Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Apr 09, 2016 6:19 pm

Egoism is characterized by motivation that has internal rather than external reference point.

Internal reference point means that the problem that the motivation is trying to resolve is imagined by the subject. In other words, it does not exist outside of the mind of the subject.

External reference point, on the other hand, means that the problem that the motivation is trying to resolve is real and not merely imagined. In other words, it exists outside of the mind of the subject.

As such, we speak of subjective goals, which are internally motivated, and objective goals, which are externally motivated.

It is important to note that the word subjective used in conjuction with the word goal does not mean that the final state that the goal defines is located within one's mind. Rather, it means that the problem that the goal is trying to resolve is imagined, invented and created, by the subject for his own pleasure.

Because subjective goals are imagined, rather than grounded in a problem that is real, their completion is almost always followed by yet another subjective goal. Imagination is infinite, so there is no reason to stop after completing any number of goals. Such a lack of finality is otherwise known as addiction and is the defining mark of what we call hedonism.

On the other hand, objective goals are gruonded in real problems that exist separately of one's mind. They are not imagined, and so, they are not infinite. In fact, it can easily be imagined that past a certain point, there will no longer be any external problems, in which case, the end of all life will -- or should -- ensue.

Egoism, however, is not always malignant. From the point of view of objective goals, egoism can be benign if it is non-violent, which is to say, if it does not create additional problems.

We all engage in benign egoisms. Playing sports, making love, partying, casual discussions and so on and so forth are all examples of benign egoisms (though, of course, they can also turn malignant.)

From the point of view of subjective goals, on the other hand, it is benign egoisms that are punished and malignant egoisms that are celebrated. Malignant egoists will always accuse benign egoists of egoism while conveniently ignoring the fact that it is actually them who are true egoists. More on that later.

Instinct is an example of a motivation without an external reference point. As such, it is fundamentally subjective/egoistic. In order to cease to be egoistic/subjective, and to become noble/objective, it must be coordinated by a will that is facing outwardly.

What was previously objective can quickly become subjective if left uncoordinated by the will.

A good example, for example, is a motivation to help which is no longer coordinated by the will, but is merely engaged in for its own sake. A mother helping a child that does not want to be helped is a good example. Such a motivation to help necessarily miinterprets the nature of the problem, because the desire to act, rather than the desire to understand and resolve, overpowers it. As such, what was supposed to be an act of counter-violence, and what appeared to be a desire to help, turns out to be an act of violence itself.

Such a bully may end up realizing that they are, in fact, not helping, but instead of giving up on bullying comlpetely, they will merely become honest about it. Which though better is not enough.

Other bullies, on the other hand, become defensive when they are told that they are doing something wrong, which ends up digging them deeper into the ground, as it forces them to create further misinterpretations to cover up the fact that they are bullies.

Recently, a phenomenon of so-called "truthers" and/or "truth-tellers" has emerged. These are people have somehow managed to convince themselves that honor is hostile to truth and that truth is somehow more important than honor. As such, they tend to be against politeness in discussions, thinking that, because politeness shelters, that it necessarily paves the way for egoism as people become less willing to come out of their shelters. There is an underlying assumption that some people can face reality only if they are forced to do so. This is how these people -- in one of the greatest inversions of truth in the history of humankind -- justify dishonorable behavior of impolite and agressive discussions.

(Notice also that many of these so-called "truthers" do not see themselves as being dishonorable, but quite the opposite, as very honorable. They are too proud of their confrontational behavior which they consider to be honorable (which is in reality dishonorable.) This is a consequence of their perverted understanding of the concept of honor, which signifies that, what little of Aryan genes they possess in themselves has been corrupted and suffucated by their dominant Turyan genes. Their heritage is not Aryan-Hyberborean, but Turyan-Barbarian.)

The reality is that -- or should I say the truth is that -- it is precisely shelter which allows people to think. In the absence of shelter, people become mindless barbarians (which is what these so-called "truthers" are.) Shelter helps because shelter reduces unnecessary interference. Lack of shelter hinders because it introduces unecessary interference, and a lot of the time, too much interference, which ends up overwhelming the brain and forcing it to become impulsive -- to surrender to one of the voices of interference without first undergoing the necessary process of thinking.

The "truthers" -- the irony is -- are less truthful than honorable people are. The "truthers" -- we should now be able to finally understand them -- are not people who are truthful, but people who are dominated by the fear of being untruthful, which is precisely what they are.

