggestion is okay, but you fail to say how people get there. Living calmly and modestly is one thing, but how does one face one’s soul? You give examples of being “in the zone,” but it doesn’t come from inspiration alone, but practise. It is the result of trying over a period of time to achieve excellence.

Suggestion Eleven — Just Love Everything and Everyone
Having worked with people who are old, sick, or struggling, I see how important it is to help them manage their lives, but what motivation do I have? I understand love as primarily a sense of affinity, an understanding that we are essentially one, and this has grown from teachings that show me how I should look at the world, because I didn’t see it that way beforehand. I went through a process of acceptance, then empathy, then sympathy, and then compassion. The old hippy songs confused what love is with desire and attraction, but to love doesn’t necessarily mean to like, but to realise the underlying unity between us. The Greeks had 8 words for love: Eros, philia, agape, storge, mania, ludus, pragma, philautia, and thereby showed that our one word is quite insufficient. The wise person distinguishes rather than lumps together, and wisdom is the result of a process, not a suggestion.

Rather, the OP simply explains the philosophy I use to guide how I choose to live of my life, and how I make my choices. The OP is essentially just a short version of my book. It entails no belief or claim on my part that others 'should' do the same as I do or that not adhering to my philosophy of spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) as outlined in the OP would be "immoral" or such, whatever that would mean. I do believe that for those who choose to live it, it entails a wonderful consistent inner peace (i.e. what some might call "true happiness" or "nirvana"). But the nature of freedom is that others get to choose their own path. They may not bother aiming for inner peace at all, or they may place their bets on a different path to the inner peace than the one I have used and described.

What you imply here and in your book is that your philosophy leads to spiritual freedom. If you make 11 suggestions (ideas about what someone should do or how someone should behave), you are implying that they show the way. Just because you do not condemn people for not following, or do not care whether they do, doesn’t take away the fact that you imply that a certain behaviour renders a certain result and “it’s good for me!”

Other less freedom-loving philosophies than mine are much contagious, whether they impose on people politically through threats of or use of nondefensive violence or spiritually through moral superstitions or such (e.g. "You ought to follow my philosophy and my diet plan! Shame on you if you don't! You are a naughty bad evil person if you don't copy my diet plan. In fact, you'll have bad luck and burn in hell."). Those kind of philosophies can be very contagious, analogous to an expanding imperialistic empire, expanding through nondefensive violence and slavery.

What these “other” philosophies are is left open. However, to name them would be to condemn them, although you do already denounce them as being superstitious and imperialistic in many places (Suggestion Four?) and leading to slavery. This argument come across as a strawman.

Politically, you could possibly take what I call self-government (i.e. political freedom) and can call it "anarchism" or such in some way, or say that if somehow unrealistically implemented to the utter extreme by everyone rather than just by a few people that that is the label you would give such a society, but those kind of claims may or may not be correct depending on how you define that term. Others might call it political libertarianism, or minarchism, or localism, or decentralization. None of those potentially equivocal labels are necessarily incorrect, per se, but those labels especially with an "ism" can falsely imply prescription (e.g. "that people ought to be politically free", or "archism is immoral" etc.), which are all things I do not believe. I tend to prefer the labels self-government or political freedom, one reason being that they don't have some of the partisan implications that other labels can have. But the other primary reason, again, is that describing what a free society would happen to look like is a lot different than asserting that society "should" be free or "ought" to be free or such, or asserting that infringements on political freedom are "immoral" or such, which are all things I do not believe.

You “describe” a utopia. There is nothing wrong in having a utopia, an ideal, but in the past, utopias have disappointed, and their suggestion of visionary reform has tended to be impossibly idealistic and rigid, which in your obsession with avoiding using should and ought is also a sign I see appearing. In the end though, I read conflicting statements in your book, perhaps exemplary in the “suggestion” to “Love Everything and Everyone,” but you are critical of many, and prefer “self-government” to a communal order, in which the problem appears to be coming to an agreement with others, or compromising to include people on the fringes. Your “freedom” is to be alone, which can also be a prison, but if people join you, then some kind of agreement on how to live is unavoidable. It is the nature of community.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Stoppelmann ,

Thank you for your reply!

