fake realities

[Trevor]

The silent pact seems tantamount to lying to/misleading 40% of the class.

I don't see how. It's a pact so the students are in on it too, but it's just not an out and out rule, more like a reward, you've gained the teacher's trust, so you qualify for some leeway.

No. I don't think people should shove into each other if they're having a bad day, I'm fine with the laws against it, but I also don't think it's the best thing to pretend that everything is fine. I would advocate self-restraint.

Which is what the chewing gum discreetly would entail: self-restraint. Do it, but do it discreetly. Just as one can be in a bad mood, but with self-restraint, they would be in a bad mood discreetly! But then they go home to their wives and complain about their day, thus relieving themselves of the self-restraint and pretense.

No, this "discretion" is not self-restraint, it's pretense.

Seems like you're trying to force your point here. How is the "self-restraint" you advocate different to the "self-restraint" I used in my example?

And while I realize this seems like a minor issue over chewing gum in school it makes an impression on people as they grow up. AS I said, it reinforces the idea that you should just appear the way people expect and say what people want to hear to avoid disruption.

Well, at least we can say that the institutes are doing what they're meant to do. The rebel in the class wantonly chews gum mocking the illusory authority they have over him. But outside of school, you'll often find that most non-conformists are in prison. That's what obeying the law is - conformity to rules. If you really wanted that flash car, would you go and take it? Or conform? What exactly are you advocating?

If you are disingenuous in your interactions with other people it will have a deeper affect on who you are as a person.

This is an odd point, well, at least, it seems at odd with the implications of your other remarks. What exactly are disingenuous actions having an affect upon if not a conscience? And what is a conscience if not the mutual pact you have with others with whom you respect the same laws, ideology, and etiquette? Maybe you advocate non-conformism to this, as do the criminals. Do you advocate this? If so, how exactly will that play out?

[fuse]

The first part of your essay reminded me of Glaucon's Challenge in which Glaucon advocates that truly, to be unjust, to appear just, and to preach virtue is the best situation possible for the individual. The individual will convince others to act justly and therefor live in a society of just people but also gain the spoils of unjust actions. He makes his case that nobody desires justice for its own sake, but only for its consequences; that human beings behave justly, in other words, not because they prefer justice to injustice, but simply because they fear the consequence of behaving unjustly, and advocates egoism. Does this represent the views and intentions you had when taking these actions?

Good connection. Though I have never read The Republic, I would say that my striving to appear virtuous to other people supports Glaucon's claim, but that I came to reflect on my behavior because I was deeply dispirited. I think I would have agreed with Socrates's reply.

[fuse]

What do you mean? How I relate to my culture's values and other people in my society has a lot to do with my physical and psychological contentment and well being, doesn't it?

Not at all. It has to do with society and its purpose.

But I am part of society.

[fuse]

trevor,

No Gum has to be applied for ALL the class because of a bad 40.

This is misleading. As far as the students know, it's simply not allowed. Then you say there's this silent pact between the teacher and only the good 60%. (How does the teacher initiate this, communicate it to the 60%?) But anyway, given the silent pact, where 60% somehow know they can chew gum if they do it "discreetly," the remaining 40% are still under the false impression no one is allowed to chew gum. And finally, the worst part about the whole thing is that your silent pact means basically that the 60% can chew gum if no one knows they are doing it. It encourages pretense.

The difference between self-restraint and pretense. Self-restraint is refrain, i.e. to not do something. Pretense is being one way while pretending to be another way, i.e. acting in a way that purposely deceives other people about what you really think or feel. In the case of the silent pact chewing gum example we have been discussing, I've already explained why I consider that pretense. Your second example about being in a bad mood is fine.

That's what obeying the law is - conformity to rules. If you really wanted that flash car, would you go and take it? Or conform? What exactly are you advocating?

I think you're missing my point. This is not about conformity vs nonconformity or the virtue of satisfying one's every desire. I'm talking about being yourself, thinking for yourself ... without pretense.

Some have learned to think that who they are is nothing more than their outward appearance. They value only how they appear to other people. They can't feel worth unless they are selling themselves (acting to please, gain approval, feel worthy) in some way or another. They have no sense of intrinsic worth; worth for them is a function of how well they've approximated an idea in someone else's mind.

[finishedman]

What do you mean? How I relate to my culture's values and other people in my society has a lot to do with my physical and psychological contentment and well being, doesn't it?

Not at all. It has to do with society and its purpose.

But I am part of society.

.. and society created you for its exclusive and singular purpose. You have to give to it what IT wants, not what you have to give. Virtuousness, when determined to be by a society, is a good quality FOR that society. What you think is good may be good for you and your situations, yet what is good for society may not be consistent with it.

[Trevor]

trevor,

No Gum has to be applied for ALL the class because of a bad 40.

This is misleading. As far as the students know, it's simply not allowed.