Thinking works by processing stimulation, and that means, separating different concerns. The more stimulation, the more difficult to think, as it requires greater power to separate. Hence, external interference is generally undesirable, because it increase internal stimulation, especially for introverts who have a lot of internal stimulation going on. Shelter is thus a must. Otherwise, one is more likely to succumb to excessive stimulation by entangling, which is to say, confusing different concerns. Most of the so-called "truthers" are created in this way -- through impulse, rather than through genuine thought. And it is precisely for this reason that they think that others too should be created through impulse imposed by disrespectful interaction, rather than through logical conclusion reached through respectful interaction.

It is true that, even in peace, it may take one quite a while to think through his options and reach a decision. What is certain, however, is that by increasing his stimulation it will only make it worse.

Moreover, we treat such people as problems to be solved, rather than problems to be made worse or denied the way people who are dominated by subjectivity -- Turyans and other barbarians -- do. People are not a means, they are an end.

We punish people only on the ground that they commited concrete violence. We do not punish them simply on the ground of their lower value.

Say no to egoism.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Kriswest » Sat Apr 09, 2016 9:10 pm

Actually we need such people. Even though they are a pain in the ass , they do a service for the species. Complacency, passivity, and subservience are so easy to fall into since we are a social animal. Individuality becomes secondary to the rule of the species. Without pain in the asses such as your truthers, we could become true sheeple rather easily.
I would rather not see that happen.
I will be bitchy, cranky, sweet, happy, kind, pain in the ass all at random times from now on. I am embracing my mentalpause until further notice. Viva lack of total control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not a test,,, this is my life right now. Have a good day and please buckle up for safety reasons,, All those in high chairs, go in the back of the room.
User avatar
Kriswest
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20554
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: stuck in permanent maternal mode.

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Is_Yde_opN » Sat Apr 09, 2016 9:42 pm

Some people's selfishness shows itself by telling other people not to be selfish and to comply with their standards and demands.
Other people are more direct about such demands.
User avatar
Is_Yde_opN
Thinker
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:43 am

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Harbal » Sat Apr 09, 2016 9:44 pm

Kriswest wrote:Actually we need such people. Even though they are a pain in the ass
Yes we do, when people are taking themselves too seriously someone needs to make them aware of it. I'ts a very important job.
User avatar
Harbal
Thinker
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Sun May 03, 2015 12:53 pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Sat Apr 09, 2016 10:00 pm

Real problems separate from ego? How very interesting. Give me some examples to sample here.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Apr 09, 2016 10:37 pm

Any state that has yet to be realized is by its nature imaginary, which is to say, fantastical, because it does not exist yet.

Whenever we posit a goal we posit a state which has yet to come to existence. Every goal, thus, posits some sort of fantasy.

A choice of goal is always a choice of fantasy. For if it were a choice of reality, it wouldn't be different from the current state of reality, and so, it wouldn't lead to any kind of change, hence, wouldn't really be a goal.

Still, there is a degree of change that a goal requires, which allows some people to speak of "realistic" and "fantastical" goals, meaning, goals of lower difficulty (requiring little change) and goals of higher difficulty (requiring a lot of change.)

However, we have to understand that a choice of goal -- a genuine choice of goal -- does not take into account the difficulty of goal, but merely its quality. A genuine choice of goal concerns itself solely with the question of which goal is the best goal.

There are two different concerns: the question of quality and the question of difficulty. Impulsive people, being impulsive, which means over-connective, are incapable of making such a distinction.

Each one of us is free to maky any kind of choice we want. And if someone chooses a goal of a lower value, that is fine, so as long as he admits that it is a goal of a lower value, as well as that those who chose a goal of higher value are people of higher value as well. Similarly, if someone chooses a difficult goal but a goal of higher, that is fine as well.

The sad reality is, it seems to me, that many people do not actually choose. They have no choice. Rather, they are motivated by impulse. They are impulsive.

Impulsivity is fine with me, the problem is that in many cases it leads to violence. What kind of violence? The violence of deception. These people, due to their impulsivity, are not able to stand other people's choices. Their reactions to other people's choices bother them -- they are made to feel insecure -- and this motivates them to lie and to manipulate.

Impulsivity produces all kinds of people. One common kind is that of a cynic.