[... ] to say that you do not believe we 'should' or 'ought' to use defensive force means what it says.

Indeed, I say what I mean, and I mean what I say.

Thus, as you correctly point out, when I say "I do not believe we 'should' or 'ought' to use defensive force", I mean it.

I do not believe we 'should' or 'ought' to use defensive force.

I have used defensive force in the past, and if the opportunity unfortunately presents itself again, I will use it again.

You are corrupting language if you say that it doesn’t contradict the statement that you will use defensive force.

I am not corrupting language, and the two sentences do not contradict.

Let's look at the following four sentences, all four of which I believe to be true:

1. I, Scott, do not believe we 'should' or 'ought' to drink coffee tomorrow morning.

2. I, Scott, do not believe we 'should' or 'ought' to not drink coffee tomorrow morning.

3. I, Scott, will drink coffee tomorrow morning.

4. I, Scott, don't know if you will drink coffee tomorrow morning or not, and I, Scott, lovingly don't care if you do drink coffee tomorrow or not.


I don't believe any of the above four statements contradict any of the other ones. Do you?

If your answer is "no", meaning you agree that none of the above four statements contradict any of the other other four, then please ignore the remainder of this post.

If your answer is "yes", meaning you do think at least one of the above four numbered statements contradicts at least one of the others, then I am happy and eager to explore and discuss that in more detail with you, if you are willing.

I say this now politely with love: If you do think any of the above four numbered statements contradict any of the other four, then I would need us to work out that severe misunderstanding we are having about that tiny handful of simple sentences of mine above before I would be willing to talk much more if at all about other much more complex or debatable topics. That's out of respect and care for you, your time, and my time.

The rest of your post is very interesting. I will re-read it and respond with some comments and questions about it if and when we work out the seeming communication breakdown referenced above. Of course, hopefully, if and when we each understand what the other means by what they say, then most if not all seeming disagreements will vanish.

In that way, I'm reminded of when I travel internationally to countries that don't speak English. Maybe British English and American English are more different than I usually think.


With love,
Scott

[Stoppelmann]

I think I'm done with repeating the same argument over and again, there is an issue in how we use language and I have a feeling that you are referring to a colloquial usage of the words, rather than a dictionary based language. If I say (in English or German) that I do not believe that I should do something, it would require a "but" to say I will. ("I do not believe I should do that, but I will"). It may be different in your neck of the woods, so I am laying down my argument for the sake of peace.

The rest of your post is very interesting. I will re-read it and respond with some comments and questions about it if and when we work out the seeming communication breakdown referenced above. Of course, hopefully, if and when we each understand what the other means by what they say, then most if not all seeming disagreements will vanish.

I think it would be convenient for you to set the terms under which you will engage in further discussion, but I also think you should look at what I have said about your 11 proposals. I think you have made a commendable effort with your book, but it shows that you tend not to deal with the complexity of the issues you raise. It sounds like you occasionally retreat into a kind of laziness that may sound serene and composed, but deprives the reader of the means to follow your suggestions.

I confess that I have never considered writing a book for that reason, especially not on such a topic. There seems to be too many things to take into account, and rather than do a bad job, I have left it to others. But since you do invite comments, I have given you my impressions.

Namaste

[Pattern-chaser]

And yet, there are aspects of our world that are under our control, and to which we could make changes if we chose to. Some such potential changes might be considered desirable. That is to say, some might feel we ought to make such changes.

I don't understand what you mean here. Can you explain a bit more? I suspect perhaps I am getting thrown off by the word "our", since what is under Pattern-chaser's control is not the same what is under Scott's control.

For example, whether or not Scott drinks coffee today is not under your control...

Your attitude seems common among Americans. The Libertarian mindset has extended far beyond simple politics, into most corners of our human culture. Specifically, it's the Individualist outlook that seems to prevail. There are no such thing as groups; groups do not exist; they are simply collections of individuals. Groups cannot be seen as entities in themselves; they are composed of individuals., and so on.

