The below is content from: http://justanotherblogonsavingtheworld.blogspot.ca/Original content is in black, annotations and insights by myself are in red.

The below is content from: http://justanotherblogonsavingtheworld.blogspot.ca/
Original content is in black, annotations and insights by myself are in red.

Rationalist Morals: The Deets
Secondary Titles that Can be Reused for Anything: The Deets OR
Lazy Yet Trying to Be Hip and/or Cool Bloggers: The Deets

(originally posted Oct. 29, 2011)
Since the beginning of time, essays have started with this phrase.The beginning of time does not coincide with the writing of essays. This phrase however does coincide with douchebag writers thoughout the ages. 

This essay will elaborate on the "rationalist morals" introduced in my recent note: "Agnosticism: A basis for Rationalist Morals." This doesn't seem like a phrase that appears in ANY other essay. Your first paragraph was both stupid and erroneous. Suck a bag of dicks.



I have finally found something I like in Adam's blog. Something he didn't create.

(http://justanotherblogonsavingtheworld.blogspot.ca/2013/01/agnosticism-basis-for-rationalist-morals.html)
One of that essay's arguments will serve as the introduction for this essay.Be still my beating heart.

"Agnostics have the potential to have the strongest and purest morals.  To a degree, Agnostic morals are scientific, as they are based entirely on evidence.  They're "objective" in the methodological interpretation of the word: subject to change based on experience.  More importantly, they're almost completely transferable between people(s), because in general we share the same experiences in the same ways."

None of what he said creates a coherent argument, let alone a logical one.

The introduction presents four theses; I'll elaborate each one in turn.
Oh fuck, he's attempting to make the above crap into coherent arguments. This will suck.

1)  "Agnostics have the potential to have the strongest morals."
Every belief system has different sources of moral strength.  For Christians, it's faith.  For Islamists, it's submission.  For Jews, it's the word/study.

I find this more than mildly intolerant in its quick summarizations of the three religious groups. and while he may not mean negative connotations on submission in the Islamic faith, by not elaborating he has left the reader to think that. You are a dick. PS. Fear of God is more relevant than word/study in the Jewish faith. Word/study is actually better for the Islamic group that put justice in the hands of religious scholars (though not all groups do)... Dick. However, for Agnostics, the source of moral strength is will.  Why "will?"  Well, most beliefs and creeds incorporate will into their moral strength.  For example, for some denominations of Christianity, will is central because of the importance of having a "free will" to merit theology.
Moral strength has not yet been defined and the extent to how people help/hurt people varies without a mandatory correlation to religious beliefs. I don't avoid murdering you because I'm Christian, Atheist, or Muslim; I do it because I don't want to get sent to jail. Conversely I don't volunteer to help the homeless necessarily for those reasons alone. Maybe a commercial made me feel bad and I wanted to help, or maybe I was homeless or faced financial hardship in my past and want to help people having that same experience. 

Although most beliefs and creeds share will as a component in their moral strength, Agnosticism is the only system of thought that I have encountered where moral strength is almost entirely determined by strength of will.

What about Atheists... Agnosticism acknowledges the possible existence of a God of some sort, atheists flat out deny a God exists. Isn't their existence even more morally driven cause there's not even a chance of God existing in their minds?

Agnostics have the potential to have the strongest morals because of the nature of will.  Will is the only ability that we all share that has no substantive limits; the presence and use of will is rational; the use of will, such as Nietzsche's will to power, is intrinsic to the human being; finally, human beings had will long before they had faith, submission, or the word.  Will is innate.

I get what you're saying, but why are you saying it. It's just pretentious drivel. 

In sum, as something all human beings share from birth with no substantive limits, will presents an opportunity to have stronger morals.

Whatever bitch.

2) "Agnostics have the potential to have the purest morals."

I must state from the outset that when I talk of purity, I'm referring to degree of logic, reasoning, and consistency.

As stated in my previous note on this topic, Agnosticism is founded upon reason.  Reason is one of, if not, the best method(s) of knowing available to humanity.  Most other beliefs and creeds rely on "weaker" methods of knowing, such as revelation or authority.  (obviously the latter two methods are interrelated) These methods of knowing: revelation and authority, share the same problem with theism and atheism --- they are incredible by definition.
Not only are theist/atheist morals sometimes illogical and unreasonable, they also tend to be inconsistent, at least relative to rationalist morals.  There are many examples of this - just look at the Bible - *see Bertrand Russel's essay*/go google "inconsistencies in the Bible."