Cynic is bothered by people who show that they have set for themselves goals which are of higher quality. The reason for this is quite simply because they remind him that his choice of goal was never a genuine choice, but an impulse. Unfortunately, since they are not capable of owning the emotional reaction such people produce in them, they have no choice but to rationalize, to deny the fact that they never made a choice. This usually leads to them bullying these people, thinking they are actually helping them, or at the very least, that they are helping others.

The first thing they do is deny the existence of "free will". The idea that they must convince themselves in is that noone is free to make choices. And those who claim to be able to do so, and who try to make their own choices and set for themselves goals of higher quality, they are to be expected to suffer negative consequences and "learn" from their mistakes at some future point in time (if ever.)

Often, due to their interference, they end up producing what they wanted to see, or rather, what they thought is a necessary consequence of one's actions, without ever understanding that it is their actions, their interference, that produced such results. This is extremely dangerous because it reinforces their behavior. Soon enough, they learn that the more they try to manipulate, the more likely they will be "proven correct" (i.e. the more likely they will create the kind of reality they want to see.)

One of the devastating effects of their actions is that they decrease the number of people who would otherwise choose to sacrifice their lives to a higher goal -- no matter how small their contribution is. This not only leads to a difficulty in realizing higher goals, but it also reinforces the original delusion that such goals are unachievable.

Any kind of state that requires a degree of change that is above some subjective threshold of change that only the manipulator is aware of is said to be "fantastical", in the sense that it is impossible, never to be achieved, and that it will only lead to negative consequences and eventually to suicide.

This is nothing but a projection of their own impulsivity. The purpose of such a way of thinking is to hide the fact that they did not make a choice -- that they had no, and that they have no, choice -- and that their real problem is their utter lack of impulse control.

The word "fantasy" is used to evoke a certain imagined, and sometimes even real, negative experience of failure, an experience that is supposed to make the manipulated change his mind -- make him afraid so he ends up giving up on making a choice.

Often, it's difficult to tell what kind of negative experiences they are trying to convey, since it's usually the case that only impulsive people are aware of such experiences. The only thing they can possibly achieve is to force us to waste our time trying to read in between the lines, imagining all sorts of negative experiences . . . and if this goes out of control, if we end up overwhelming ourselves, it may lead us to give up on our choice, and to align with the manipulator. This is what the manipulator wants, though he also wants to believe that this is a choice, and not merely an impulse (manipulators have a perverted understanding of the concept of choice.)

They would also tell you that these "fantastical" goals are also a sign of narcissism, a delusions of grandeur, simply because there is a desire for a massive change. This, again, is a projection on their part.

A desire for change -- no matter how great -- is not narcissistic. This is an inversion of truth. Similarly, a lesser desire for change does not imply lack of narcissism.

A narcissist -- a smart narcissist -- will always try to overcome narcissism, but he will never overcome it fundamentally, he will only overcome the symptoms that give away the fact that he's a narcissist, and in this way, he will merely create a new, previously unseen, configuration of narcissism.

Nowadays we can see people who claim that they are not narcissists because they desire no change. Yet, if we take a closer look at their behavior, we will see that these people are, in fact, narcissists, and very malignant ones. Cyber-bullying, for example, is both egoistic and violent, hence it is an example of malignant egoism. The fact that cyber-bullies desire little or perhaps even no change in the world does not change this fact.

Narcissism is indeed characterized by fantastical goals, but the concept of fantasy used here is a different one. Rather than describing a goal that is very difficult to achieve, it describes a goal that tries to solve an imaginary, internally defined, problem, rather than a real, externally defined, problem.

A mother trying to cure a terminally ill child against its will is narcissistic not because such a task is impossible, but because she is doing it against the will of her child.

We have to understand that these people -- these impulsive people -- suffer from the possibility of idealistic thinking. It is this suffering -- this inability to process the reactions triggered by such possibility -- that motivates them. The exact manner in which they suffer varies, but there are some common patterns.

In order to so much as focus on an activity there must be enough mental space for it. If there isn't, one has to make an active effort to create some. This is where impulse control comes in. The goal is to decrease active motivations in order to create room for a new motivation.

A choice of a goal is one such activity that most people, apparently, struggle with, because they find it difficult to create mental space for it.

If you're going to spend your time thinking about what is the best way to live your life, you will have to put everything else, or at least something of this everything else, aside, and keep at it.