My use of "our" was intended to refer to humanity. All of us, pretty much. I tend to foster a holistic world-view, in my philosophy, and in all of my serious thought. But this is probably the subject of another thread, not this one. I'll simply say that I find consideration of groups of anything and everything to be an indispensably-valuable thinking-tool. [But never to the extent that the 'dualism' of groups and individuals is set aside.]

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Pattern-chaser,

Thank you for your reply!

Please excuse me for quoting your post out of order.

I tend to foster a holistic world-view, in my philosophy, and in all of my serious thought. But this is probably the subject of another thread, not this one. I'll simply say that I find consideration of groups of anything and everything to be an indispensably-valuable thinking-tool. [But never to the extent that the 'dualism' of groups and individuals is set aside.]

I agree.

In fact, I'd say that's how I've learned to come to love freedom so much, as opposed to say becoming a violent aggressive tyrant who enslaves others and such, and why I gave up my career in politics and wrote a whole book with the words "uniting us all" in the title. It also could help explain why I became a vegetarian. Moreover, it's why I am far, far, far more interested in spirituality than mere petty politics, especially divisive partisan politics. I am reminded of these lines from my poem, "What Grace Means to Me":

To be assertive, but not aggressive.

To forcefully defend your own as needed, but not offensively attack others.

To set boundaries without crossing boundaries.

To be rebellious and free, but not a tyrant.

In my book, In It Together, I argue that humanity is one. In fact, I argue that all conscious life is one. If and when you read it, I'd love to find if you agree with the many arguments in the book, and, regardless, to chat with you in detail about that idea and the many others in the book.

A group can be considered a thing-in-itself, just like a hurricane can be considered a thing-in-itself. I agree with that.

There are no such thing as groups; groups do not exist; they are simply collections of individuals. Groups cannot be seen as entities in themselves; they are composed of individuals., and so on.

That's an interesting and unusual view. Who said that? I'd love to talk to someone who actually believes that, even though I doubt I would agree with much they have to say. I do love learning about different viewpoints, though.

And yet, there are aspects of our world that are under our control, and to which we could make changes if we chose to. Some such potential changes might be considered desirable. That is to say, some might feel we ought to make such changes.

I don't understand what you mean here. Can you explain a bit more? I suspect perhaps I am getting thrown off by the word "our", since what is under Pattern-chaser's control is not the same as what is under Scott's control.

For example, whether or not Scott drinks coffee today is not under your control...

My use of "our" was intended to refer to humanity. All of us, pretty much.

Interesting. Thank you for the clarification. I believe I now understand what you mean by the following:

And yet, there are aspects of [humanity's] world that are under [the control of all of humanity as a group], and to which [humanity as a whole] could make changes if [humanity as a whole] chose to. Some such potential changes might be considered desirable [by some humans]. That is to say, some [humans] might feel [humanity as a whole] ought to make such changes.

I hope I've correctly paraphrased you with the brackets used to replace the word "we" and such above. If not, please do let me know. If I did, then I agree with you about all of the above, and I respectfully but utterly and completely disagree with those people to whom you refer who think anyone or anything--including humanity as a whole--"ought" to do something or "ought" not do something.

I respect other people's religious beliefs and such, and I happily see them as free to have their unique religious beliefs that I don't happen to share, but since I personally don't believe in anything supernatural or superstitious, I therefore necessarily simply and factually disagree with people who do believe in anything supernatural or superstitious, such as magic leprechauns or moral superstitions or even 'evil' itself as I use the term.

Since I practice the principle of fully and unconditionally accepting that which I cannot control (i.e that which I cannot change), I do not believe anything happens that 'ought' not happen. I explained that idea in much more detail in my book, In It Together.

I favor a holistic world view too. And when I look at reality as a whole, I don't see anything that inexorably is that 'ought' not be, meaning in a sense that I see unchanging reality as perfect. I see it as perfect and beautiful. I'd say that belief gives me inner peace, but perhaps more accurately in a way it is inner peace. At least in large part, inner peace is that full and unconditional acceptance of that which I cannot change. At least in large part, it's not simply a symptom of inner peace but rather what inner peace is.