Dude, as I said above, Atheism. "Most other beliefs and creeds rely on "weaker" methods of knowing, such as revelation or authority." Dude. Their beliefs are based on science. You're a moron.

In addition to their logic, reasoning, and consistency, rationalist morals bear their purity because of their simplicity.  They are derived from basic reason based on basic experiences --- there are no complex/farfetched external variables such as faith or submission etc.  Rationalist morals are Occam's Razor'ed morals.
In sum,  rationalist morals are based on the most rational and simplest methods of knowing, and as such, have the potential to be the purest.I sound like a broken record because all I can say is "HAVE YOU HEARD OF ATHEISM!?!?!"
At least I don't sound like an oblivious douchebag (thats you, just in case you were oblivious to what my blog is trying to tell you).

3)  "To a degree, Agnostic morals are scientific, as they are based entirely on evidence.  They're "objective" in the methodological interpretation of the word: subject to change based on experience."

"3)" was essentially covered in the previous paragraph - so I'm going to leave it for now.Thank God... or science... or whatever
***Edit*** Yeah I think I'm actually going to address this.NOOOOOOO! There is no God... or Science
I'd argue that rationalist morals are exclusively empirical.  They essentially avoid the metaphysical as much as possible, with the possible exception of human feeling.  (The question as to whether or not emotion serves as a metaphysical exception is based on whether or not one thinks emotion rational.)

If it is debatable that rationalist morals can be based on human feeling; you are saying you aren't certain that rationalist morals can love. Keep you morals away from me hater.

As a product of empiricism, rational morals gain transferability between peoples as almost all our cognitions are based on empirical evidence.  Also, rational morals gain credibility from their positivist roots - which, importantly, include objectivity: the susceptibility to change based on new evidence.   This objectivity presents an enormous advantage over the many beliefs and creeds that remain dogmatically static, such as most sects of Islam.  A rationalist morality only becomes static (i.e. absolute) when it reaches full development, which would essentially require every experience ever.
Attacking Muslims again? At least they know what they're talking about. 

4)  "They're almost completely transferable between people(s), because in general we share the same experiences in the same ways."
Of all my points so far, this is undoubtedly the most important.
That means nothing to me.

Allow me to illustrate.  There is, as of yet, only one universal language shared by all peoples, at all times, in all places.  I'm speaking of course of mathematics.  
My guess was Charades... I feel like my sister would have difficulty communicating via math. 

It's no coincidence that mathematics and rationalist morals are almost universally applicable by all peoples.  They are both founded upon the same Occam's Razor'ed principles: those of reason, logic, and experience.  [Rationalist morals present another universal language, or at least - an excellent contender for a universal language.]  
A universal language where you don't say good morning. You give silent, passionate tearful hugs. Offices productivity drops faster than Adam's hopes in this blog would inspire people.

I realize the latter argument could be used for any other language such as English etc., however, there is an important distinction between the language of mathematics and most other languages.  Most  languages have cultural overtones and values that distort and vary their meaning, however, mathematics/reason/logic are almost completely neutral and impartial.  The same goes for rationalist morals in this respect.  Culture doesn't/shouldn't get in the way of rationalist morals.
Which will be more effective: "Hey Doug, pass me that stapler please." or "56+27-(84^6) INTEGRATE"

In sum, rationalist morals are almost completely transferable between people(s), because they're founded on shared experiences and cognition.
Morals are transferable, those staplers, not so much...

Well, now that I've described the criteria and skeleton of rationalist morals, I thought I'd end this note by fleshing out one - one of the most basic and universal:  "Do on to others as you would have done to you."  The Golden Rule: almost every belief and creed shares it, in some form.
The use of belief here referencing a group of people just shows how ambiguously he uses his terms. Is a belief a tenant, a group of people, or an individual thought in your manifesto. The lack of definition is lazy, incoherent and really shows how much of this is you talking out your ass.

Why is the Golden Rule a rationalist moral?
A dramatic question... damn, I feel like I made have made a mistake in crossing you my majestic leader.

