A new belief set

This thread will be the first of many ideas that will start with a model of the human mind and end with arguments regarding ethics, morality and life in general and eventually an anonymously published contemporary philosophy book.

Feel free to poke and prod all you want, as your criticisms will help better organize the ideas. If you see these ideas show up anywhere else they were stolen unless I say otherwise (I will come back and alter this if the ideas are to be published)

Intro

Since people are capable of coming to mutually exclusive conclusions regarding questions to which there is only one answer, the human mind must be flawed. Therefore IMO understanding our own minds and the nature of any such flaws is the first step to solving any external problem with certainty.

You can stop right there. The mind cannot be flawed due to its ability to find a variety of conclusions to one answer. On the contrary, that ability is an asset and is the crux of the scientific method; the need to falsify.
 
Since people are capable of coming to mutually exclusive conclusions regarding questions to which there is only one answer, the human mind must be flawed. .
Until recently I would have agreed with this statement. Then I read a comment by someone - it may even have been on this forum - that they could hold two contradictory thoughts in their mind at the same time.
This sounded like nonsense at first, but then I thought about it and was reminded of the way drawings or photographs can trick your mind as to the perspective. You know, like looking at craters on the moon. If the light is from a certain angle they look like domes, not depressions.
Now I know in that case there is a true answer, but what about the drawings of a cube, that seems to be pointing into the page one moment and out of it the next. There isn't a right or wrong way with that.
So I wonder if this ability to simultaneously believe to mutally exclusive things may not be part of what allows us to be imaginative and versatile in our thinking. Rather than being a flaw it is actually one of the mind's great strengths.
 
You can stop right there. The mind cannot be flawed due to its ability to find a variety of conclusions to one answer. On the contrary, that ability is an asset and is the crux of the scientific method; the need to falsify.

The scientific method involves gaining more information in an attempt to falsify previous beliefs. That is why the statement contains the clause "with roughly the same information". It means that two people asked to come to a conclusion to a question with only one answer and the same info will give different answers. Sometimes the answer might even be somethign that can be logically deduced from the given information, but some people still give the wrong answer.
 
I think we need a standard code of ethics for criminals. Maybe based on satanism. Satanism has a code of ethics which seems to work, at least for satanists.

http://www.dpjs.co.uk/ethics.html
Do whatever you want as long as you harm no undeserving person

3. The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth

1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked
2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them
3. When in another's lair, show him respect or else do not go there
4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy
5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal
6. Do not steal (paraphrased)
7 is not relevant.
8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself
9. Do not harm little children
10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food
11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him

Very simple, basic code of ethics to work with and improve on.

I would say the main rule most ethical criminals follow is, do not harm women and children.

Another rule, do not harm innocent civilians.

But there are other rules which make sense such as "When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him", if you are a criminal.

Can anyone here create a set of laws of behavior, belief sets, and ethics which apply to criminals, in specific people who arent likely to follow the traditional laws but who may follow their own laws?
 
Everyone who's not held down by religion or cultural barrirers has a seperate philosophy. I don't agree with a lot of satanism's teachings. Also, criminals are a lable put on people by instututional powers. Anyone could create such a thing, but what does that have to do with tis thread?
 
cole grey: "Inaccuracies, misimpressions, and misapprehensions" may be considered false.
I don't think I was challenging the veracity of the concepts themselves, but juxtaposed alongside their opposites these hi-light assessment of pursuance: one is either accurate or not in retrospect. Therefore, to be accurate or inaccurate during one's pursuance is not pertinent—it is the method of our approach to the pursuance of a situation, person, or thing that is. And how can Method be false or correct without a full inspection of its handiwork afterwards to prove it?!

kriminal: I was saying the mind was flawed, in the sense that it is capable of producing mutually exclusive beliefs on the same subject with roughly the same information.
If one deliberately assumes an incorrect observation and proceeds to act upon it, deceiving everyone else in the process and corrupting—not, in this case, a situation, person, or thing—but the entity of their distinctiveness... then I would think that that person has a flawed character. But can a person deliberately assume a correct observation?: concepts don't always translate into their crude antitheses.