Needless to say, it also gives me incredible graceful power to do amazing acts of kindness and amazing acts of artful truly free-spirited creativity, to powerfully and effectively manifest love in incredible ways and so on. That's especially true when compared to any of the humans who most fail to accept that which they cannot change, or who otherwise waste some or even a lot of their very limited time and energy being hateful or resentful or such. To each their own.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Stoppelmann,

Thank you for your reply.

I think it would be convenient for you to set the terms under which you will engage in further discussion,

I thought I did in my last post, so I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Let me do my best to clarify with this post now.

Before I'd be willing to further discuss other things in this topic with you, I need your answer to the following question:

Let's look at the following four sentences, all four of which I believe to be true:

1. I, Scott, do not believe we 'should' or 'ought' to drink coffee tomorrow morning.

2. I, Scott, do not believe we 'should' or 'ought' to not drink coffee tomorrow morning.

3. I, Scott, will drink coffee tomorrow morning.

4. I, Scott, don't know if you will drink coffee tomorrow morning or not, and I, Scott, lovingly don't care if you do drink coffee tomorrow or not.


I don't believe any of the above four statements contradict any of the other ones. Do you?

I look forward to hearing from you and hopefully getting your answer to the above question.


Thank you,
Scott

[Leontiskos]

You agreed with me that there are cases when we should, or ought to use defensive force, so this really contradicts your not believing in the use of those words. Therefore you have expressed a judgment about what is morally right and wrong, which is to “moralize.” If you mean by the use of the word to make judgments about right and wrong in a way that does not consider other people’s ideas or opinions, then I’ve covered that and we are in agreement.

From the little that I have read, I tend to agree with you. Granted, there are two ways one can interpret the claim, "I do not believe we 'should' drink coffee tomorrow morning":

1. "I believe we should not drink coffee tomorrow morning."
2. "I do not believe we have any onus to drink coffee tomorrow morning."

Scott seems to be some sort of moral relativist, and so he apparently intends meaning (2), and indicates this with the scare quotes around the imperative "should".

But other cases are more clear. For example, when someone says, "Don't should on me," they are inevitably engaging in the sort of 'moralizing' that you indicate. "Don't moralize" is a form of moralizing. "Don't issue imperatives" is an imperative. This sort of thing seems to be very common in the U.S.

If you say “I don't believe in "shoulds" or "oughts" or other moralizing” that means you are against a set of standards that enable people to live cooperatively in groups, which in view of the huge population we have would be counterproductive. We must find agreement on certain aspects of life as soon as two people come together, and as soon as a third person joins, it can become complicated.

I also agree with this. Further, even beyond the pragmatic point about group cohesion, there is something to be said about the health of the individual, who is a social animal. Without morality compassion becomes impossible, for compassion requires the ability to pity someone who is suffering, and this in turn requires aversion to suffering. Without morality, without 'oughts' and 'shoulds', we could never take a stance of aversion to suffering because that stance entails the premise that suffering should not have occurred. This is why, for example, we pity the innocent sufferer in a way that we do not pity the guilty sufferer who is being punished for their crime. More generally, when an unselfish person finds something of value he will attempt to share it, and in a world without 'shoulds' and 'oughts' nothing can be shared in that manner.

Finally, it seems to me that there are real moral relativists and skeptics, but they don't write books for the sake of changing other people's behavior. He can correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that Scott wrote his book because he wants to convince other people to embrace the same philosophy he has chosen for himself. Thus an imperative underlies his entire project. He wishes to convince others to adopt a "free-spirit" manner of living. He has found value in a particular philosophy of life and, as an unselfish person, wishes to share this with other people.

[Stoppelmann]

You agreed with me that there are cases when we should, or ought to use defensive force, so this really contradicts your not believing in the use of those words. Therefore you have expressed a judgment about what is morally right and wrong, which is to “moralize.” If you mean by the use of the word to make judgments about right and wrong in a way that does not consider other people’s ideas or opinions, then I’ve covered that and we are in agreement.