The answer lies in the reasoning for the rule: empathy.  Empathy, or the presence of empathy, is one of the most fundamental rationalist morals - that of understanding, or the ability to understand, a person's feelings and values, and how they affect them.  The Golden Rule is a direct projection of empathy, i.e., don't do things to other people that would make you feel bad if they were done to you.  Thus, the rationalist moral in this instance, is not the projected Golden Rule, but empathy. Without empathy, there is no logical reason to follow the Golden Rule.
If I punch my neighbour in the morning, he might punch me back, or call the cops, or react in some other way that harms me. I will not punch him, not because I empathize with him, but because as a completely self interested person, I do not wish to be punched in the face, or get arrested. OR I don't want to talk to this homeless man, I'll give him change so I can get da fuck outta here.

I'll create another note outlining some other key rationalist morals in a while --- I still have to finish researching for that essay I mentioned in the last note.
So all of this is based on an argument in a note that I have not finished researching. But seriously guys, I'm not pulling this out of my ass due to a superiority complex. Not at all.

P.S.
(Here's a hint for finding rationalist morals - they're usually the morals that almost every belief and creed share.)
Hint, this is extremely open ended. It's not insightful, it's just generic bullshit.

Cheers. 

The below is content from: http://justanotherblogonsavingtheworld.blogspot.ca/
Original content is in black, annotations and insights by myself are in red. Guest blogging this week is my lovely partner who provided all the GIFs.

On Conservatism

(originally published Oct. 5, 2012)
“It is not the failure of others to appreciate your abilities that should trouble you, but rather your failure to appreciate theirs." - Confucius
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know I promised a note featuring a less serious topic: namely, 'In Defence of Video Gaming.'  It's practically finished, but in honour of Canadian Thanksgiving and for self-care reasons, I had to publish this note first.
If you have to defend it in your manifesto blog, on some level you realize how sad it is that you spent 40 hours a week in high school playing them.

I've touched on this topic in the past, indirectly, especially in my first note ever: The Deadliest Sin. To save you the trouble of reading it if you haven't already, excessive pride is bad.  If you don't agree, you might find it interesting. (http://justanotherblogonsavingtheworld.blogspot.ca/2013/01/the-deadliest-sin.html)

"Save you the trouble of reading it" Even he realizes how shitty his blogs are.
What is conservatism?

Before I read this, I am flat out saying if your only academic source is Wikipedia, you have proved nothing. In other words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3u2mBVFEHc 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wikipedia defines it as: "a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions."  My definition would be more exhaustive.  I'd argue that conservatism is a state of being.

A small "C" conservative (as opposed to big "C" Conservative in the political sense) has lost, or submitted, in an internal struggle with their self.

As I argued in On Free Will, every human being is born with the "motivation to enhance and incur pleasure while minimize and eliminate pain."  But the self: the ego, (Latin for "I") determines the outcome of this struggle.

At birth, we don't question the dominance of the self, and thus, our motivation to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.  It's natural, in the innate sense.  A baby will smile when it feels pleasure and cry when it feels pain.  I'm referring to both pleasure and pain in the widest sense: pain would also include fear and insecurity.

However, gradually as we get more experienced we start to become sensitive to the feelings of others, not just our own.  As empathy develops, we become less and less self-centric and more and more liberal; not in the political sense, but rather in the sense that we value the welfare of others.  This is why basically every late teenager and student in their early 20's in North America votes for the politically Left.

Eventually, however, most people in North America turn away from liberalism and become more and more conservative.  Why is this?

Simply, they give up.

 Liberalism is great in theory; after all, it's easy to be in favor of raising taxes when you aren't paying any.  But the moment you start to pay your own share of taxes, "to support the drug habits of the homeless at Richmond and Dundas" as one of my favorite professors once stated, you turn inward.  You focus on your immediate values, such as immediate family.  You argue that the state will take care of "those people."  And eventually, you turn full-blown curmudgeon, like my boss at work and my academic adviser.

You see, it's easy to be conservative. It's a part of our basic hardware as human beings.

 But, here's my point: conservatism isn't going to change anything, by definition.  In fact, in some respects conservatives cause more harm than they claim to prevent.

