Judgment
Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: northern michigan. not the U.P.
Posts: 15,281
Originally Posted by courage2 
As I said, the person on the receiving end feels judged, regardless of my intent..
ive ben on both sides- job evaluations on me and running a framing crew. we'd hire guys on and say they'll have a 90 day eval. sometimes they didn't make it 90 days. I COULD have allowed them to stay employed with the company, which would have cost the company $$$ and enabled them to continue not being responsible, but that would have cost me my job.
then as my drinking progressed, it was me who was evaled. I don't blame em one bit for letting me go- I was costing them lots of $$$$
both cases HAD to have righteous judgement.
sometimes when I have questions the best thing for me to do is give it to God and leave it there. if I need the answer, it will come.
sometimes the questions I give to God, I swear I can hear Him say,
"seriously,tom? "
doesn't everyone want to know why the sky cant be purple??
Member
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Lakeside, Ca
Posts: 10,208
Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? *Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! *So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? *I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? (1 Cor. 6:2-6)
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: canada
Posts: 7,242
Originally Posted by courage2
As I said, the person on the receiving end feels judged, regardless of my intent. That's almost always the case at least, especially with the weak and the young.
i read your OP as being about your own judging, not about the effect on the person.
understanding that when i feel judged as unworthy or deficient it does not show that the other has judged me as such....has been huge and ongoing all my life. so often the effect i feel is really about me, not about what you judged me to be or didn't.
p***enger
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: NYC
Posts: 19,042
Originally Posted by tomsteve
sometimes the questions I give to God, I swear I can hear Him say,
"seriously,tom? "
doesn't everyone want to know why the sky cant be purple??
"seriously,tom? "
doesn't everyone want to know why the sky cant be purple??
tomsteve, thanks for the LOL
Aellyce, thanks for the thoughtful examples -- one hyper-analyst to another.
Mmbob, thanks for the Scripture.
Maybe I should find a "Kant for Dummies" book. I haven't given him 2 thoughts in getting-on 40 years. Is anyone all read up on the categorical imperative?
I expect the Bible-writers wouldn't have written about judgment so much if they hadn't considered it a true moral problem. Scripture is a good source for understanding -- so are you all!
Trudgin
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 6,348
During my career I always thought is WAS my place to judge others. Carrying saddle bags of faults over a shoulder, mine were in the were back and others in the front. I never lost sight of others faults - they were directly in front of me. Mine I could not see as they were in the back bag, so to speak.
When empathy was revealed to me nothing could ever be the same. Pity and sympathy were nearby but not true empathy.
The saddle bags were reversed I suppose. I make a really bad judge today to the point of likely opening many cell doors at the potential peril of others. Thankfully, I'm not tasked with that nor do I hold the keys.
My youngest is 20 - It would be easy for me to judge him, sometimes I do. He'd claim daily. When I look at him it is a mirror to my past - painful. I want to yell at myself, wakeup!
I'm glad It has become more more difficult for me to judge others. Their actions are truly only good or bad based on ones perceptions. Of course the moral law is excluded from this - it is never watered down, so we are taught.
If I voted for SR judges you'd be one of my nominees C2.
Thanks for thought provoking thread - don't judge yourself too harshly, I think
When empathy was revealed to me nothing could ever be the same. Pity and sympathy were nearby but not true empathy.
The saddle bags were reversed I suppose. I make a really bad judge today to the point of likely opening many cell doors at the potential peril of others. Thankfully, I'm not tasked with that nor do I hold the keys.
My youngest is 20 - It would be easy for me to judge him, sometimes I do. He'd claim daily. When I look at him it is a mirror to my past - painful. I want to yell at myself, wakeup!
I'm glad It has become more more difficult for me to judge others. Their actions are truly only good or bad based on ones perceptions. Of course the moral law is excluded from this - it is never watered down, so we are taught.
If I voted for SR judges you'd be one of my nominees C2.
Thanks for thought provoking thread - don't judge yourself too harshly, I think
EndGame
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,677
Okay, this is long (so what else is new?). I don't have as much time to read and write here as use to have, and I couldn't resist this thread, at first for it's original theme, and then later, because Immanuel Kant's ethical theory was brought into play.