These people are incapable of doing so, perhaps because such an activity is too alient to their primitive nature. But perhaps also because they are weak on impulse control. They do not know how to create mental room. And when they manage do so, they do not know how to maintain it.

Sooner or later, they "freak out" and it is this freaking out that forces them to bounce back from their decision -- to take a stance against it. This freaking out is caused by a rapid increase in mental activity, which is a consequence of failure in impulse control.

They will, actually, never dare to understand such an event, instead simply surrendering to their instinctive interpretations of doom. They will become fearful of such directions. And moreover, they will end up inventing reasons to justify such fears.

They will decide to never go down such a direction ever again. And that's how their minds become limited.

If we take it for granted that these people are narcissists, it makes sense to assume that these feelings of doom -- these feelings that make them give up on the decision to think about what is the best way to live -- are caused by their narcissistic fear that their contributions will be insignificant.

In other cases, it might be the confusion between a goal and an expectation. Some people do not separate the two. Immediately after deciding on a goal, they would make expectations about realizing it within certain timeframe. And when they fail to do so, this will create the feelings of doom that will turn them not against their faulty expectations -- remember, they are unaware of them -- but against their goal -- of which they are aware.

There is a clear distinction between a goal and an expectation. A choice of goal does not necessarily imply any kind of motivation and it does not necessarily lead to any kind of expectations. However, in impulsive, over-connected minds, the two are confused, instead of being separate, so when such people choose a goal, they immediately become motivated and they immediately make expectations.

Bottom line is that it is always some sort of need that creates such feelings of doom. The mistake that these people make is to assume that it is necessary for them to satiate such needs, instead of continuing trying to resist them (or at the very least, giving them a temporary release.)

Hedonists -- let us remember -- are needy people. They need to satiate their needs, otherwise they cry and they die.

There's a lot more to be said about these people, but I will put an end here, and continue some other time.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Apr 09, 2016 10:38 pm

Is_Yde_opN wrote:Some people's selfishness shows itself by telling other people not to be selfish and to comply with their standards and demands.
Other people are more direct about such demands.


Yes, these are two different sides of the same coin that is narcissism.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Harbal » Sat Apr 09, 2016 11:05 pm

My God, Magnus, that's a hell of a lot of stuff you needed to get of your chest. Don't forget to do something about the chip on your shoulder while your in the mood for a good clear out.
User avatar
Harbal
Thinker
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Sun May 03, 2015 12:53 pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Is_Yde_opN » Sat Apr 09, 2016 11:32 pm

"Imagine"

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
User avatar
Is_Yde_opN
Thinker
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:43 am

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Kriswest » Sun Apr 10, 2016 1:45 am

Harbal wrote:
Kriswest wrote:Actually we need such people. Even though they are a pain in the ass
Yes we do, when people are taking themselves too seriously someone needs to make them aware of it. I'ts a very important job.

Yes and no. They can be the spark needed. As you point out we have a variety of issue personalities. We can see them as wrong or mistakes etc. Or view them as tools for the species. We need the terrorist, the egotist, the horrific dictator. We must overcome the challenges as a community as nations as a species. It is too soon to purge us of these personalities. Make no mistake we can do it now. Medicine/science is advanced enough to detect probable mental issues in fetuses. It may occur eventually when world leaders truly unite. I hope I do not see it. I fear progress of evolution would stall.
I will be bitchy, cranky, sweet, happy, kind, pain in the ass all at random times from now on. I am embracing my mentalpause until further notice. Viva lack of total control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not a test,,, this is my life right now. Have a good day and please buckle up for safety reasons,, All those in high chairs, go in the back of the room.
User avatar
Kriswest
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20554
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: stuck in permanent maternal mode.

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Apr 10, 2016 3:51 am

We'll now talk about absolutism and relativism. These are important for the topic, because as we shall see, egoists are necessarily relativists.

Absolutism is a position that every question has a single answer. The idea is that there is a single, absolute, reference point. Relativism, on the other hand, is a position that every question has a number of equally valid answers. The idea is that there is a multiplicity of equally valid reference points.

Relativism is a primitive position, characteristic of people with underdeveloped intellect. It's typical of nomadic people -- of barbarians -- who live in the wild and have little time to spend on actual thinking (which is always concerned with discovering one true answer to any given question.) With such people, only practical questions of survival are considered to have absolute answers. Everything else is relative, since they were never given a choice. Instead, all other decisions were naturally selected. Philosophical questions such as "what is the meaning of life?" as well as questions of morality and aesthetics were always decided not through thought, but through natural selection.