 They choose alienation and segregation rather than community - when has alienation ever created anything positive?  It defies our existence as a species and as subjects within an ecosystem.

Conservatives have given a "great sigh;" they feel like the ultimate victims. The Tea Partiers in the US illustrate this perfectly.  All those flags that demand "don't tread on me."  They've given up on trying to appreciate others, and demand that the world appreciate them.

my thoughts:

It's like one of the greatest exercises in egotism.

I thought she was going to post a screenshot of his blog here.

To  be honest, I pity conservatives.  The most conservative person out there is usually the most alienated; the one that feels that they're the most victimized.

Conservatives are the most in need of community, and they have one of the greatest struggles ahead of them to ever appreciate anyone besides themselves (if they can even appreciate that), ever again.

As such, the genuine "leftists": those who care about the future of the planet as a whole, have a great responsibility to the conservative.

 You see, just as it's easy for the conservative to turn inwards, it's easy for the liberal to turn their back on the conservative.

 All you accomplish by turning your back on conservatives is to alienate, victimize, and thus, feed their conservatism even more.  It's easy to mock Tea Partiers, but much more difficult to empathize with them - to invite them to come together for the benefit of all.

I find Canadian Thanksgiving presents a serious challenge for conservatives.  It forces them to appreciate others, if only they're immediate family.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be honest, I kind of detest "Thanksgiving."  How so many in Western society pride themselves on their being thankful for what they have "one" day a year.  It makes a mockery of all that we have been given.

I fight for the day when we celebrate Thanksgiving every second of every hour of every day, together.  It's worth the struggle.

"The example he used was cutting the cake at a party. In Adam's perfectworld the person who cut the cake would pass the piece to someone else (selflessness), and that personwould pass the cake to the next person (more selflessness). In this thought experiment, no one eats apiece of cake until one of them decides to be selfish. The idea of a group of people continuously passing a piece of cake." In his perfect world, people would die of starvation while passing food around... 

The below is content from: http://justanotherblogonsavingtheworld.blogspot.ca/
Original content is in black, annotations and insights by myself are in red

Marksx - The Opium of the Non-Intellectual? this Douchebag Writer!
Fixed it for you... Noob. 

(originally published Sept. 20, 2011)
Today I had to write a map quiz for Latin American History.  My heart sank a little when one of my younger class mates complained, with vehemence, that "I'll be so pissed off if I don't get perfect."  Let's leave aside, for a moment, the implication that this person's life revolves, to some degree,  around a number on a piece of paper - and ask the real question - why is this person in that room?  Why does one go to class?
You know why I didn't go to class? To avoid pretentious bloggers like you.
Most of your professors would probably argue that you go to class to "get educated." In all likelihood, your subsequent question: what does it mean to be educated, would receive a mix of responses - in some form or another - "To develop a love of learning."
"You go to class to gain knowledge to help the world? Are you a med student or a researcher working on cancer?" "Nah, I just studied shit like Latin American History, but read my blog it'll totally save the world!"

If we're there, as they say, to develop a love a learning, then what do a couple figures on a sheet of paper really mean?

These figures? They're called letters, and here they mean 'fuck you buddy'

One of my favorite professors often associates intellectualism with this love of learning, and with good reason, as attributing "intellectualism" or being "smart" to knowing a set of facts, or some set of experiences, is futile at the best of times.  Socrates was most famous for recognizing this futility of using objective knowledge as a basis for measuring the wisdom of a philosopher.  He claimed to be the wisest amongst his peers because he knew he knew nothing, and more specifically, because he was not afraid to say so.

Then why do you keep posting smug plans about your final solutions to save humanity. Wouldn't the truest mark of knowledge mean that you weren't always posting about how brilliant you are? My objective knowledge leads me to believe it is because you are a piece of shit.

What I ask, is that you ask yourself - what would Socrates have thought of marks?

Spoilers below, he won't give you time to think for yourself. He's too busy trying failing to brainwash you into joining his non-existent following.

I've reflected on the latter question much over the past summer.  My summary conclusion is that marks do mean something.  They mean something to non-intellectuals - to those who have not yet developed a love of learning.    However, they don't just matter to the non-intellectual student; they also mean something to their non-intellectual would-be employer.  Set aside the motivational effects of marking, and what you're left with is a system where marks are sought out and used by non-intellectuals in order to impress other non-intellectuals.