Hmmm...I was presuming that the 60% would witness the behaviour of the 40% (i.e. non-discreet chewing) and then see the enforcement of the rule to all of them thus seeing the behaviour which triggers the enforcement and knowing who and why spoils the leeway.

Then you say there's this silent pact between the teacher and only the good 60%. (How does the teacher initiate this, communicate it to the 60%?) But anyway, given the silent pact, where 60% somehow know they can chew gum if they do it "discreetly," the remaining 40% are still under the false impression no one is allowed to chew gum. And finally, the worst part about the whole thing is that your silent pact means basically that the 60% can chew gum if no one knows they are doing it. It encourages pretense.

The silent pact does sound a bit murky but I think it's more pragmatic. I think what the students would learn is that there is a certain boundary in which they cannot cross when they're chewing gum in class, all students could learn this boundary but there are some, the 40, who might be more likely to flagrantly cross it, it would obviously be a difficult situation for the teacher to punish those students because afterall, he/she has permitted other students to chew, but I don't think it encourages pretense in the students. I would prefer to think that they would recognise it as a sign of trust with the teacher. Of course, this can't be applied generally, young students wouldn't be able to comprehend this relationship, but for the older student's, there are better things for the teacher to concern his time and energy with. Hence why I think it is more pragmatic.

The difference between self-restraint and pretense. Self-restraint is refrain, i.e. to not do something. Pretense is being one way while pretending to be another way, i.e. acting in a way that purposely deceives other people about what you really think or feel. In the case of the silent pact chewing gum example we have been discussing, I've already explained why I consider that pretense. Your second example about being in a bad mood is fine.

I see your point. I guess knowing the specifics of who the students are would be the only way to know whether or not it would be sensible for the teacher to allow the chewing of gum. The students would have to be at an age and maturity where they could comprehend a trust relationship, a silent pact. Otherwise yes, they would probably just act under "pretense."

That's what obeying the law is - conformity to rules. If you really wanted that flash car, would you go and take it? Or conform? What exactly are you advocating?

I think you're missing my point. This is not about conformity vs nonconformity or the virtue of satisfying one's every desire. I'm talking about being yourself, thinking for yourself ... without pretense.

Law requires conformity, and one's own desires may be in conflict with that non-conformity. But what is "being-yourself" if not recognising these desires? Do people just "naturally" grow up and find themselves living in accordance to the law or have they been shaped by the laws of the country into whoever they are i.e. have been conformed. Certain people in being themselves will find themselves in conflict with the law or some rules, the question is then, do they conform or not?

Some have learned to think that who they are is nothing more than their outward appearance. They value only how they appear to other people. They can't feel worth unless they are selling themselves (acting to please, gain approval, feel worthy) in some way or another. They have no sense of intrinsic worth; worth for them is a function of how well they've approximated an idea in someone else's mind.

I understand the argument but it's not wholly convincing in and of itself. I mean, we do not exist within a vacuum, how do people have an "intrinsic worth," is it really enough to say "You must respect me, as I am myself"? I mean, what exactly is it in you that deserves my automatic respect? Which I assume an "inherent worth" would command. And why exactly is it a negative to not find this "worth" in the eyes of other people?

[finishedman]

When approval seeking is a need, the possibilities for truth are all but wiped away. If you must be lauded, and you send out those kind of signals, then no one can deal with you straight. Nor can you state with confidence what it is you think and feel at any present moment of your life. Your self is sacrificed to the opinions and predilections of others.

Approval in itself is not unhealthy; in fact adulation is pleasurable. Approval-seeking is an erroneous state only when it becomes a need rather than a want.

[fuse]

It is necessary to first live in reality as it truly exists before one can be virtuous. Thus, and as a matter of foremost importance, I must not deceive myself or others. I must not live in a fake reality. Only after I have acknowledged reality as it truly is can I consciously seek to be virtuous.

Now this is a fake reality. Or it is to me.

Take for instance the killing of Osama bin Laden. Was this a virtuous act because Barack Obama lives in reality as it really is? And are those who view it instead as a villaneous assassination wrong because they live in reality as it is not?

What is "reality as it really is" regarding any conflicting value judgments?

What can be known for certain here philosophically?

In my view, a sense of reality and a moral conviction are manifestations of particular daseins situated in particular sets of circumstances at particular points in time.

In many crucial respects, virtue and reality are just points of view.

Avoiding self-deceptions (thus, avoiding creating or expanding fake realities) is just a foundation. It is necessary, but not necessarily sufficient for virtue. There is a lot more to say about the statement "virtue and reality are just points of view." My thinking has somewhat evolved on the subjective/objective dichotomy. At least it appears a little less straightforward to me, more nuanced. I'll see if I can express it at some point.

[Pedro I Rengel]

yo if it's fake how can it be reality.