The idea of "judgment" has, unfortunately, fallen into the domain of "things that hurt people's feelings." It has historically had many different meanings. False modesty aside, all of us love to hear things about ourselves that are complimentary or uplifting, whether these things are in contradiction to or congruent with our own self-assessments. "You are generous, kind, thoughtful, smart, loving, brilliant or strong." We're not inclined to analyze such statements any more than we are to question the person's motives who adorns us with such such grace and beauty. We then assume these things to be true based partly on the value we place on such traits, and partly because someone else had the good sense to recognize them within us. .
But what happens when people say "You're rude, hurtful, selfish, paranoid, misinformed, intellectually challenged, mean, abusive, unforgiving, obnoxious or irritating?” Suddenly that person is "judgmental" in the most pejorative meaning of that word. We question both the traits and the person making the judgments. I'm hurt by what you said, therefore you're a hurtful person, and so nothing you say about me can be true. This way of thinking has contaminated the way we raise our children, for example, to the extent that everything your child does should be supported unconditionally and never be criticized. The perfect environment for a budding psychopath or narcissist. The obvious difference being that the first set of traits support my ego and are taken as "compliments," whereas the second set causes me to question other people's motives, even their sanity, because I have the subjective experience of being hurt by them. And having my feelings hurt is the worst thing that can ever happen to me. The second set is elevated to a crime of exaggerated proportions, with the weapon of choice being "labels." "I hate when people label me." "I hate labels." Why is this only the case when people don't say the things about you that you want them to say?
Extreme thinking, whether or it coddles or kills, only creates individuals who never learn to struggle through life on their own, or learn to do so in maladaptive ways, without a formula for living, without acknowledging the reality that life is hard on its own in any meaningful way. "Will someone please tell me what to do?!" "Will someone please help me to stop doing what I'm doing?!" In very different ways being shielded from the reality that the world itself, external reality and all that includes, is a tremendous obstacle that cannot be erased or subdued by good thoughts. One of several problems I have with what's euphemistically referred to as "Positive Psychology," a school of thought that apparently arose from people having their feelings hurt, and the belief that self-affirming thoughts will end wars, feed the hungry and cure cancer.
There are a few serious problems with Kant's moral imperative. One is its over-reliance on Pure Reason for what he calls a "moral imperative." By use of Reason, we deduce and then do what it is "right" or what is required by Reason without any consideration for the consequences of what we do. We don't lie, we don't cheat, we don't steal. That sounds good, and maybe it's a great way to live. If only human beings were exclusively or predominantly rational beings. We are not. We develop inclinations, tendencies and preferences long before we think about them in any way. Nobody who likes chocolate ice cream every made the choice to like chocolate ice cream. Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and the later existentialists were many things, including a response to Kantian Ethics. Human beings are different from other beings by virtue of consciousness or, more accurately, our consciousness of being conscious. At the same time, it is this very trait or ability or whatever it is that alienates us from who and what we truly are, and from each other, a burden that other beasts do not apparently suffer.
We think into being adaptive, superficial selves that are more pleasing, more acceptable, and less threatening than is, or what we imagine to be, our true selves. Many of us make this our life’s work. I’m an atheist, I’m a rebel, I’m a businessman, I’m an artist, I’m a loner, I’m a thinker. I’m a tinker, tailor, soldier, spy. The "self" is not a label. It is not a thing; it is a task. We never are, but we're always in the process of becoming. We search for some kind of superficial sense of safety by limiting ourselves to the labels we adapt after a few years of shopping around the mall where the label kiosk resides, right between the cheap sunglasses and the smartphone cases. We then either tend to live the life that the labels we’ve purchased suggest (there is a price, and credit is welcome) or we live in alienation from those expectations that our labels require. In the end, it all amounts to the same thing. The worst thing that can happen to us is for someone to challenge our assumed way of being in the world, the labels that we advertise about ourselves, and not only because that would hurt our feelings. It also gives pause to what it is that we’re doing in our lives. And we can’t have that kind of thinking in our house.