In Adam's perfect world, there are no marks. People are given jobs they love. Bridges fall down, bankers forget to carry the one, and society is more or less fucked. Nothing works, but at least we are intellectuals... If he ever takes over I am so hoarding clean drinking water and Spam.

What's really trivial?  Learning a map, or getting emotionally escalated over a couple figures?

The sad thing about this blog is, I agree. Except for everything he said to back up his arguments. What fucking idiot takes a point that you standby and then argues it so poorly you tear all their supporting data to shreds? For the record, I get that the last statement is supposed to tie back to the test at the start of the story, but it just sounds like he's learning a map to survive in a hunter gather kind of way. I, as a 'non-intellectual' would like to point out he would die in a week, I would then take what is left of his provisions and laugh at the memory of such a failure of a person.

Cheers.

PS. Big shout out to my reader. Thomas, I never thought anyone would read these. Thanks bud.

The below is content from: http://justanotherblogonsavingtheworld.blogspot.ca/
Original content is in black, annotations and insights by myself are in red

The Deadliest Sin

There are 7, but only I was smart enough to figure which is the worst of them

(originally published June 20, 2011)
First off, this is just the skeleton of an essay I plan on writing in full later on after I'm out of school (if that ever happens).
I feel like I could organize a group of people who would contribute to paying his tuition forever so we could prevent this full essay from being written. However, it would be more cost effective to just hire a bully who follows him around and prevents him from writing ever again.
Secondly, there will be no sourcing used to back up my arguments, in part because of the first point, and also because Facebook does not allow you to use footnotes.  And no, I did not write this in MLA or APA style even though they were possible alternatives, because as an amateur historian it is my sworn duty to write exclusively in University of Chicago Style. (Interrupt my pros will you?) (With your incessant brackets)
"I will not cite any of my arguments, because then it may become apparent that I am talking out of my ass. I will however make a self-deprecating joke about being an 'amateur' to seem more humble while ending my paragraph with some overly snooty comments to once again assert how clever I am (A. Douchebag,  2011)."

Thirdly, as you can probably tell already, this essay will be informal.

Fourthly, and finally, this is still a serious topic; one that really hits home for me, and probably will for you too.

This is not a serious topic, this is online self flagellation. 
---
To whom this may concern,

I learned from my mother that this was a proper and acceptable way to start a letter. I still think it is a bit pretentious. However, what follows makes this seem modest.

I often find myself feeling guilty whenever I unintentionally intimidate others.  I try my hardest to keep to myself, and outside this profile and my presence in class, very few people actually know anything about me - which is largely my doing.  You see, I purposefully minimize my value, even sometimes sacrificing and denying my capabilities and talents.
I have never seen anyone intimidated by Adam. Ever. Not intellectually, absolutely not physically, he is not intimidating. When I read this paragraph, I imagine he is answering the question "Why don't people always want to hang out, why don't girls want to talk to me, why am I staying in on a Saturday night writing Facebook notes about my wonderful theories instead of telling them to people? Because I try my hardest to keep to myself, and outside this profile and my presence in class, very few people actually know anything about me - which is largely my doing.  You see, I purposefully minimize my value, even sometimes sacrificing and denying my capabilities and talents. To save the world of course. It's all to save the world (A. Douchebag, 2011)."

"Why would anyone do such a thing?" You might ask - especially in this vocation and credential focused world that's becoming more vocation- and credential-centric every day.  Well, I have many reasons, but the most influential are those relating to my opinion of pride.

Just to be clear. He is attacking a world that measures merit on experience and training. Looking back in history, other systems that determined what opportunities you had access to determined this on criteria such as the colour of your skin or whether you were born into the right family (I am not saying these problems are not present in our world today, but they are not entrenched as the main factor). 
Many philosophers, psychologists, etc. argued and continue to argue that the ego is an integral part of a healthy self-actualizing individual.  But you don't need to consult them to justify pride - just look out the nearest window.  There's a near consensus about the moral acceptability of pride - a consensus reflected by how most people cannot even second guess their vanity.  It's practically normal.
"I saved those people from that burning building. I am going to take pride in that I have helped people today."
"Fuck you, you're a fire fighter! Don't take any pride in your accomplishments just maintain an emotionless existence until you die on the job and I criticize your inability to save yourself" (A. Douchebag, 2011).

