icarus3.com: Forums / Ask a Question / Questions about your philosophy

icarus3.com :: Forums :: General - PLEASE NOTE: YOU MUST FIRST SIGNUP TO POST :: Ask a Question		<< Previous thread \| Next thread >>
Questions about your philosophy


Moderators: icarus

Author

Post

Philosophy Guru

Guest

You wrote: "So freedom is the origin of all values. To commit to anything necessarily entails committing to freedom". Would you say freedom is therefore of objective value since it is because of freedom that all other values are possible? Presumably, if you did concede that freedom was of objective value (even instrumental value), that would lead to problems in your theory.

You also wrote: "In order to be truly happy, you have to accept that you are alone, free, and thus inevitably responsible for yourself in this meaningless world."

Why be truly happy according to your philosophy? (indeed, why be coherent at all?) Anyway, I'm glad that your theory does not preclude being truly happy - from a subjective viewpoint, you would have to be a nut to think that happiness was less or equally desirable than unhappiness. So it's good to know that, whatever your philosophy, you think that an agent can live and die a happy life! As Rabelais said, 'le rire est le propre de l'homme'! Laughter and happiness are intrinsic to humandhood! I'll drink to that!

You introduce the notion of responsibility, which is closely tied to the notion of duty. From your writing, it feels like you suggest a rational agent has a duty to himself/herself X, Y, Z. How can you reconcile your strong belief in responsibility and duty to oneself with the belief that nothing really matters? Surely, if you have a duty to do X [i], if cannot be meaningless whether or not you do X?

I look forward to your replies!

Philosophy Guru

icarus

Registered Member #1

Joined:
Posts: 37

You have misunderstood part of my philosophy.

I never said that freedom was of objective value. Nothing is. I am saying that IF you wish to live coherently, you cannot ignore it (unless you choose the 'indifference' way of life). As a fully self-conscious being, you would have to sacrifice your life to free others in order to be coherent, otherwise you would be lying to yourself. You would be denying that others are free, treating them as objects for your own self-interest. Unless you can own up that you really see other beings as mere objects to your desires, you are incoherent. Either sacrifice yourself to help slaves become free, or don't. If you don't, do not pretend to others and more importantly to yourself, that you care about anybody or anything other than yourself.

Freedom is not a value in the common sense because the coherent person fighting for freedom is always aware that his efforts will amount to nothing. He doesn’t even care whether he achieves his goal or not. He chooses to live like that for no reason. His choice becomes his self. In accepting his choice as his own, his fate as his own, and his responsibility as his own, he becomes coherent.

> > > Why be truly happy according to your philosophy?

There is no reason (never said there was).

> > > from a subjective viewpoint, you would have to be a nut to think that happiness was less or equally desirable than unhappiness.

I am not saying that happiness is more or less desirable than unhappiness. I am just saying it doesn’t matter objectively whether it is or not. If that’s what you mean, then I may be ‘nuts’ from the social perspective, but not from the rational one.

> > > Laughter and happiness are intrinsic to humandhood!

Nothing is intrinsic to humanhood. You are what you make of yourself.

> > > Surely, if you have a duty to do X [i], if cannot be meaningless whether or not you do X?

Well, objectively, there is no responsibility hence no duty. However, a coherent person creates his own meaningless duty by aspiring towards integrity (achieved by freeing others). Whether it is possible to accomplish this duty in full consciousness of its absurdity is the crucial question. Clearly, you think it is not feasible. I think it is possible in theory (I call it the ‘existential hero’), but I don’t know if it is in practice. That is what I am trying to find out.

the One

"The Illusionist's apprentice"

Registered Member #28

Joined:
Posts: 11

A coherent person can never free an incoherent person. a coherent person can only observe weather or not others will accept his views.
However, it is possible for an incoherent person to "free" another person.
Coherent or not, it is possible to influence anothers way of thinking, and suggest alternative reasonings inside another's mind.

Also, if a person is indifferent to whether he lives or dies, isnt it possible that such a person is free, even if he does lack the resources for surival?

so there.

icarus

Registered Member #1

Joined:
Posts: 37

You make a distinction between wishing and trying, but they are the same for a coherent person. In other words, a person is (in)coherent both in his wishes and and his acts. A goal is realised in one’s mind, not in one’s deeds alone.

A Coherent Being can show another how free he really is. Whether the other makes use of his newly-found freedom to become coherent is not up to the Coherent Being who is not concerned with what the other chooses to do with his freedom. Similarly, an incoherent being can enslave (or “free” in inverted commas as you have used) another person in order to make him incoherent.

Yes, I agree that it is possible to influence and persuade others through reasoning.

I also agree that an indifferent person in the sense I have outlined in my philosophy is free. In fact, all coherent beings are free, no matter how their practical circumstances seem to restrict their choices.

---
Icarus

Rumi-on-fire

Registered Member #273

Joined:
Posts: 3

>>>>>Nothing is intrinsic to humanhood. You are what you make of yourself.

The ability to love is intrinsic to us. At its root, it's not a learned behavior, same goes for the ability to appreciate beauty. We can always choose to develop a taste for it; however, the feeling of heightened sensations upon hearing an uplifting musical piece is not learned.


Jump: Back to top