Among several outcomes of Pure Reason, perhaps the most disturbing, at least for those of us who view Reason as more an enemy than a friend, is genocide. We’ve all seen this post-apocalyptic film before. Probably more than once. Reason tells us that there are limited resources -- land, food, water, the ability to treat and cure the vast array of medical illnesses that increase geometrically with each generation -- for a population that continues to grow. That the most reasonable course of action is to either limit population growth or institute a regularly scheduled culling of the existing population, the latter representing the more efficient method. Reason directs us as to how we select those who are “weaker” or less valuable to the population as a rational means of deciding who is to stay and who is to go. Life and death are reduced to a simple algorithm. You better not cry, you better not shout. You better not pout, I’m telling you why. Santa Claus IS coming to town. This is all very logical, but is it also true that this is the “human” thing to do? And if it is, what does that say about being human? Reason alone cannot answer these questions.
Anyone who’s followed Star Trek (bear with me) knows that, from the mouth of Mr. Spock, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one).” This is another version of a moral imperative. He sacrifices himself so that the ship and its crew can survive. In a later film, after the crew has revived Spock, brought him back to life, Spock asks Kirk why the crew saved him. Kirk answers, “Because the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.” Something of a table turned on Spock's moral imperative. Spock’s mother, the human half of his DNA, and following his return to the living, asks him, “Do you still believe that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?” Spock says “Yes.” His mother responds, “Then you are here because of a mistake—your friends have given their future to save you.” (The crew had broken the law and had gone on the run in order to rescue Spock.) Spock says that humans are sometimes illogical; his mother answers, “They are, indeed!” The crew broke the law (which is, according to Kant, irrational and unreasonable), and by resuscitating Spock, thereby made the Universe a better place. Later in that same film, Spock advocates for saving the life of Chekov despite the fact that this would put the rest of the crew in danger. Kirk asks, “Is this the logical thing to do?” Spock answers, “No, but it is the human thing to do.” Although Spock reaffirms his claim that the needs of the many logically outweigh the needs of the few, he suggests that sometimes we must do the “human” thing, not the logical thing, and put the needs of the few (or the one) first. (Though I knew the sequence of events but not the precise wording of the dialogue, I borrowed parts of this account from the Internet.)
By necessity, I’ve given a brief accounting of reason and it’s place in our existence. To describe it as an “enemy” is overly simplistic since I (partially) require the use of reason in order to frame it in that way. It’s also useful to differentiate between Kant’s “hypothetical imperative” and his “moral imperative.” We use reason every day in order to get things done, to protect ourselves, and to make any manner of decisions. “If I want to get to the 8:15 showing or Ratatouille, I’ll need to leave in twenty minutes.” “If I want to be a doctor, I’ll need to go to medical school.” "If I don't want to risk losing this very long post, I better save it as a Word document." “If I want a chance to live a meaningful life, I’ll need to stop drinking.” These are all hypothetical imperatives in the form of “If A then B.” They are, by definition, indisputable, although the stop drinking part carries other, morally vibrant decisions that are not technically part of the A-B statement. Moral imperatives, such as “I cannot lie,” are much more complex, the decisions we base on those imperatives often being at issue due to their not being hypothetical imperatives. The choice we make means something, and the consequences of what we do are ambiguous, either in content or in how they influence me, other people, and other circumstances..
Reason and logic are formulaic. There is no room for doing what is human rather than doing what is rational. Or for doing anything else but what is required by reason. They are cold, pre-calculated, and unimpassioned tools to “protect” us from making decisions based on our passions, on our humanity. And the answer isn’t “finding a balance” between reason and passion, which is just another copout in terms of making a genuine decision. The proper use of Reason has no place in making personal moral decisions anymore than passion should dictate what train I should take in order to get to work on time. I’m not going out on a limb by stating that nobody ever started a war over the Pythagorean Theorem, and that none of our greatest love stories relied on Calculus for their passion. My decision to get to work on time has nothing to do with what I feel about my job.
Choose wisely.
The idea of "judgment" has, unfortunately, fallen into the domain of "things that hurt people's feelings." It has historically had many different meanings. False modesty aside, all of us love to hear things about ourselves that are complimentary or uplifting, whether these things are in contradiction to or congruent with our own self-assessments. "You are generous, kind, thoughtful, smart, loving, brilliant or strong." We're not inclined to analyze such statements any more than we are to question the person's motives who adorns us with such such grace and beauty. We then assume these things to be true based partly on the value we place on such traits, and partly because someone else had the good sense to recognize them within us. .