"But Adam - if it's practically normal?  Why write this note on Facebook?"  Because although it's "normal," excessivepride will only and always cause harm.  Excessive pride, for the purpose of this essay, will mean: over-valuing the self.
Ok, so maybe he doesn't hate fire fighters. But if you take his last paragraph and this paragraph together, it insinuates that outside your window is displays of all the pride of society and then coins the term excessive pride. He is intentionally being ambiguous over measuring pride to mislead, or he is an idiot. My money is on idiot.

Many contemporaries and many more predecessors have made and continue to make different versions of the argument I'm about to present. But one must acknowledge, that despite the best intentions of these people, pride continues to cause immense amounts of needless suffering.

It is fair to assume that too much pride may make an individual mentally elevate themselves above others, causing indifference to them and removing the moral problems of harming them. However I doubt that in a majority of cases where harm is caused that this is the motivator. More importantly, think of the person writing this, he believes he is the only person who can save the world and mentally elevates himself above others. Looks like he has some of his own excessive pride. 
"So what's so bad about excessive pride?"  Well, ask any of your local British/Western literature buffs and they'll be quick to denounce hubris.  A major theme in Western literature, especially tragedy, hubris usually takes the form of a tragic flaw in the protagonist, most famously featured in the biblical genesis story superlatively conveyed in John Milton's epic: Paradise Lost.

I'm going to leave this one alone, I've been a bit wordy this post.
Milton's work, like the Bible before it, portrayed the archangel Lucifer's fall and imprisonment in hell and his campaign to take revenge on God by corrupting his most prized children: humanity. The triggers that caused Lucifer's fall were related to excessive pride: he over-valued his self and was jealous of the value of God.  Together, these functions of pride lead him to challenge said omnipotent.  This story, the foundation story of all three of the major monotheistic religions, should have justifiably condemned pride forever into non-existence, or at least that appears to have been the desire of its creators, especially since they suggested that pride was the cause of every other sin.

Now before you get all: "Oh krap, he pulled the Bible/Pentateuch/Qur’an on us" let me assure you, I am not religious.  In fact, I find the condemnation of hubris to be one of the few things that the monotheistic religions, in their infancy, actually got right.

krap? with a 'k'? really? you want to start a following and you can't spell crap. Idiot.
"But if excessive pride has been frowned upon since the first ‘recollections’ of the Bible/Pentateuch/Qur’an, then why is it 'normal' today?"  To be honest, I don't know exactly. I know there are many factors, including influences like our innate biopsychology, certain human drives like the will to power Nietzsche identified, and the development of classical liberalism, secularism, and materialism.  Excessive pride has received varying levels of acceptance and rejection throughout human history, but I digress, this is a Facebook note for another time.
If religion says pride is bad, why aren't people living without pride? 

1. You just denounced religion, so do other people. Unless you think that your the only person progressive enough to question religion. 

2. If religions don't display pride, then why is the pope's hat so much cooler than mine?

What's important is the harm over-valuing the self creates for the self and for others.  There are many reasons to choose humility.  There are the basic reasons, such as how excessive pride leads to over-extending yourself, for example, believing and thus trying to do something when you objectively cannot.  And there are also the more complex reasons, such as how excessive pride can prevent an individual from adequately appreciating the talents and actions of their peers.

When he reads 'The Little Engine That Could' he gets to the part where the Little Engine is struggling up the hill, decides the engine failed, stops reading and feels smug.
My personal most influential reasons for detesting pride are its emotional effects: jealousy and shame.  Jealousy and shame are completely dependent on pride: without pride, neither jealousy or shame exist.  For what is jealousy but the over- or under-appreciation of the self relative to others?  And shame, the realization of one’s true value.

You would feel shame if you cheated on your spouse. Is that because someone is proud of something? The same is true of jealousy. 
I often find myself minimizing my value within the perspectives of others in order to prevent them from feeling jealousy or shame.  I have often questioned the morality of such behavior, but as it stands, ignorance is bliss – in most cases.
"When people don't agree with my arguments, I stop talking and pretend it is to spare them the jealousy of my great intellect and the shame of being proven wrong (A. Douchebag, 2011)."