Philosophical questions were too much of a risk for nomads. Whoever attempted to answer ended up either being punished until he stopped "being lazy", or he simply went extinct. As such, nomads were hardcore traditionalists who relied on tradition -- a naturally selected set of decisions -- that proved effective.

Then came agricultural age of settled lifestyle which for the first time in human history allowed people to question the premises upon which their lifestyles were built upon. This is when Cronus castrated his father Uranus and replaced traditionalism with anti-traditionalism. The Golden Age ensued.

The moment one is allowed to choose one's meaning of life is the moment traditionalism dies, because traditionalism has never been a choice, but a necessity.

In this way, absolutism came to replace relativism.

Absolutism is the height of human development.

Fast foward to modern times, and the Golden Age of Absolutism has deteroriated to an age of two modern forms of relativism: that of liberalism and that of conservativism.

This is the time when absolutism -- which means choice -- came to be hated with a burning passion. Choice, for many, has become a burden. It has become too much of a risk. Unfortunately, since most modern people have it well devepoled, this created a problem of denying it: it was too difficult to deny it.

Willpower was simply not enough. It was too slow and painful. Instead, what resulted is a denial through rationalization. People had to deceive themselves in order to become resistant to external stimulation taht triggers their choice-making process. This necessarily resulted in all sorts of barbarisms. People became bullies. They started spending a lot of their time proving other people to be wrong through deception and lies.

Modern relativism is a sophistry meant to put an end to choice. Every intellectual knows this. Every intellectual knows that a belief in relativism is a sign of insecurity. Of inability to choose, and moreover, of inability to deny choice through willpower alone.

Absolutists know very well that no choice is perfect choice and that further intellectual exploration can further improve choice. Absolutists also know that in order to be able to act they have to put an end to choice-making process past a certain point, and they know very well that it is willpower, and not rationalization, that should be used for such a finalization.

The two popular directions of political relativism known today are that of liberalism and that of conservatism. These two political positions define, in rough terms, how one should live one's life (in other words, they try to give an answer to the question of "what is the meaning of life?")

These terms are relativistic, which means, the correct answer depends on the chosen reference point. Furthermore, reference points are thought to be of equal value, not subject to choice themselves.

Liberalism, as its term suggests, is relative to one's free -- which means arbitrary -- choice of how to live one's life. One is free to choose any set of motivations one wants. There are no restrictions. One can stick with them, or one can change them at any later point in time. Also, one can pass them on to his descendants or not. These are, we can call, relaxed traditions which are most often micro-traditions as they tend to be temporary, liable to change, and rarely passed down through generations, and so, not exactly traditions in the true sense of the word.

Conservatism, as its term suggests, is relative to one's ethnic background. Conservatism gives a false sense of absolutism, in that, people are ranked based on how in tune their choices are with their ethnic background. This is traditionalism proper. One's meaning of life, so to speak, is supposed to be shared not only among generations but also among anyone with the same ethnic background. Its relativism betrays itself in the idea that different peoples should preserve different traditions, which implies that different peoples should develop in different directions, as there is no single universal direction that is superior to all other directions (implying lack of this kind of choice on the part of conservatists.)

There are people who do not like ethnocentrism, or at least, who do not like all the varieties of conservativism that we have today, so instead of talking about the need to be in tune with one's ethnic background, they talk about the need to be in tune with one's nature/past. This too is relativism, though they will try hard to prove you that it is not, and that by telling you that they actually do make some of the choices, which of course, misses the point. Everyone makes some kinds of choices, the question is, did they choose, and do they choose, the meaning of life through a rigorous process of thinking, or did they simply submit to a naturally selected choice (what we call instincts)?

And the answer is: they simply submitted to a naturally selected choice. Hence, they are inferior.

Instead of admitting they are inferior, they will try to silence every suggestion of them being inferior. They will try to silence the fact that they LACK choice in these very important philosophical matters.

This is the modern hatred of philosophical choice of "how to live one's life the best way?"