But what happens when people say "You're rude, hurtful, selfish, paranoid, misinformed, intellectually challenged, mean, abusive, unforgiving, obnoxious or irritating?” Suddenly that person is "judgmental" in the most pejorative meaning of that word. We question both the traits and the person making the judgments. I'm hurt by what you said, therefore you're a hurtful person, and so nothing you say about me can be true. This way of thinking has contaminated the way we raise our children, for example, to the extent that everything your child does should be supported unconditionally and never be criticized. The perfect environment for a budding psychopath or narcissist. The obvious difference being that the first set of traits support my ego and are taken as "compliments," whereas the second set causes me to question other people's motives, even their sanity, because I have the subjective experience of being hurt by them. And having my feelings hurt is the worst thing that can ever happen to me. The second set is elevated to a crime of exaggerated proportions, with the weapon of choice being "labels." "I hate when people label me." "I hate labels." Why is this only the case when people don't say the things about you that you want them to say?
Extreme thinking, whether or it coddles or kills, only creates individuals who never learn to struggle through life on their own, or learn to do so in maladaptive ways, without a formula for living, without acknowledging the reality that life is hard on its own in any meaningful way. "Will someone please tell me what to do?!" "Will someone please help me to stop doing what I'm doing?!" In very different ways being shielded from the reality that the world itself, external reality and all that includes, is a tremendous obstacle that cannot be erased or subdued by good thoughts. One of several problems I have with what's euphemistically referred to as "Positive Psychology," a school of thought that apparently arose from people having their feelings hurt, and the belief that self-affirming thoughts will end wars, feed the hungry and cure cancer.
There are a few serious problems with Kant's moral imperative. One is its over-reliance on Pure Reason for what he calls a "moral imperative." By use of Reason, we deduce and then do what it is "right" or what is required by Reason without any consideration for the consequences of what we do. We don't lie, we don't cheat, we don't steal. That sounds good, and maybe it's a great way to live. If only human beings were exclusively or predominantly rational beings. We are not. We develop inclinations, tendencies and preferences long before we think about them in any way. Nobody who likes chocolate ice cream every made the choice to like chocolate ice cream. Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and the later existentialists were many things, including a response to Kantian Ethics. Human beings are different from other beings by virtue of consciousness or, more accurately, our consciousness of being conscious. At the same time, it is this very trait or ability or whatever it is that alienates us from who and what we truly are, and from each other, a burden that other beasts do not apparently suffer.
We think into being adaptive, superficial selves that are more pleasing, more acceptable, and less threatening than is, or what we imagine to be, our true selves. Many of us make this our life’s work. I’m an atheist, I’m a rebel, I’m a businessman, I’m an artist, I’m a loner, I’m a thinker. I’m a tinker, tailor, soldier, spy. The "self" is not a label. It is not a thing; it is a task. We never are, but we're always in the process of becoming. We search for some kind of superficial sense of safety by limiting ourselves to the labels we adapt after a few years of shopping around the mall where the label kiosk resides, right between the cheap sunglasses and the smartphone cases. We then either tend to live the life that the labels we’ve purchased suggest (there is a price, and credit is welcome) or we live in alienation from those expectations that our labels require. In the end, it all amounts to the same thing. The worst thing that can happen to us is for someone to challenge our assumed way of being in the world, the labels that we advertise about ourselves, and not only because that would hurt our feelings. It also gives pause to what it is that we’re doing in our lives. And we can’t have that kind of thinking in our house.