Of course, this stumbles upon the ethics of suffering and the questions of whether or not there is justifiable suffering – which I believe there is - but I find the ethics of awareness to be completely circumstantial.  As my favorite professor states over and over, “A smart person knows when someone is wrong; a wise one knows when to tell them.” (I usually add “and how” to the latter statement)

If he ever develops a folowing, all who have laughed at him (most who have met him) over the years will experience this justifiable suffering...
All that to say: excessive pride can and will only cause harm to the self and others.  However, I’m not suggesting we should all under-value ourselves instead.  For under-valuing the self can be just as detrimental to the self and to others as hubris.
Oh so there is a happy medium? Your a bit late in the game to be telling me this...

What this author favours is what the ancient Greeks favoured – nosce te ipsum – Know thyself – that is, value the self for exactly what it’s worth, and thus, do what’s necessary to further realize the self’s true value.

For a guy who is always talking about being progressive himself, he really wants everyone else to aim low and stay stagnant...[…]
This presents a serious contradiction within my argument and actions.  One must do what’s necessary to realize the value of their selves at all times (which includes helping others realize the values of their selves), but I’m minimizing my ability in the perspective of others which prevents them from feeling shame or jealousy: feelings which would eventually cause them to know their selves more accurately.  What I’m saying is we have to be tactful, pragmatic, and potentially, gradualist about it.

"All I'm saying is I know people better than they know themselves. I'll let them feel shame, when they're ready to. Until then I will just silently judge them (A. Douchebag, 2011)."[…]
Those trying to be good, virtuous, etc. are subject to a paradox.  They pursue the good by all available means, all the while, they must minimize their actions as valuing good actions and taking them has the potential to tempt them to hubris.

By his own summary, no one can be good without being to proud. So how can he think he is so good? Join us next time when he tells people that dieting is pointless since it makes you uglier as a complete person.

Cheers.

The below is content from: http://justanotherblogonsavingtheworld.blogspot.ca/Original content is in black, annotations and insights by myself are in red

The below is content from: http://justanotherblogonsavingtheworld.blogspot.ca/
Original content is in black, annotations and insights by myself are in red

Experientialism - "What is the Matrix?"

Wait? The movie with roots in Plato's Cave Analogy is about the parameters of a physical world we only verify through our senses... mind = not blown... at all

(originally published Jan. 15, 2012)
I'm posting this note in honour of my SJPS class this Friday in which we will discuss the "Matrix."
You can also discuss the Matrix in World of Warcraft Anonymous support groups.
---
I've dedicated a significant portion of my life towards answering the question: why do people do what they do?
"And what bland open ended questions can I ask them?"
Towards the end of last summer, I finally answered this question, at least, to the best of my current abilities.
                                                                                                                  This is actually more humble than he has ever been
First off, let me be clear, I'm not a psychologist. Or a neurologist, for that matter.
Everything that follows is based on my observation, reading, and reflection.
And a lifetime of getting shot down by romantic partners...
---
What is Experientialism?
Well, my definition actually differs from that of Wikipedia's.  Wikipedia currently states that: "Experimentalism is the philosophical theory that experience is the source of knowledge."
My definition is more exhaustive; I'd argue that experience is the source of nearly everything.  (Excluding a priori innate knowledge such as animal instinct)

Why not argue with a source that your professors won't flunk you for citing?
---
This is not my theory, but the theory of many philosophers before myself.  To my knowledge, Protagoras, the pre-Socratic philosopher, was the first to coin something like this theory when he argued that "Man is the measure of all things."
Essentially, the theory is that everything exists because of our senses.
He's right so far...
---
(Many philosophers would argue that there is an a priori knowledge: that is, knowledge independent of experience, as phrased by Kant.  However, my argument is that experience always precedes a prioi knowledge.  You can't understand a priori knowledge without having first experienced.)
Have you ever put 50,000 things beside 10,000 things? No? Then don't try to tell me what 50000+10000 equals! Aside from this wicked difficult math equation, much of our understanding of science and nature is based on unobservable phenomenon that cannot be deduced from experiences.
---
This is already taking the form of a Kritique, so let's just assume for the purposes of this essay, that experience is the source of everything, and thus, the reason people do what they do.
Now, I could stop here: stop at experience as the source of human action, however, there's still a massive philosophical void.  How does experience become action?

