Sorry, before I mention my personal goals I just want to say that I disagree with the notion that logic is meaningless without being founded on an underlying goal… Logic as I understand it is by definition merely a method of thinking, or the concept of sequencing thought to reach conclusions, and determining why some of such sequences are right. I believe logic in itself- according to the second definition I proposed- tends to the end of a goal, and that goal is rationality. Naturally, without having anything to sequence logic is nothing and has no breadth, but in this universe where the breadth of the construct “logic” is contingent on the human’s ability to sequence data it should inherently have a goal, at least today as the human appears, and that goal should be rationality, in my opinion. I believe assuming your proposal is correct would mean assuming “logic” as you used it in your proposal is simply defined as a method of thinking, and not its more fundamental meaning, which I proposed.
My goal is simply to express in my lifetime my views on everything… I do not feel I can change the world. I do not feel I can simply approach every human I encounter and explain to them why I believe my opinions to be correct and all conceivable dissenting opinions to be wrong. I will just express myself in my own way one day and that will be it… I created an account on this website more or less randomly for me because I was recommended going here once, a while ago.
I do not believe that “stress” in itself is something to be considered when it comes to one’s method of forcing the world to tend to the end they want to… I will explain what I mean. Please excuse any possible argument by assertion fallacies henceforth… converting everything to E-Prime is tiring but I do believe opinions have to actually be defended to be rational… If i ever simply assert that I believe something is true that is a mistake, as i meant to rationalize its breadth in its entirety to believe it has the capacity to be defended and inherently rebut all conceivable dissenting arguments...
Obviously, the human’s understanding of rationality is a consequence of themselves, to some extent. That is not to say that rationality so defined is entirely a consequence of the human and that the human literally created a portion of this universe that retains the properties of “rationality”… What I mean is, humans appear to feel emotion, and humans appear to correlate their understanding of the concepts of “good” and “evil” to what they perceive to be positive and negative emotion, respectively. Fundamentally, every human who retains the standard properties of the human lives through their own emotionality and their idea of good and evil is founded on that very thing.
Ugh… I just realized if I expound my philosophy any further I will be affirming for the first time since posting here my opinions which many will probably disagree with but basically I think that “stress” if “stress” is defined as pain(negative emotion) entirely in the head, meaning it is simply perception, ascribing emotion to certain things and feeling pain as a result, it is entirely a consequence of perception and can be manipulated to become pleasure… Perhaps it will be a certain iteration of masochism, and perhaps actually enduring perceived stress in reality will have consequences on the outside world as distinguished from your own psyche, possibly prompting an entire lifestyle change but “stress” should be irrelevant if its properties can just be totally changed with a different opinion, in my opinion.
When it comes to me, I believe so strongly that all who disagree with me is wrong that it seems extremely unnecessary to saturate my believing their being wrong with something else in an attempt to make me cope with my own emotionality. I believe there are other ways to cope with oneself than compromising on their own beliefs. I just correlate things to good or evil freely, at face value. I really wouldn’t make progress insofar as inciting a revolution is concerned by tolerating what I believe to be wrong, either. Perhaps by “goals” you mean something other than forcing the world to tend to its most rational end as you perceive it.
About your last sentence, I don’t believe in manipulating via anything other than argument to entice others to do as you wish… If it is something less than true reason to think, which I believe can only be conveyed via argument of some sort, it will be blind conformity, and any society or standard based on that is doomed to conceive notions as worthless as the one it was founded on, making it inferior to what it could and I believe should be. Also, it’s interesting that misanthropes are drawn to reason. I kind of expected it but I’ve had bad experiences with self-proclaimed misanthropes retaining the human property I hate, rendering their sub-ostracization asinine in my eyes… I probably rambled a lot in this post, sorry. I don’t know what type of reply I would expect to this if any. Thanks for reading if you did.
Sorry, before I mention my personal goals I just want to say that I disagree with the notion that logic is meaningless without being founded on an underlying goal… Logic as I understand it is by definition merely a method of thinking, or the concept of sequencing thought to reach conclusions, and determining why some of such sequences are right. I believe logic in itself- according to the second definition I proposed- tends to the end of a goal, and that goal is rationality. Naturally, without having anything to sequence logic is nothing and has no breadth, but in this universe where the breadth of the construct “logic” is contingent on the human’s ability to sequence data it should inherently have a goal, at least today as the human appears, and that goal should be rationality, in my opinion. I believe assuming your proposal is correct would mean assuming “logic” as you used it in your proposal is simply defined as a method of thinking, and not its more fundamental meaning, which I proposed.
My goal is simply to express in my lifetime my views on everything… I do not feel I can change the world. I do not feel I can simply approach every human I encounter and explain to them why I believe my opinions to be correct and all conceivable dissenting opinions to be wrong. I will just express myself in my own way one day and that will be it… I created an account on this website more or less randomly for me because I was recommended going here once, a while ago.
I do not believe that “stress” in itself is something to be considered when it comes to one’s method of forcing the world to tend to the end they want to… I will explain what I mean. Please excuse any possible argument by assertion fallacies henceforth… converting everything to E-Prime is tiring but I do believe opinions have to actually be defended to be rational… If i ever simply assert that I believe something is true that is a mistake, as i meant to rationalize its breadth in its entirety to believe it has the capacity to be defended and inherently rebut all conceivable dissenting arguments...
Obviously, the human’s understanding of rationality is a consequence of themselves, to some extent. That is not to say that rationality so defined is entirely a consequence of the human and that the human literally created a portion of this universe that retains the properties of “rationality”… What I mean is, humans appear to feel emotion, and humans appear to correlate their understanding of the concepts of “good” and “evil” to what they perceive to be positive and negative emotion, respectively. Fundamentally, every human who retains the standard properties of the human lives through their own emotionality and their idea of good and evil is founded on that very thing.
Ugh… I just realized if I expound my philosophy any further I will be affirming for the first time since posting here my opinions which many will probably disagree with but basically I think that “stress” if “stress” is defined as pain(negative emotion) entirely in the head, meaning it is simply perception, ascribing emotion to certain things and feeling pain as a result, it is entirely a consequence of perception and can be manipulated to become pleasure… Perhaps it will be a certain iteration of masochism, and perhaps actually enduring perceived stress in reality will have consequences on the outside world as distinguished from your own psyche, possibly prompting an entire lifestyle change but “stress” should be irrelevant if its properties can just be totally changed with a different opinion, in my opinion.
When it comes to me, I believe so strongly that all who disagree with me is wrong that it seems extremely unnecessary to saturate my believing their being wrong with something else in an attempt to make me cope with my own emotionality. I believe there are other ways to cope with oneself than compromising on their own beliefs. I just correlate things to good or evil freely, at face value. I really wouldn’t make progress insofar as inciting a revolution is concerned by tolerating what I believe to be wrong, either. Perhaps by “goals” you mean something other than forcing the world to tend to its most rational end as you perceive it.
About your last sentence, I don’t believe in manipulating via anything other than argument to entice others to do as you wish… If it is something less than true reason to think, which I believe can only be conveyed via argument of some sort, it will be blind conformity, and any society or standard based on that is doomed to conceive notions as worthless as the one it was founded on, making it inferior to what it could and I believe should be. Also, it’s interesting that misanthropes are drawn to reason. I kind of expected it but I’ve had bad experiences with self-proclaimed misanthropes retaining the human property I hate, rendering their sub-ostracization asinine in my eyes… I probably rambled a lot in this post, sorry. I don’t know what type of reply I would expect to this if any. Thanks for reading if you did.