Among several outcomes of Pure Reason, perhaps the most disturbing, at least for those of us who view Reason as more an enemy than a friend, is genocide. We’ve all seen this post-apocalyptic film before. Probably more than once. Reason tells us that there are limited resources -- land, food, water, the ability to treat and cure the vast array of medical illnesses that increase geometrically with each generation -- for a population that continues to grow. That the most reasonable course of action is to either limit population growth or institute a regularly scheduled culling of the existing population, the latter representing the more efficient method. Reason directs us as to how we select those who are “weaker” or less valuable to the population as a rational means of deciding who is to stay and who is to go. Life and death are reduced to a simple algorithm. You better not cry, you better not shout. You better not pout, I’m telling you why. Santa Claus IS coming to town. This is all very logical, but is it also true that this is the “human” thing to do? And if it is, what does that say about being human? Reason alone cannot answer these questions.
Anyone who’s followed Star Trek (bear with me) knows that, from the mouth of Mr. Spock, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one).” This is another version of a moral imperative. He sacrifices himself so that the ship and its crew can survive. In a later film, after the crew has revived Spock, brought him back to life, Spock asks Kirk why the crew saved him. Kirk answers, “Because the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.” Something of a table turned on Spock's moral imperative. Spock’s mother, the human half of his DNA, and following his return to the living, asks him, “Do you still believe that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?” Spock says “Yes.” His mother responds, “Then you are here because of a mistake—your friends have given their future to save you.” (The crew had broken the law and had gone on the run in order to rescue Spock.) Spock says that humans are sometimes illogical; his mother answers, “They are, indeed!” The crew broke the law (which is, according to Kant, irrational and unreasonable), and by resuscitating Spock, thereby made the Universe a better place. Later in that same film, Spock advocates for saving the life of Chekov despite the fact that this would put the rest of the crew in danger. Kirk asks, “Is this the logical thing to do?” Spock answers, “No, but it is the human thing to do.” Although Spock reaffirms his claim that the needs of the many logically outweigh the needs of the few, he suggests that sometimes we must do the “human” thing, not the logical thing, and put the needs of the few (or the one) first. (Though I knew the sequence of events but not the precise wording of the dialogue, I borrowed parts of this account from the Internet.)
By necessity, I’ve given a brief accounting of reason and it’s place in our existence. To describe it as an “enemy” is overly simplistic since I (partially) require the use of reason in order to frame it in that way. It’s also useful to differentiate between Kant’s “hypothetical imperative” and his “moral imperative.” We use reason every day in order to get things done, to protect ourselves, and to make any manner of decisions. “If I want to get to the 8:15 showing or Ratatouille, I’ll need to leave in twenty minutes.” “If I want to be a doctor, I’ll need to go to medical school.” "If I don't want to risk losing this very long post, I better save it as a Word document." “If I want a chance to live a meaningful life, I’ll need to stop drinking.” These are all hypothetical imperatives in the form of “If A then B.” They are, by definition, indisputable, although the stop drinking part carries other, morally vibrant decisions that are not technically part of the A-B statement. Moral imperatives, such as “I cannot lie,” are much more complex, the decisions we base on those imperatives often being at issue due to their not being hypothetical imperatives. The choice we make means something, and the consequences of what we do are ambiguous, either in content or in how they influence me, other people, and other circumstances..
Reason and logic are formulaic. There is no room for doing what is human rather than doing what is rational. Or for doing anything else but what is required by reason. They are cold, pre-calculated, and unimpassioned tools to “protect” us from making decisions based on our passions, on our humanity. And the answer isn’t “finding a balance” between reason and passion, which is just another copout in terms of making a genuine decision. The proper use of Reason has no place in making personal moral decisions anymore than passion should dictate what train I should take in order to get to work on time. I’m not going out on a limb by stating that nobody ever started a war over the Pythagorean Theorem, and that none of our greatest love stories relied on Calculus for their passion. My decision to get to work on time has nothing to do with what I feel about my job.
Choose wisely.
p***enger
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: NYC
Posts: 19,042
My goodness, Endgame, that's a treatise, not a post! I thought *I* was a long read LOL.
Back to you shortly.
In the meantime, FnB & Mmbob, I thank you. Unlike FlynBuy, I used to be *less* judgmental because I was completely disengaged from life. No things matter more & I have to make decisions, some of which are rather important to people beyond myself -- like tomsteve's examples of firing & being fired. They're not simple for me, nor I s'pose should they be.