(Q): The mind cannot be flawed due to its ability to find a variety of conclusions to one answer. On the contrary, that ability is an asset and is the crux of the scientific method; the need to falsify.
—assuming that those answers lend justice to the merits of an entity. And assuming that that entity is also multifaceted. But some entities are jealous lovers—they will not desire to dilute the significance of their description.

Hipparchia: [...] that they could hold two contradictory thoughts in their mind at the same time.
Hence they are not committed to the truth—they are evaluating two positions.
This sounded like nonsense at first, but then I thought about it and was reminded of the way drawings or photographs can trick your mind as to the perspective. You know, like looking at craters on the moon. If the light is from a certain angle they look like domes, not depressions.
That is, aligning one's self to a position: casting value—exercising disposition.
So I wonder if this ability to simultaneously believe to mutally exclusive things [...]
Believe?
[...] may not be part of what allows us to be imaginative and versatile in our thinking.
Or quite simply, allows us to be calculating and prudent in our regard but never quite committed; not allowing ourselves a full impact of substance; never reaching a sense of finality. But then again, justice isn't always the motivating factor.
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile:
If one deliberately assumes an incorrect observation and proceeds to act upon it, deceiving everyone else in the process and corrupting—not, in this case, the observed situation, person, or thing—but the entity of their distinctiveness... then I would think that that person has a flawed character. But can someone deliberately assume a correct observation?: here, concepts don't always translate into their crude antitheses.

Maybe I'm off here, I'm not sure. To deliberately assume a correct observation of a situation, a person, or thing, and to act upon that, is also to deceive and corrupt an entity's distinctiveness... ? Whatever. I'll have to think this one out some more.
 
Everyone who's not held down by religion or cultural barrirers has a seperate philosophy. I don't agree with a lot of satanism's teachings. Also, criminals are a lable put on people by instututional powers. Anyone could create such a thing, but what does that have to do with tis thread?

Alright, vandals? what would you want to call these people? Rebels? Whatever you call them, the fact is that ethics are important. It's not like everyone can follow the same ethics but everyone follows ethics. If satanism is not for you, why don't you find a system that suits your thinking style?

The point is, if you have a certain thinking style, you'll be attracted to satanism, that is why satanism exists, it's valueable to people. Christianity is also valueable to people. Religion is valueable, philosophy is valueable, ethics are valueable, unless of course you are a nihilist, and then you have no need to follow any of this or any rules whatsoever, but how many can actually truly define themselves as nihilist? It must be a rare mind type.
 
You don't need to find a philosophy/religion that suits you, in many cases, there is no such thing. Everyone has ethics of course, but these things will be different for different people. You can think the way you choose without being part of sometype of system. The only reasons such systems exist is usually a mixture of a false need for companionship/counseling, and an attempt to influence others to their beliefs.
 
You don't need to find a philosophy/religion that suits you, in many cases, there is no such thing. Everyone has ethics of course, but these things will be different for different people. You can think the way you choose without being part of sometype of system. The only reasons such systems exist is usually a mixture of a false need for companionship/counseling, and an attempt to influence others to their beliefs.

not knowing which of one's beliefs coincide with other people's earlier ideas doesn't make one a pioneer.
 
You can know which of your beliefs were also the beliefs of someone else, but that doesn't mean that you will agree with everything that they thought. For example, you can believe that you shouldn't ponder on death, and be in relation with something Marcus Aurelius believed, but that doesn't you believe everything he did. One thing you may disagree with is that natural talent makes more difference than trained skill. Idon't mean that there aren't specific beliefs to fit everyone, but that there aren't belief sets to fit everyone.
 
You can know which of your beliefs were also the beliefs of someone else, but that doesn't mean that you will agree with everything that they thought. For example, you can believe that you shouldn't ponder on death, and be in relation with something Marcus Aurelius believed, but that doesn't you believe everything he did. One thing you may disagree with is that natural talent makes more difference than trained skill. Idon't mean that there aren't specific beliefs to fit everyone, but that there aren't belief sets to fit everyone.
I agree that belief systems are generally too well defined to be valuable. And just because you ponder death acertain way, that might not make you an existentialist, nihilist, or egyptian priest.
But, if you owe some beliefs to certain belief systems, or certain proponents of them, you can't really knock those systems without knocking yourself a little.
 
Back
Top