It’s Peirce, Zoot, not Pierce. It’s more like Purse and less like Peers. And while he did identify himself as pragmatist, he had little to do with James (and even less so with Rorty.) That’s why, later in his life, he renamed his position to pragmaticism. He was very much into metaphysics.
CSP on Agapistic Evolution:
iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/libra … volove.htm
I am having trouble understanding why you think that your question wasn’t answered. I suspect that you didn’t get my point.
That is saying that James did not believe that anyone truly lived for sake of ONLY longevity.
His reasoning was that evolution determines what the eventual highest purpose for lives are. And evolution would naturally eliminate those who tried to live solely for longevity because they would fail.
He explained (in that same post) that in order to succeed (and thus have evolution choose your form of existence over alternatives as what we call “life”) you would have to pursue the right combination of joy and longevity together (“Northwest” - NOT North and NOT West).
He explained that such a necessary “purpose to life” (established by evolution) is difficult to keep clear in mind. And I assume that is what has caused it to take so long for man to figure it out.
Again, he was saying that the purpose of life is already there guiding and refining life toward an eternal joyful state. What is interesting is that he never claimed the thought to be merely handed down from above. Instead he explained why it logically must be true. In other words it was not merely wishful thinking.
I think that is true (as we pointed out the last time we discussed this).
James would have said (and in many ways did) “Stay focused on MIJOT at all cost.” - MORALITY
But he would probably also expect people to constantly get confused and misstep (or as he would say “sin”).
The explanation of what causes that feeling of joy is paramount in understanding why longevity alone cannot be the focus or moral purpose. What is causing the joy is causing the success and thus what evolution is using to establish highest purpose. Evolution eliminates those who cannot sense joy, leaving joy a fundamental requirement of life.
And also keep in mind that he says that the highest purpose, or the “origin of morality” CANNOT be chosen, but must be previously instilled because making a choice requires that a purpose is already there. So everyone’s very first choice can only be made by a higher purpose already existing. People cannot actually choose their highest purpose in life. They can only screw up the one they were born with.
Like I said, he had this morality subject nailed in every detail.
James was into explaining things. God was merely one of them.
I can’t find anywhere James used the word “afraid”. Can you find a reference?
search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&author_id=34903
if you go here, then search for afraid a lot of examples come up, some aimed at other people.
oh c’mon andy, you don’t think i know who THE charlton peirce was? i was talking about daryl pierce… an uh, an old buddy of mine from muncie indiana.
That is not saying that James S. Saint did not believe that there is a single human being striving to maximize how long they live. Rather, it is merely describing the concept of IJOT. It’s unclear from that statement alone whether IJOT is a means or an end.
Right now, I am really only interested in one thing, and that thing is what James thought is the highest goal shared by all humans (not necessarily all living beings, we don’t have to go that far.) I don’t care about the origin of such a goal, that’s beside the point.
There are two competing beliefs in my mind. These are:
James thought that humans (consciously or unconsciously) strive to maximize IJOT and that their success in terms of survival is merely a consequence, a by-product, of such striving.
James thought that humans (consciously or unconsciously) strive to maximize how long they live (not the lifespan of their species) by various means but most successfully by maximizing IJOT.
I am inclined to believe 1.
Thanks. I had just mistyped it in my search.
As stated before, “IJOT is a measure and MIJOT is the goal”
As long as you have that much, I’m sure that you are close enough.
Since he specified “all life” and animals and insects don’t consider old age plans, he wasn’t talking about conscious choices but rather inherent drives and instincts. He was talking about a shared goal and morality for all living beings.
Now that I have read over it about ten times, I am confident about that much.
Right. I take that to be an answer to the question I asked.
Your answer being “It is an end”. Of course, what I meant is maximum integral of joy over time. You are correct that IJOT is a measure and that as such, literally speaking, it’s not something that can be a goal. But when I said “IJOT is the goal” I meant “As much IJOT as possible is the goal” in the same way that when we say “Power is the goal” what we mean is “As much power as possible is the goal”.
I do think that James thinks that all human beings strive to maximize IJOT (i.e. that all human beings choose the perceived path of highest IJOT) rather than other things such as how long they live (i.e. the perceived path of longest life.) It’s just that reading some of James’s posts makes me question that belief.
So yes, it appears that you did answer my question after all, it’s just that I didn’t think, because I wasn’t sure, that you did so.
A simple “It is an end” would have done the job.
There’s been a purging in ILP …
John Bannon was a user here. You cannot search for him.
Uccisore used to say that if anyone knew his sock puppet, that everyone on the boards would be mad at him.
James and uccisore left at the same time.
I think james was uccisore.
I have other reasons to believe this: uccisore used to refer to my private messages with James in debates.
My point being… anything that embarrassed uccisore (or James) would easily be deleted.
I searched HARD for that thread on blasphemy… found nothing
Thanks for clarifying that carleas! John j Bannon … how on earth did you find that!!! From John Bannon !!!