As I meander along in this ponder, I realize I care more about the actions that result from judgment than the judgments themselves. Also if the judgment is "wrong" -- can it be anything else? Incomplete anyway. What with subjectivity and fallibility & general lack of omniscience -- then actions that result from it are more likely to be wrong. And if those actions are highly consequential, ah... what harm may ensue?
I'm sure you all know the 3 Strike Laws in drug offenses, & other mandatory sentencing laws? Many judges seem to hate them. But they're put place by legislators, making judgments about judge's judgments, if you will. I guess that's what laws do -- put limits on the effects of human judgments. U.S. lawmakers made it illegal to fire someone based on race etc. because they knew individuals would make different judgments and they didn't want them to.
Hmmm.
Back to Endgame's post.
I thought *I* was a long read LOL.Back to you shortly.
In the meantime, FnB & Mmbob, I thank you. Unlike FlynBuy, I used to be *less* judgmental because I was completely disengaged from life. No things matter more & I have to make decisions, some of which are rather important to people beyond myself -- like tomsteve's examples of firing & being fired. They're not simple for me, nor I s'pose should they be.
As I meander along in this ponder, I realize I care more about the actions that result from judgment than the judgments themselves. Also if the judgment is "wrong" -- can it be anything else? Incomplete anyway. What with subjectivity and fallibility & general lack of omniscience -- then actions that result from it are more likely to be wrong. And if those actions are highly consequential, ah... what harm may ensue?
I'm sure you all know the 3 Strike Laws in drug offenses, & other mandatory sentencing laws? Many judges seem to hate them. But they're put place by legislators, making judgments about judge's judgments, if you will. I guess that's what laws do -- put limits on the effects of human judgments. U.S. lawmakers made it illegal to fire someone based on race etc. because they knew individuals would make different judgments and they didn't want them to.
Hmmm.
Back to Endgame's post.
p***enger
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: NYC
Posts: 19,042
Anyone wondering what this has to do with sobriety?
The paralysis of analysis is one thing that I believe affects many a former drunk. We were so bad, how can we judge anyone else?
The desire to help others struggling with alcoholism, too -- when do you cut the cord?
The notion of amends-making, maybe?
In general, forming a moral compass where I had none before.
The paralysis of analysis is one thing that I believe affects many a former drunk. We were so bad, how can we judge anyone else?
The desire to help others struggling with alcoholism, too -- when do you cut the cord?
The notion of amends-making, maybe?
In general, forming a moral compass where I had none before.
Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: northern michigan. not the U.P.
Posts: 15,281
"The paralysis of analysis is one thing that I believe affects many a former drunk. We were so bad, how can we judge anyone else?'
I USED to be a drunk. im no longer a drunk nor do I condone my behavior of then.
"The desire to help others struggling with alcoholism, too -- when do you cut the cord?"
welp, I have a habit of going waiting too long. AFTER I cut the cord I then see the red flags. but what I should do it stop helping when the alcoholic cant or wont help themselves.
"The notion of amends-making, maybe?"
maybe.
I USED to be a drunk. im no longer a drunk nor do I condone my behavior of then.
"The desire to help others struggling with alcoholism, too -- when do you cut the cord?"
welp, I have a habit of going waiting too long. AFTER I cut the cord I then see the red flags. but what I should do it stop helping when the alcoholic cant or wont help themselves.
"The notion of amends-making, maybe?"
maybe.
p***enger
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: NYC
Posts: 19,042
As you may know (because I mention it ad nauseum) I don’t follow written arguments well anymore. So I’m going to comment out on some of Endgame's statements, kind of willy-nilly, as they interest me.
Re – actually I am. Somebody starts to say good things about me, first thing I think is, what are they after? I’ve gotten a wee bit more trusting since I quit drinking –not because people are more trustworthy, but sober, I’m more alert and less likely to cave.
Re Positive Psychology: I think it’s obvious I’m not a fan, either. I was born with an analytic bent, raised to mistrust and deride, and trained in the art of criticism.