Something interesting. They call us Cultural Marxists. This is not a real term. It's made up. And it merely shows they have no clue what they are talking about. But we have a term which is very appropriate for them. This term is Cultural Narcissism. They are Cultural Narcissists.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Apr 10, 2016 4:18 am

Of course, not every instinct is naturally selected. Instinct is just instinct. But many are. I have plenty of instincts that are clearly not naturally selected, but intelligently, or should I say, ideally selected.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Meno_ » Sun Apr 10, 2016 4:52 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:Of course, not every instinct is naturally selected. Instinct is just instinct. But many are. I have plenty of instincts that are clearly not naturally selected, but intelligently, or should I say, ideally selected.


Would you characterize the will to be both: a manifestation of natural and learned intelligence, that is very hard nay impossible to characterize as either one, or the other?

At this level, ego remains merely a shell , which needs to be filled with an assumed, or proven truth.

That goes just the same with an internal, or an external reference. This difference, also has become prone to the political shifts of which epoch(e) becomes most relevant.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7092
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:08 pm

By instinct I simply mean automatic motivation. I am not very precise with this term, so care must be taken when trying to interpret what I mean.

There are many different ways to shape an instinct. One is through natural selection, which means, literally, random decisions that are then culled by an external environment that is not controlled by an intelligence; and the other is through analysis, which means random decisions that are culled by intellect.

There is a very important distinction between natural and intelligent selection that many barbarians do not understand, because barbarians are, by nature, dependent on natural selection (they are "the chosen ones", the ones chosen by Nature/God.)

There is a very crucial distinction between confidence that is grounded in impulse (natural selection) and confidence that is grounded in analysis (intelligent selection.)

Barbarians are creations of impulse and so they maintain their confidence through impulsivity. This is in stark contrast to the calm of analytical mind which maintains confidence by resisting impulses (which is necessary in order to process information.)

Traditionalists, for example, are barbarians. They make it no secret that they consider tradition more important than reason. Tradition is a product of impulse, whereas reason is a choice, a tool that allows one to make intelligent choices about life rather than to submit to choices that were naturally selected, or more generally, selected in a way that isn't logical.

Traditionalists despise analytical people which manifests itself in their hatred of abstractions. They cannot think, literally, and must depend on someone (such as their parents or society they live in) or something (such as history or theory of evolution) to tell them how to live.

That tradition is more important than reason means that if your parents say that 2+2=5 then 2+2=5 and you better not disagree, let alone use reason to do so, because then you will prove that you're a narcissist who has no respect for ancestors.

Traditionalists are intellectually dishonorable people as they do not confront problems directly. As such, they are prone to making what would a civilized man consider dishonorable connections. And they are prone to making plenty of such connections!

This turns them into intellectual bullies, if not outright bullies. The above example of 2+2=5 is one such example of dishonorable connection. This dishonorable connection has a form of "if your parents thought that 2+2=5, then 2+2=5". Nowadays, intellectual people call such dishonorable connections "logical fallacies".

It is only through analysis that one can directly confront a problem and find a honorable solution to it.

Another example of dishonorable connection making manifests in cyber-bullying the purpose of which is to collect observations about other people in order to feed one's confidence. Remember, traditionalists cannot derive confidence through anaylsis, only through impulse. They are necessary bullies, even when it does not manifest outwardly, which is how clever bullies hide themselves (ever heard of bullies telling themselves and others "to just watch and not interfer"? that's an example of hidden bullying.)

Mladen Obradovic of Serbian far-right organization once said that religion is a must because during the time of greatest prosperity of Serbian people, which was during the time of Nemanjic dynasty, everyone was religious. Therefore, he continues, only religious people can prosper . . . Without religion, no prosperity.

Meathead way of thinking.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Harbal » Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:14 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote: care must be taken when trying to interpret what I mean
I wonder what you mean by that.
User avatar
Harbal
Thinker
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Sun May 03, 2015 12:53 pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Apr 10, 2016 8:05 pm

Before there was any kind of certainty there was uncertainty. We had to explore reality with nothing but courage. We had no experience and no knowledge we can use in order to determine the certainty of any given option.

With experience comes knowledge, and with knowledge comes the ability to make decisions based on certainty and probability. And so people who call themselves "truthers" were born.

The problem this kind of decision making process introduced is the possibility of negative experience skewing reality (what we may call skepticism.)

"Truthers", we can say, are people who are too strict about statistical evidence. If statistical evidence collected from one's experience -- and in modern times, collected through other people's experiences, as well as, through scientific research -- suggests that a movement in a certain direction is impossible, then they would have no choice but to conlude that a movement in such a direction is indeed impossible.