From the little that I have read, I tend to agree with you. Granted, there are two ways one can interpret the claim, "I do not believe we 'should' drink coffee tomorrow morning":

1. "I believe we should not drink coffee tomorrow morning."
2. "I do not believe we have any onus to drink coffee tomorrow morning."

Scott seems to be some sort of moral relativist, and so he apparently intends meaning (2), and indicates this with the scare quotes around the imperative "should".

But other cases are more clear. For example, when someone says, "Don't should on me," they are inevitably engaging in the sort of 'moralizing' that you indicate. "Don't moralize" is a form of moralizing. "Don't issue imperatives" is an imperative. This sort of thing seems to be very common in the U.S.

If you say “I don't believe in "shoulds" or "oughts" or other moralizing” that means you are against a set of standards that enable people to live cooperatively in groups, which in view of the huge population we have would be counterproductive. We must find agreement on certain aspects of life as soon as two people come together, and as soon as a third person joins, it can become complicated.

I also agree with this. Further, even beyond the pragmatic point about group cohesion, there is something to be said about the health of the individual, who is a social animal. Without morality compassion becomes impossible, for compassion requires the ability to pity someone who is suffering, and this in turn requires aversion to suffering. Without morality, without 'oughts' and 'shoulds', we could never take a stance of aversion to suffering because that stance entails the premise that suffering should not have occurred. This is why, for example, we pity the innocent sufferer in a way that we do not pity the guilty sufferer who is being punished for their crime. More generally, when an unselfish person finds something of value he will attempt to share it, and in a world without 'shoulds' and 'oughts' nothing can be shared in that manner.

Finally, it seems to me that there are real moral relativists and skeptics, but they don't write books for the sake of changing other people's behavior. He can correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that Scott wrote his book because he wants to convince other people to embrace the same philosophy he has chosen for himself. Thus an imperative underlies his entire project. He wishes to convince others to adopt a "free-spirit" manner of living. He has found value in a particular philosophy of life and, as an unselfish person, wishes to share this with other people.

Thank you for your reply and making the point that I have struggled to say as clearly as you have.

To Scott, I can only say that I will not conform to you, but as I said before:

I think it would be convenient for you to set the terms under which you will engage in further discussion, but I also think you should look at what I have said about your 11 proposals.

I should have said that it is convenient for you to dictate, but you are avoiding a critical appraisal of your book.

[Pattern-chaser]

There are no such thing as groups; groups do not exist; they are simply collections of individuals. Groups cannot be seen as entities in themselves; they are composed of individuals., and so on.

That's an interesting and unusual view. Who said that? I'd love to talk to someone who actually believes that, even though I doubt I would agree with much they have to say. I do love learning about different viewpoints, though.

Name-calling is definitely not my thing. Having said that, GE Morton is one (of quite a few here) who espouse such views. I mention GEM because he can more accurately describe the viewpoint I mentioned, with a more positive bias than my own.

[Leontiskos]

Thank you for your reply and making the point that I have struggled to say as clearly as you have.

Oh, you're welcome. I realize I got busy and wasn't able to continue some of our other discussions, including one on contemplation, so I'm trying to compensate for that a bit here.

I can't remember which post it was, but you also made a point about the idea that although there are inappropriate ways of wielding 'oughts', this does not mean that 'oughts' are inherently inappropriate. I think this is quite right. It is common for humans to generalize in the face of disagreeable experiences. For example, I have a family member who was attacked by a dog at a young age and for many years maintained the belief that all dogs are violent and dangerous. That same thing can happen with overly aggressive 'ought'-wielding (call it "proselytism"). It seems to me that it is very common for people who have been subjected to proselytism to draw the generalized conclusion that all 'oughts' are inappropriate.

This is a stage in snowballing individualism. Those afflicted by individualism dimly perceive the socializing and unifying power of 'oughts', but they wield them unskillfully, misapplying the medicine and deepening the same problem of isolated individualists (i.e. people who reject advice or input of any kind whatsoever).