Why did his ancestor experience breathing and choose to make it a regular action... we could have all been spared.

---
Well, first you need a lot of experiences.  I pragmatically labeled an individual's complete instantaneous tapestry of experiences an "indoctrination."  Although indoctrination generally has negative connotations, it's the only word I could find that remotely captures the meaning of a "collection of experiences," besides education, which I find isn't quite the same thing.  An education refers to a certain set of experiences; not your collective exposure.
Another word for a chain of actions you will experience - life. Not used here as the author is arguing everyone is indoctrinated and proving that not everyone has a life.
----
So.  You experience.  These experiences consolidate into an indoctrination.
However, the void still remains.  How does your indoctrination become action?

"The leader is good, the leader is great, we will be friends with Adam Hill as of this date" Happy? Good, stop writing.
---
Well, I discovered this last piece of the puzzle this past summer while reading the Socratic dialogue: Euthyphro.  It's one of the shorter Socratic-dialogues between Socrates and Euthyphro.  Euthyphro has come to express his condolences and offer help to Socrates who had recently been indicted for corrupting the youth and impiety.  My 'eureka' moment occurred when I read how he had corrupted the youth, or at least, how the authorities had claimed that he corrupted the youth.  According to Socrates, he was corrupting them by "inventing Gods."  My jaw dropped when I read this line.  The missing link between indoctrination and action.  It is the inventing of Gods.

I am going to start a counter for how many eureka moments he has.
Pompous Eureka Moments: 1
---
A more modern colloquial equivalent was that he was inventing values.

Via the Socratic Method it would seem he was suggesting values. Totally different from how this blog pretends to have Value.
---
Values dictate action because values are inherently right.  If they are not right, they are not values.  [The same goes for God(s)]

He defines every fucking thing, but then leaves his unquestionably perfect 'values' without descriptive detail. Lazy or stupid?
---
Think about it for a second.  Why have you done anything in your life?  And why are you doing what you're doing right now?  Values.  Always.
You go to school, maybe to get a job, maybe just to get an education, maybe simply because your family wants you to, because your experiences have caused you to value certain things.

You murder people? VALUES MAKE YOU DO IT!
----
This is experientialism: it is a calculus of human behaviour.

Pointless extrapolations: I try (and fail) to seem more powerful/insightful/not full of shit 

---
You begin by sensing; by seeing, hearing, and feeling.  (Introspective thought and reflection also occur at this stage --- more on this later --- Reason is also a sense)  Then these sensations consolidate into an indoctrination.  Think of your indoctrination as the instantaneous structure of your brain at a specific point in time.  Within this indoctrination there manifests sets of experiences: values.  And you are left to simply enact your values.

How did seeing, hearing and feeling lead to the using fire to cook food. You don't observe or experience food poisoning constantly and think "that shit that I experienced burning myself with could solve this problem" 
---
experience->indoctrination->values->action

8=you=are=a=dick=> 
---
This is it folks.  This is the Matrix.  This is the law that governs everything we do; the formula that has shaped human action throughout history.

This is it folks. The kind of self flagellating bullshit that I can no longer let slide. What kind of egotistical douche tries to summarize the whole of our existence and the way we live in just over 700 words? The same guy who inspires a blog with no purpose other than criticize him. 

---
You don't believe me?  Think about it.

You don't believe him? Good, there's hope for us all yet.

Cheers.

A Note on the Subject of Analysis

"At this point, I honestly live each and every moment for the beings of the future. Only when the wise treasure the births of their children more than their own; i.e. only when no child is born in vain, will I stop struggling."

Who the fuck writes this? This is a quote that is relatable to a great leader who has sacrificed comforts in their life to inspire great change. Except that these people don't brag about how they are martyrs for a cause, and they aren't retrospective on what they have achieved until after they have achieved it. 

I am writing this blog partially as a joke, and partially because the author of the blog I am analyzing is too. Hopefully this blog can serve as the punchline that brings some laughter to whatever he says instead of the awkward silences we are all too used to. Please note that he seems to write his 'revelations' at a rate far greater than the other great thinkers of time, I will fall behind in addressing his posts.

Cheers.