So now we go to your critique of Kant. Now I can’t keep up w/you on Kant, because I last read any philosophy in 1980. But this: – do you think Kant thought the categorical imperative was an accessible way of decision making for all? I think he was talking about philosophers. The philosopher state kind of thing. The minions should just follow the lead of those who could reach Pure Reason. To me, that’s actually pretty much the way society functions. Except we kind of have a consensus that the reason isn’t too pure. That’s what term limits are for LOL. In other words, I agree that the process by which a person makes a stab at Pure Reason and then applies it to the world is complicated and full of error – clearly. I’ve known and argued with both a professional ethicist and the man who wrote The Ethics of Fiction and I’m not a fan of the good and the true. But it doesn’t mean that the *imperative* isn’t there.
Re Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. I chose Kierkegaard. What does that say to you?
Re the self... Hmmm. I wish Robby were here to respond to that. I disagree but can’t quite say why. If we’re in the process of becoming, becoming what? Becoming old? Becoming dead? Becoming resurrected in the body? Seems like jam tomorrow.
– speak for yourself. I can’t abide the straw-man argument.
Yes, see my comment above. But that’s no argument for making irrational judgments or passing the buck. Consider the banality of evil. Someone has to make decisions when resources are limited – they really do. Who’s it going to be, if not you?
You admit describing reason as the enemy is overly simplistic. What do you use for decision-making instead? Impulse? Emotion? What a way to run a society! Or a life – by either one, I’d be dead. My reason, even when it was in tatters, has been what’s kept me alive.
Re – this I *profoundly* disagree with. You’re putting limits on your definition of [R]eason wherever you like, to force it into the bounds of a certain argument, but I think that’s casuistry (I’m not sure about my terms here, but I’ve never had a chance to say 'casuistry' before, so I will LOL). I live with someone educated by Jesuits – don’t try to trip me up with words.
Watch out for a false dichotomy: It’s my reason that allows me to understand and decide to express sympathy to others, it’s my reason that reminds me to respect and honor others’ rights, and it is my reason that has so far allowed me to stay sober -- every reasoned decision day after day, that drink is not a viable choice.
Endgame, you seemed to be asking for this response, and I mean that in the friendliest possible way.
On s'engage et puis, on voit.
Re
We're not inclined to analyze such statements any more than we are to question the person's motives who adorns us with such grace and beauty.
Re Positive Psychology: I think it’s obvious I’m not a fan, either. I was born with an analytic bent, raised to mistrust and deride, and trained in the art of criticism.
So now we go to your critique of Kant. Now I can’t keep up w/you on Kant, because I last read any philosophy in 1980. But this:
“maybe it's a great way to live. If only human beings were exclusively or predominantly rational beings.”
Re Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. I chose Kierkegaard. What does that say to you?
Re the self...
is not a thing; it is a task. We never are, but we're always in the process of becoming.
We search for some kind of superficial sense of safety by limiting ourselves to the labels we adapt after a few years of shopping around the mall where the label kiosk resides
Among several outcomes of Pure Reason, perhaps the most disturbing, at least for those of us who view Reason as more an enemy than a friend, is genocide. … Reason directs us as to how we select those who are “weaker” or less valuable to the population as a rational means of deciding who is to stay and who is to go. Life and death are reduced to a simple algorithm.
You admit describing reason as the enemy is overly simplistic. What do you use for decision-making instead? Impulse? Emotion? What a way to run a society! Or a life – by either one, I’d be dead. My reason, even when it was in tatters, has been what’s kept me alive.
Re
Reason and logic are formulaic.
Watch out for a false dichotomy:
There is no room for doing what is human rather than doing what is rational. Or for doing anything else but what is required by reason. They are cold, pre-calculated, and unimpassioned tools
Endgame, you seemed to be asking for this response, and I mean that in the friendliest possible way.
On s'engage et puis, on voit.
p***enger
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: NYC
Posts: 19,042
Originally Posted by biminiblue
I thought there was an "e" in judgement.
Turns out it's one of those things like the Oxford comma.
...and now they both look wrong to me.
Turns out it's one of those things like the Oxford comma.
...and now they both look wrong to me.