Normal people aren't so strict about statistical evidence. They are capable of ignoring it. With or without reasons for such an act. They need no -- unlike "truthers" -- positive statistical evidence. This is because they possess the capacity to overcome inhibiting impulses.

Many things cannot be proven in advance. The value of many directions cannot be demonstrated in advance. In such circumstances, what is necessary is courage; what is necessary is sacrifice.

Cynics are people who are unwilling -- or rather, who are not allowed -- to give up on their negative statistical evidence.

If their experience suggests that a movement in a certain direction is impossible, then they will not, unless you provide them with a conclusive positive statistical evidence, dare to explore it anymore.

Such an attitude, in itself, is yet to become cynical. This kind of response, is actually, quite common and fairly benign. It's perfectly fine to avoid exposing yourself to a direction you have no trust in and to take as much time as it is necessary to overcome the inhibiting impulses.

Such an attitude is innocent. I am not going to say honest, becaues honesty requires self-consciousness. Here, there is no self-consciousness. There is just innocence. If such a person were to become self-conscious, however, they would, no doubt, quickly realize that their inability to explore such a direction is only their own inability brought on by their negative experiences, and not necessarily a reality of such a direction.

It is only through generalization that such an innocent attitude turns into cynicism. Generalization occurs when negativity, here confined only to one's personal experience of reality, spreads to the rest of the mind, projecting it onto the external world. In this way, one's incapcities are (mis)interpreted as irreversible laws of nature that apply to everyone.

Every man of strong will knows very well that there is no movement that is impossible and that impossibility is merely a word used by people who want to hide the fact that it is their lack of courage that has created such an impossibility, and not reality itself.

The reason why it is important for cynics to interpret personal issues as universal impossibilities is because they have to interpret everyone else as being delusional in order to be able to assuage their insecurities.

Relativism signifies a loss of confidence in making certain kinds of choices. This is, of course, brought on by negative experiences. Relativism is a sophistry meant to rationalize one's degeneration from choice to instinct. This, of course, does not mean total loss of choice, but only loss of specific choices. Hence, we have moral relativism, meant to deny moral choices; cultural relativism, meant to deny cultural choices; aesthetic relativism, meant to deny aesthetic choices. And so on and so forth.

Like all other cynics, relativists demand to be proven in advance (this is "guilty until proven innocent" attitude.) They want to be certain before they start exploring. We can see this in HaHaHa's behavior, for example, when he starts demanding proof for morality, instead of simply laying trust in me and then coming on a journey to discover objective morality.

Some of us carry in our genes an uncorrupted memory of making such choices, which allows us an advantageous degree of confidence in moral, aesthetic, and philosophical absolutism. Many people, however, do not, and that's what makes them susceptible to sophistries.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Artimas » Sun Apr 10, 2016 8:11 pm

So truthers are bad? Because they want more evidence than the normal?

Is my outlook on Jesus that of a "Truther" ? Because I demand more than just two writings 60-100 years after death? Are two writings enough evidence for that type of claim of which "Jesus" was?

How can you swim in an endless sea of possibilities yet succumb to the nearest answer? Which there is no hard evidence for, same applies to the big bang.

There has to be a standard of evidence for certain claims, especially huge ones. We set the standards, correct? So then how are we to know what is too high or too low in terms of evidence for a huge or low claim? By judgement, understanding.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3822
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Apr 10, 2016 8:33 pm

Hmm...

You realize you need an ego to know who you are, that you have a name to respond to, and that you've done stuff!

"Truthers"

The evil ones???

I'm looking at cherry blossoms right now!

I must be evil!!

This thread is absurd !
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10649
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Harbal » Sun Apr 10, 2016 9:48 pm

Ecmandu wrote:This thread is absurd !

It does seem to be but it would be easier to tell if I understood what on earth he is talking about. Despite the extraordinary lengths he's gone to to describe what they are, I still don't know what a truther is.
User avatar
Harbal
Thinker
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Sun May 03, 2015 12:53 pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Apr 11, 2016 4:12 am

Egoists do not want to allow us to work on developing a man who will be both noble and competent.

