No, there are an infinite number of universes in a multiverse, and if you’ve learned anything from dreaming, there are many different rule sets in the cosmos
It doesn’t matter how many universes there are … there is no communication between universes. If you could see another universe from this universe, then that other universe would just be another part of this universe. That follows simply from the definition of ‘universe’.
The solution to this problem is to realize that the definition of ‘hurt’ has always been flaky, and to ditch utilitarianism forever and move on to something reasonable.
You demonstrated it yourself: everybody is hurting everybody all the time, regardless of if they mean to, regardless of what they do or don’t do. All that means is that hurt (or your definition of it) is useless in determining the rightness or wrongness of our actions. Ought implies can.
This goes back to James’ couple posts about discipline… I asked him, “why don’t you discipline yourself to not hurt others or be hurt by them (if you’re so self righteous)?”
He ignored me.
Philosophic zombie universes are our ONLY option, and every second of every day is discipline for me to solve the only thing that makes our lives meaningful.
No, I just gave you the other option: reject your understanding of harm. That’s not an option for you, for obvious reasons, but it’s fine for the rest of us.
I think that it is possible that if someone IS self-righteous, there might not be any true humility there and ergo there might be a lot of hurt on both sides unless the other party has thick skin and can easily detach.
Self-righteousness is certainly not necessarily moral or ethical…it can have its basis in egotism.
Even if we follow the golden rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you - that wouldn’t necessarily work either because many of us think and feel and interpret the world differently.
For instance, some like it when they are confronted in an honest way - others do not - so how would the golden rule work there. It would call for discernment and finesse and seeing the other person as he is ALSO.
Is it possible to never hurt others and at the same time not to hurt or de-value one-self or one’s own life?
That may call for compromise by a person who actually knows himself and who doesn’t feel less of a person or defeated by another’s treatment or estimation of him.
There are some times when feeling it necessary to give another “more” does not mean that the other person has more taken away from him.
We can “discipline” (teach) ourselves to try not to hurt others if it is humanly possible without sacrificing our own “real” needs IF we can do that but perhaps what you’re asking is that people become sacrificial lambs to spare others hurt or that they become sacrificial lambs in order that the party of the first part may always gain what he feels he needs and desires.
That thinking is just wishful thinking and is not based in reality and honestly, insofar as the golden rule is concerned, that kind of thinking breaks the back of the golden rule - since there is no “we” - only an “I” there.
See how complicated it can be in knowing how not to hurt others?
Is it possible that what you took as being ignored by him was his way of not hurting you?
We all think differently and sometimes we “project” onto others.
I’m not saying that was the case but it might have been.
The golden rule cannot always apply. Nothing is black and white.
That’s one thing APD’s never learn, when they talk about others they’re only mostly talking to themselves about themselves.
Uccisore, assuming I even am in the schizoid spectrum… Personality disorders are considered worse than the schizoid spectrum. You talk like Donald Trump, no wonder you think he is Jesus.
Here’s the deal Uccisore… You don’t TRY to make the world better, and when others do, you become enraged.
It’s actually hard trying to work out the details of philosophic zombie universes, on a scale you cannot comprehend.