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Leontiskos,

Thank you for your reply!

Let's look at the following four sentences, all four of which I believe to be true:

1. I, Scott, do not believe we 'should' or 'ought' to drink coffee tomorrow morning.

2. I, Scott, do not believe we 'should' or 'ought' to not drink coffee tomorrow morning.

3. I, Scott, will drink coffee tomorrow morning.

4. I, Scott, don't know if you will drink coffee tomorrow morning or not, and I, Scott, lovingly don't care if you do drink coffee tomorrow or not.

Granted, there are two ways one can interpret the claim, "I do not believe we 'should' drink coffee tomorrow morning":

1. "I believe we should not drink coffee tomorrow morning."
2. "I do not believe we have any [moral] onus to drink coffee tomorrow morning."

[Color added.]

Indeed.

I agree with the second statement and not the first.

If I believed "we should not drink coffee tomorrow morning", I would have said that. In contrast, I said what I said.

Incidentally, to be extra extra clear about what I meant by my words, I went out of my way to also explicitly say both (1) I do not believe we 'should' drink coffee tomorrow morning, and (2) I do not believe we 'should' not drink coffee tomorrow. So it seems to me it would be impossible to reasonably interpret it said otherwise.

That's not even considering how clear I was about such things it the OP:

I don't believe in "shoulds" or "oughts" or other moralizing. So if hypothetically I'm asked "what should the government do" or "what ought my neighbor do", I cannot answer. There are no shoulds or oughts in my philosophy, only cans and cannots; and then from ‘can’ there is only do and do not. In my philosophy, there is no ought, no should, and no try. I can tell you what I will or would do, and only time and happenstance will tell if my answer is honest and true.

I very purposely provided the above in the OP to help make sure the rest of my sentences after that were more surely clear, and by extension that was clear what I mean when I say things like, "I do not believe we 'should' drink coffee tomorrow" and "I do not believe we 'should' not drink coffee tomorrow".

indicates this with the scare quotes around the imperative "should".

I don't use scare quotes.

But other cases are more clear. For example, when someone says, "Don't should on me," they are inevitably engaging in the sort of 'moralizing' that you indicate.

No, they could be sometimes since people use the same words differently but it is not a given. As I explained in the OP, when I say that I will defensive force to kill a murderer before he murders my family, that does not mean I am saying it would be 'immoral' for him to do it, or that I am saying he 'ought' not do it.

"Don't moralize" is a form of moralizing. "Don't issue imperatives" is an imperative.

First, it's worth noting that I never said those two things.

Nonetheless, I disagree with the broad assertion that anyone who says those 2-3 word sentences would necessarily be engaging in moralizing or such, let alone that we could say much about anything about what the unknown person means based solely on a single out of context 2-3 word sentence that the hypothetical person said. That is not even to mention the Philosophical Principal of Charity, which would make concluding a contradiction even less reasonable or likely.

Words are equivocal and it's not always clear what someone means, and generally all humans project such that someone who moralizes will be more likely to misinterpret non-moralizing words as moralizing and vice versa. That's in the same sense that, even when they read the same exact words, an angry judgemental person will tend to read another persons words with an angry or judgemental tone versus who see the world differently. Or, in yet another example, someone with social anxiety might be more likely to interpret a quiet person as fearfully shy, whereas someone else would is quiet due to some other reason (e.g. confidence or indifference about the situation, or some kind of arrogance or anger, or any million other reasons) would be more likely to project that or something more similar to that as the explanation.

I can imagine many scenarios where you could hear me say to you or someone else, "don't touch my butt!" or "stop touching my butt!" You would be understandably misunderstanding my meaning if you thought I was saying that I believe it is immoral for you to touch my butt, or for whoever was about to touch butt or did touch my butt despite my protests.

Likewise, if a moralizer and a non-moralizer both overheard someone else saying "don't touch my butt" to another person, they would likely tend to interpret the speaker's words differently due to the role projection plays.

