This episode of Wonderland dives into rationality, morality, and the hero's journey. Borrowing bits of knowledge from Stoicism, Zen Buddhism, Jordan Peterson, and Ayn Rand's Objectivism.
How do you reconcile individual liberty within a deterministic, nested metaphysics? If who you are and the circumstances you're presently in were determined by x number of social, environmental, and evolutionary factors, wouldn't that necessitate that the thought patterns you are capable of, and thus your mindset around those circumstances, have also been determined? Where does freedom arise from?
I'm also having trouble reconciling why, in this necessarily nested metaphysics, we have to accept an individualistic and competitive moral framework where personal happiness supersedes all. Wouldn't you be better served to act in service to those people, animals and environments that enabled your existence in the first place? Wouldn't sustaining that system take precedent over individual freedom? And again, if everything is determined, isn't what defines your personal happiness already determined, thus negating the need for competition at all?
good questions. idk if you read part 4 (on free will & determinism) but everything you say in the first paragraph i agree with. i also believe that your personal beliefs beget outcomes - the extent to which you believe you can act with meaningful, causal agency, the more you accrue. i don't think it's a coincidence that nearly all successful people preach the importance of pursuing your passions against all odds. of course many equally impassioned people pursue their dreams and never achieve the success they are looking for, but at least they have a mindset that emboldens them to act in the first place. willingness to act opens you up to possibility (+ an optimistic mindset that believes meaningful change is possible).
& i think people should choose their own moral framework but that choice should come from their own perceptions, experiences, and thoughts about the world. you should know the reasons why you act and believe what you do. you should not act on behalf of a person or agency whose values and motives you do not understand or agree with. so of course there are multitudes of moral frameworks people can operate by, which will differ in validity depending upon the person and context. i guess im making a meta-moral assertion that such dispositions should be based on an individualistic epistemology - "your own senses & mind" - but that doesnt mean that pure empiricism is the only (or best) way we can acquire meaningful knowledge.
to your final question - i think that there is a difference between things having an explicit (although complex and entangled) causal history and things being predictable into the future. i know you read "the and" as well, so hopefully you will understand what i mean when i say that i believe we are all active participants in the universe unfolding. our *sense* of happiness is a sense that only we, as feeling, conscious agents can experience. competition (there being a multitude of options) allows us to discern between different states of quality and select for that which suits our needs. it's not about there being a winner or loser (many, many games are played), but the process of collective refinement over time.
hopefully that helps a bit :) thanks for commenting, i love talking about this stuff
Aug 16, 2022·edited Aug 16, 2022Liked by jane gatsby
Thank you for the thorough reply! I think I see where you are coming from. I find it hard to divorce the concept of competition from that kind of winner/loser context, so your clarification about your use of the term helps a lot. I'm still not sure if I agree with the greater focus on the individual, but overall, your comment has helped sew up the holes I was observing in the whole of the framework. I really appreciate your willingness to engage and clarify!
How do you reconcile individual liberty within a deterministic, nested metaphysics? If who you are and the circumstances you're presently in were determined by x number of social, environmental, and evolutionary factors, wouldn't that necessitate that the thought patterns you are capable of, and thus your mindset around those circumstances, have also been determined? Where does freedom arise from?
I'm also having trouble reconciling why, in this necessarily nested metaphysics, we have to accept an individualistic and competitive moral framework where personal happiness supersedes all. Wouldn't you be better served to act in service to those people, animals and environments that enabled your existence in the first place? Wouldn't sustaining that system take precedent over individual freedom? And again, if everything is determined, isn't what defines your personal happiness already determined, thus negating the need for competition at all?
hi!
good questions. idk if you read part 4 (on free will & determinism) but everything you say in the first paragraph i agree with. i also believe that your personal beliefs beget outcomes - the extent to which you believe you can act with meaningful, causal agency, the more you accrue. i don't think it's a coincidence that nearly all successful people preach the importance of pursuing your passions against all odds. of course many equally impassioned people pursue their dreams and never achieve the success they are looking for, but at least they have a mindset that emboldens them to act in the first place. willingness to act opens you up to possibility (+ an optimistic mindset that believes meaningful change is possible).
& i think people should choose their own moral framework but that choice should come from their own perceptions, experiences, and thoughts about the world. you should know the reasons why you act and believe what you do. you should not act on behalf of a person or agency whose values and motives you do not understand or agree with. so of course there are multitudes of moral frameworks people can operate by, which will differ in validity depending upon the person and context. i guess im making a meta-moral assertion that such dispositions should be based on an individualistic epistemology - "your own senses & mind" - but that doesnt mean that pure empiricism is the only (or best) way we can acquire meaningful knowledge.
to your final question - i think that there is a difference between things having an explicit (although complex and entangled) causal history and things being predictable into the future. i know you read "the and" as well, so hopefully you will understand what i mean when i say that i believe we are all active participants in the universe unfolding. our *sense* of happiness is a sense that only we, as feeling, conscious agents can experience. competition (there being a multitude of options) allows us to discern between different states of quality and select for that which suits our needs. it's not about there being a winner or loser (many, many games are played), but the process of collective refinement over time.
hopefully that helps a bit :) thanks for commenting, i love talking about this stuff
Thank you for the thorough reply! I think I see where you are coming from. I find it hard to divorce the concept of competition from that kind of winner/loser context, so your clarification about your use of the term helps a lot. I'm still not sure if I agree with the greater focus on the individual, but overall, your comment has helped sew up the holes I was observing in the whole of the framework. I really appreciate your willingness to engage and clarify!