I’ll look it up right now
Arggghhh!!!
I can’t search JohnJBannon or John J Bannon.
At least you found him!!!
It’s in there , spend more time , You will find it. Hi Ecmandu, remember a while ago? There was an echo between us?
I guess after so many reverberations it’s harder to pick up.
As.far.as.James.is.concerned… he let.me.know he was not.up to par.on ontology, or.self valuing
That leaves morality in the sidelines , as far as objective criteria. Ethics . that is of another kilter.
Origin? Basic fear of.proximate neighbor’s snarling teeth, but the little guy can prephase David and.Goliath.
Usually the little guy wins! More brainstuff , better nourished is the key.
Orbie??
I just realized also the silhouette and you and I were in the same threads 6 years ago.
I used to write in paragraphs back then too…
Oh my how time flied…
My persona morphed by it’s self, nothing of a conscious decision to hide and form an alternate reality.
For time is a glue that dissolved over.time, like poof, no passage through measurement, not even signifiers, only a Zen happening.
Just like that, poof.
Ought implies that the world is one way, but should be another.
So within the Ought is an implication for what already is. It’s unsaid but necessarily implied.
You have to get an Ought from an Is. Otherwise there could be no “should be another way”.
Furthermore Ought implies an improvement on what Is, on behalf of the person proposing the Ought. This is where moral disagreements occur. Because, almost always, the Ought is biased to the-self. So person A says it Ought to be this way, person B says another way, and person C says another way as well. Ought is self-serving. Sometimes, people will agree to some general Ought, because it is helpful to their own group, but is detrimental to other groups. This is political-census and “the majority”, sociology. Ultimately, everything must start from what Is, and if the interpretation is accurate (superior) or inaccurate (inferior), then the Ought can proceed to what is morally good (better) for one person or a group, or morally evil (worse) for one person or a group.
Now the hypothesis can be made that people Ought to be “on the same page” (Bible?) concerning the origin of morality, but that is rarely the case. Some people start with science and ‘Evolution’ of sociological interaction within species (kin-selection), while the masses and most of humanity start with religious indoctrination and God’s Word. Why do most people start with God’s Word? Because it’s easier to proceed through life having somebody else (Priest?) do your thinking, believing, faith, reasoning, and moral guidance for you. It’s easier to outsource then it is to Do-It-Yourself.
Because moral-belief has been outsourced for so long (to Theologians, Moral Authorities, Priestly Class, etc), the “Reality” of moral origins don’t really matter. It doesn’t really matter to the person who believes in God’s Divine Creation, and Damnation to Hell, whether his/her religious belief is “real” (realistic) or not. Instead, people are pragmatic, especially women. They will do, say, and believe as the Priest/God commands of them, because they desire the practical benefits of it. Churches instill a sense of community, reinforcement of moral order, marital laws, relationships, the ‘Joy’ of fanaticism, etc. People mostly want the Benefits. They want the cake and fruit-punch. The mumbo-jumbo of moral dilemmas is left up to “their betters”, meaning priests or anti-priests (philosophers).
Man, wouldn’t it be great of people could stop walking and riding horses from place-to-place? There Ought to be a better method and means of transportation. I propose, that someday, maybe in the distant future, we could create “horseless carriages”, powered by some sort of Steam-engine device. Using these “automobiles”, we could setup a series of roads and travel much faster than horses or wagons.
This Ought to be!
Oh, wait… it already is?!
Do you see how ridiculous it is to use Ought when what Ought-to-be, already Is?
The origins of morality and ethics doesn’t matter, the only thing that matters is the practical purpose of maintaining social order which is why despite the cloudy obscure origins of human morality it persists even in its imperfect form because a world without some kind of human moral or ethical intervention by the state would quickly become hell on earth as human beings would devour each other until not a single human being would be left on this earth. Human beings would very quickly self cannibalize each other.
Human beings are naturally amoral which is why it was necessary to create morals and ethics to begin with historically in order to restrain that amoral instinctual primitive behavioral impulse. Human civilization wouldn’t be able to exist without morality, ethics, and a code of law. Because human beings are naturally amoral is the very reason human created morality or ethics will always be imperfect [flawed with errors] to some degree.
That’s why morality and ethics is necessary where it becomes equally necessary to rule over human beings with an iron rod to keep themselves from totally destroying each other.
Pragmatism and utilitarianism triumphs over nihilism, that’s why nobody takes moral nihilists seriously.
hysteria of the minority upon the masses is an assault from two directions. Get the masses out of the way and slug away like a boxer, toe to toe.
The fact that I don’t have superhuman strength and can’t fly matters when considering whether I really ought to save an airplane full of people crashing into the ground. Normative statements govern the behavior of human beings, so if these statements are any good, they better be constrained by what human beings can and can’t do. After all, where there is a “can’t,” there can’t be an “ought.”