I try to keep myself in check, any time I think I've got things figured out and sorted. And, to remind myself that everyone - regardless of anything else - has a daily life filled with all sorts of hardships, awkwardness, and wonders that I don't see and can't predict.

And, to not turn down food when it's presented.

zevrem wrote:

Most of them are very personal, but here are a few that I feel safe posting here.

Don't take pains to persecute/hate the poor. If I hate a certain group of people that happen to be poor, they'll give me plenty of reasons to hate them that maybe are related to poverty but are not part and parcel of poverty. This makes my thinking with regard to politics much more calm and rational and helps distance me from vulgar apologists for the system even as I also seek to distance myself from parasitic radicals.

Don't take pains to protect/advance the rich. Rich people aren't of any use to me unless they're giving money to me or something I care about. If I admire a person who has made a lot of money, then I'll admire their judgment and discretion, but NOT their wealth. This has similar effects on my mind to the previous rule.

And yet, you use much more complimentary language, there, and a much more positive framing for the rich than the poor. You may not be as rational about this as you feel you are, particularly if you're talking about "vulgar apologists for the system" and "parasitic radicals" in contrast to your admiration of the "judgment and discretion" of some people who happen to be rich.

zevrem wrote:

You have to admit, most monopolies got where they are today because they're the only ones to put forward a sincere effort at succeeding in their industry. But aside from that, most people get rich by getting lucky and finding good engineers, or relying on subsidy."

I'm not sure either of those is true. In fact, I'd put good money on both being false, but very good myths to tip the market in your favor. Money, in general, tends to follow money. And, to be safeguarded by it, as well.

There are no "haves" and "have nots." You're either going up, or you're going down. If you think there's a middle ground, then try balancing a needle on its point and get back to me on that.

zevrem wrote:

There are no "haves" and "have nots." You're either going up, or you're going down. If you think there's a middle ground, then try balancing a needle on its point and get back to me on that.

How about posting a rectangular building block on its end instead of a needle, if we're going to pick random objects to set up straw men? Because, you know, it totally works then.

If you want something more specific than haves or have nots I'd suggest working with standard deviations or something to define each group a bit more meaningfully. Then it should become apparent that while, yes, people are often going up or down, they are still going up or down in their own little bubble. My net worth went down after I got my coffee this morning but, I can personally assure you, my quality of life remained quite unchanged. That would not be the case if this morning I had gone out and decided to drop 750k dollars in a fire instead. My quality of life would be all sorts of changed then, and in shot order. There is a meaningful difference between having housing with heating, or worrying about freezing outside in the broken car you live in over the winter.

That's not just a "trending up or down" thing. If you disagree, I suggest you try it. "Having" heating is very different from "not having" heating. The same goes for plumbing, the ability to purchase multiple meals a day, and much else. Because yes, you have more with two dollars than with one dollar. But if you can't buy a single meal with the difference, that extra dollar is pretty meaningless. In contrast, that extra dollar is much more useful if it's the magic one that enables you to afford X (even if the percentage increase it brings to your net worth is much smaller).

zevrem wrote:

morals are without exception self serving

How so? I can think of several moral arguments (which I may or may not personally subscribe to) for, in certain circumstances, acting against your own best interests. What if someone's morals are suggesting self-immolation as a protest against policies they perceive as oppressive? The protest will either succeed, or fail. If it fails, it's really not serving anyone's interest. If it succeeds, there's a good chance the original protester won't be around to reap any of the changes so, again, he's not directly serving his own interests. The only way (I see) in which you could frame their interests as having been served is that they were able to act on behalf of what they felt was "right" or "good," even though they did so with the understanding they would receive no tangible benefit, and would suffer significant pain.

Or what if I (as a man) feel that it is immoral to pay women less for equal work or something? It's a pretty strong stretch to say that I'm serving my own interests there (unless "my interest" = "living in a more just world", in which case sure, I'd agree, but I wouldn't frame that as a bad thing).

I assure you that, as a white male, it would have been in my self-interest to have other races barred from higher education. That would have narrowed down the applicant pool significantly back when I was looking at colleges. It would have narrowed down the applicant pool for jobs requiring higher education post-college as well, and I certainly wouldn't mind an easier time of getting the job I want. Once more though, my (clear) self-interest in that case does not line up with what I find to be moral.

I find it hard to paint any of this as self-serving. And if we are painting such things as self-serving, than I fail to see any issue with "self-serving" actions, because their definition has become so broad as to encompass everyone's actions on an everyday basis. I think I want to breath and do so? Self-serving (and yeah, it is, but so what?). I think having police beat people is immoral and say so? Self-Serving. Then again, if I think having police beat people is moral and say so? Self serving. The term becomes totally meaningless when you allow yourself to use it that broadly.

Edit: As far as my own stuff, I remember some girl in college had a sign on her door. I forget exactly how it read, but it was something to the effect of "everyone has their own little problems". I agree. I don't think I have an adequately developed life philosophy beyond that, but I try to keep in mind that life's (unpredictably) short, and you only get to do it once (to the best of my knowledge, at least).

Last edited by Valeli (04-10-2016 10:42:25 AM)

No effort is wasted; nothing is lost.  If I think positively for a minute, struggle to sprint for a second, extend a hesitant hand to help someone else, or take one step outside of my front door - then it doesn't matter if I fail to reach some greater goal, nor if I worry over the worth of myself or my work.  There's nobility in the attempt to be better, and that's what matters, far more than any result.

A naïve rule, perhaps, but one that's kept me alive so far.

As a rule, I try to live by everything that Valeli writes for he is clearly a reasonable human.

zevrem wrote:

morals are without exception self serving

And thus, the curse of neurosis has been lifted from mankind!

Onto the topic, I am very many things that don't normally go together at all. Rules, huh? I am extremely lucky to not suffer from schizophrenia.

I'll share one of the few rules that I actually tend to abide: avoid strongly opinionated people. Avoid becoming one all the more.

You should know what your mother, father, etc, would want at end of life. And no matter how young you are, they should know what you'd want for yourself. You're never too young for this conversation.

Travelling when you retire is code for 'not travelling.' Just do it now.

Masturbate.

1. Always doubt and question power (and those who benefits)
2. Always share information
3. Never regret spending money on food, for yourself or for others

That's pretty much it.

Some spoilers can actually be helpful. You just need some idea of what you're getting into sometimes.

Virtue is something that exists in and of itself, and may (at times) be reflected in actions taken by the self.

Morality is something that encompasses virtue. As with virtue, it has no meaning of value unless you can apply it to yourself AS WELL as to everyone else, and no virtuous action can be immoral.

Given these definitions, there is nothing that rules out virtue from being applied to both parties, and being virtuous is inherently equivalent to being moral.


... I think I agree with you about the purpose of elections though.

Last edited by Valeli (05-14-2016 01:15:24 AM)

I can't help but feel that this is directed at me. I'm fine with it if it is.

Work hard. Take care of those around you. Don't take things for granted.