A fun example of that is this short skit by Key & Peele.

He can correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that Scott wrote his book because he wants to convince other people to embrace the same philosophy he has chosen for himself.

I don't really think so, actually. May I ask, have you read my book, In It Together? I'd be very interested to learn what your best guess is as to my primary motivation(s) for writing it after having read it (assuming you haven't already).

He wishes to convince others to adopt a "free-spirit" manner of living.

Do I? I'm not sure.

In person, I usually do my best to use tasteful discretion to avoid mentioning that I'm a vegetarian. I think I may have been asked 1,000 times why I'm a vegetarian. I generally do my best to avoid even receiving that question, at least in person. But even on a social media or such it's generally a bit of a borderline secret I keep.

In my younger days, over 15 years ago, I worked full-time going door-to-door for a political party. I also went door to door, but for no pay, when I ran for and was elected for public office in my hometown as a politician, which was an unpaid position as well. It's hard to imagine myself going around like a Jehovah's Witness now, knocking on people's door, and asking them, "Have you heard the great news about spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline)? Can you spare a moment to talk about inner peace and spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline)?

I regularly box with one my best friends. I put a lot of effort into doing my best to punch him in has face and body and beat him up pretty good, and I endure a lot of pain exhaustion on my own to do it. By the time we're done sparring, I can barely life arms, and I'm often too out of breathe to even speak. I cannot imagine putting that kind of exhausting effort I use to to punch him and make him bleed into ever once attempting to convince someone to be more free-spirited (a.k.a. self-disciplined).

As I said many times before, "live and let live", that's one my mottos. It's like my self-chosen diet. Even my own kids aren't vegetarian, and I've never done anything to encourage to adopt that diet I have adopted. Whether it's a literal diet or behavioral one (e.g. I refuse to rape or murder people), I don't see a lion eating an antelope and lose my inner peace over it. It's all beautiful.

He has found value in a particular philosophy of life and, as an unselfish person, wishes to share this with other people.

I can't say for sure that I agree or disagree with that as it is worded, but if you change the word 'wishes' to 'is typically willing to', then I can and do agree.


Thank you for your reply!


Thank you,
Scott

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

To Scott, I can only say that I will not conform to you, but as I said before:

I think it would be convenient for you to set the terms under which you will engage in further discussion, but I also think you should look at what I have said about your 11 proposals.

I should have said that it is convenient for you to dictate, but you are avoiding a critical appraisal of your book.

Hi, Stoppelmann,

Thank you for your message. Correct me if I am misremembering, but I believe I have answered each and every question you have ever asked me on the Philosophy Forums ever. Generally, I do my best to answer any question that is directly asked of me on these forums.

While you are surely free not to give it to me, I would appreciate the same courtesy. If you are willing to give me that same courtesy, then please do answer my question:

Let's look at the following four sentences, all four of which I believe to be true:

1. I, Scott, do not believe we 'should' or 'ought' to drink coffee tomorrow morning.

2. I, Scott, do not believe we 'should' or 'ought' to not drink coffee tomorrow morning.

3. I, Scott, will drink coffee tomorrow morning.

4. I, Scott, don't know if you will drink coffee tomorrow morning or not, and I, Scott, lovingly don't care if you do drink coffee tomorrow or not.


I don't believe any of the above four statements contradict any of the other ones. Do you?

I look forward to hopefully getting your answer to the above question.


Regarding the book, I spent over 5 years working on my book, In It Together, including putting a lot of thought and effort into the structure and order. Thus, if one doesn't agree with one chapter, I wouldn't expect that person to agree with (or even necessarily understand) later chapters coming after, much like a train that already went off the tracks an hour ago and kept going. If you read the book and don't agree with every single sentence in the book, please do make a post in the following topic to specify which is the very first sentence in the book with which you disagree (which also helps in knowing all the common-ground we have in terms of all the sentences that come before the first point of disagreement):

Do you agree with everything in the book, "In It Together"? If not, what is the first sentence with which you disagree?



Thank you,
Scott