PS I think the bad girl in me likes no e because it breaks the "g before e, i or y" rule.
p***enger
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: NYC
Posts: 19,042
Originally Posted by tomsteve
I USED to be a drunk. im no longer a drunk
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: canada
Posts: 7,242
ah, Endgame, when someone compliments me I make a judgement about them: they are either easy to fool, or insincere and therefore somehow trying to ingratiate...uhu....after I do those, I try for a less self-deprecating perspective and do indeed analyze the compliment. often ad nauseum. to discern if it might be true in my own self-assessment.
all this has considerable lessened in ongoing sobriety.
there is so rarely the "we all" you refer to.
courage2, I've recently listened to some very interesting research that shows we do indeed make many more decisions based on feeling/emotion than on reasoning or fact evaluating. on simple "because I LIKE..."
just a couple of comments, tangentially.
all this has considerable lessened in ongoing sobriety.
there is so rarely the "we all" you refer to.
courage2, I've recently listened to some very interesting research that shows we do indeed make many more decisions based on feeling/emotion than on reasoning or fact evaluating. on simple "because I LIKE..."
just a couple of comments, tangentially.
p***enger
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: NYC
Posts: 19,042
Endgame, thanks for taking my comments in fun -- I don't really think I can buy into Kant either, even if the idea of "pure reason" has its attractions.
fini, I expect people do make decisions from emotion, a lot. But I'm afraid of my emotions!
fini, I expect people do make decisions from emotion, a lot. But I'm afraid of my emotions!
Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 10,912
My "analysis paralysis" feature has become a lot milder and benign with sustained sobriety. Or perhaps age. Most likely a combination of both, including awareness and effort. In any case, it's quite fortunate to be able to make living from this natural inclination, no?
Courage, there is a lot of good information out there about the role of emotions in decision making, and how problems with experiencing/regulating emotions, or lack of emotions, go hand-in-hand with bad decisions. Check out, for example, the work of neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, he is famous and popular for that type of work. I think that reason (rationality) and emotions cannot truly be separated from each-other as we hardly ever experience any in a pure form (unless some kind of severe brain damage causes it). Rationality/logic and emotional processes are often put as polar opposites, but in reality they are intertwined and affect decisions and actions as a complex interrelated network of processes.
Courage, there is a lot of good information out there about the role of emotions in decision making, and how problems with experiencing/regulating emotions, or lack of emotions, go hand-in-hand with bad decisions. Check out, for example, the work of neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, he is famous and popular for that type of work. I think that reason (rationality) and emotions cannot truly be separated from each-other as we hardly ever experience any in a pure form (unless some kind of severe brain damage causes it). Rationality/logic and emotional processes are often put as polar opposites, but in reality they are intertwined and affect decisions and actions as a complex interrelated network of processes.
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: canada
Posts: 7,242
fini, I expect people do make decisions from emotion, a lot. But I'm afraid of my emotions!
well, i'm not afraid of my emotions, but ....but....don't want to make decisions based on them. afraid of THAT. mostly.
emotions come and go, and i 'expect' my reasoning to be more stable than my emotions, and therefore to lead to better decisions.
but this may not be so, and is fraught with other dangers. my reasoning might be incorrect. i might be missing essential information without realizing it.
i have made decisions solely based on emotions, and sometimes those were exactly the right thing to do. when love overrode reasoning.
this is too simplistically put, of course.
and then i think about things such as /responsibility', which is....what? a commitment, for example, entails both emotion and reason.
in my upbringing i felt constantly judged, and i was. didn't just feel that i was.
i still struggle to not "do that to others".
It’s my reason that allows me to understand and decide to express sympathy to others, you don't feel it?
well, i'm not afraid of my emotions, but ....but....don't want to make decisions based on them. afraid of THAT. mostly.
emotions come and go, and i 'expect' my reasoning to be more stable than my emotions, and therefore to lead to better decisions.
but this may not be so, and is fraught with other dangers. my reasoning might be incorrect. i might be missing essential information without realizing it.
i have made decisions solely based on emotions, and sometimes those were exactly the right thing to do. when love overrode reasoning.
this is too simplistically put, of course.
and then i think about things such as /responsibility', which is....what? a commitment, for example, entails both emotion and reason.
in my upbringing i felt constantly judged, and i was. didn't just feel that i was.
i still struggle to not "do that to others".
It’s my reason that allows me to understand and decide to express sympathy to others, you don't feel it?
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