This is because our own direction of development betrays the inferiority of their own direction of development. Furthermore, it's because their inferior direction of development cannot be at any later point in time upgraded to our own direction of development. The two are fundamentally incompatible, and if egoists were to decide to make a transition from their direction to ours, they would have to contradict themselves; they would have to interpret all of their past as one huge mistake. This they do not want to do, or rather, they cannot do, as it would require from them to start from scratch, a task that is too difficult for them to carry out.

The phenomenon of self-hatred is their own invention. It describes their own sorry state of realization that the fundamental premises upon which their lifestyles were built are inferior. It describes their despair at the fact that if they were to improve their axioms, they would have to do a general overhaul of their way of living, which is something they feel extremely uncomfortable about, and which is precisely the feeling they designate as self-hatred.

It should be noted that whenever they describe our own development as that of "self-hatred", or that of "nihilism", what these people are doing is projecting themselves. They are egoists, after all, and egoists do nothing but project. In fact, some egoists even think that projection is the only way to understand others (which is one of the ways they betray themselves.)

They also make a mistake in assuming -- which is another example of how they project themselves -- that the switch to a higher direction of development has only started during our own life. Which is wrong. It is our distant ancestors -- probably from Neolithic era -- who actually started it. We're merely continuing their work. And not because we are submissive traditionalists, but because our intellect is in alignment with their choices.

Still, there is nothing wrong with doing a general overhaul. Cronus had to castrate his father Uranus in order to become a superior individual. Development, we must understand, is not necessarily linear. That development is necessarily linear is a fantasy invented by traditionalists in order to cover up the fact that they are inferior.

It is important to note that our ideal man is not Nietzsche's Overman. The crucial difference between the two is that Overman is an end in itself, whereas our ideal man is just a means. Though Overman may -- and in fact, should -- possess noble traits, his noble traits are not dominant the way they are -- or should be -- in our ideal man, but merely subordinated to his narcissism.

For narcissists, quantity is more important than quality. One of the consequences of such a way of thinking is their inability to understand the concept of hierarchical structure. For example, upon hearing that they are not noble they would defend themselves by claiming, and even showing, that they do in fact possess noble traits. However, what they will miss, being purely quantitative creatures, is that their nobility is subordinated to their narcissism, hence, not genuine nobility.

Narcissists want to prove their worth, and narcissism being seen by others as of lower value, they have to prove, to themselves and to others, that they are, in fact, not narcissists at all, or that narcissism is actually a good thing, or that narcissism is something that everyone possesses. Similarly, if lack of nobility is seen as a sign of lower value, they will make sure to adopt it, or dig it out from their genes, all in order to prove to themselves and others, that yes, they are the ones who are the best.

Nietzscheans will accuse us of being anti-power and pro-weakness. The underlying impulsivity is very easy to see. Either you are pro-power or you are pro-weakness. There is nothing in between.

What this betrays is that Nietzscheans, being narcissists, have no genuine interest in trying to understand our position. Instead, they are completely dominated by the need to prove that they are right and that we are wrong. By trying to understand the true nature of our position, they are putting themselves at risk -- they are risking being proven wrong.

They will also mock us for being nothing more than just ordinary people, which means, not powerful, and in harsh terms, weak. They will try to punish us for our choices by reminding us that many of us are most likely to contribute next to nothing to the realization of our higher ideals.

Again, this is a projection on their part. They are projecting their own feelings of shame of being small and insignificant. They are projecting their own fears of social ridicule.

We do not celebrate weakness, but we do not celebrate power either. We see power only as a means, not as an end.

The difference between us and Nietzscheans lies in the hierarchical structure. The difference is not a simple rejection of power on our part. Rather, what we reject is power as an end. We reject narcissism. More specifically, we reject instinst at the top of the hierarchical structure, instead replacing it with will.

We are men of will, not men of instinct.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Apr 11, 2016 5:20 am

Truther is a person whose main motivation in life is to avoid being wrong. This is different from a person whose main motivation in life is truth, because such people are not motivated by fear.

Truther is what iambiguous calls objectivist, except that I think that not every objectivist is truther, whereas iambiguous thinks that all objectivists are truthers. I am, for example, an objectivist in the sense that I believe in objective truth, but I am not a truther.

The irony is that iambiguous himself is an example of truther, as he appears to be motivated by fear of being wrong. Still, he's a different kind of truther. He's the kind of truther who has given up on trying to find truth because he thinks that truth cannot be found.

One of the symptoms of being a truther is lack of honor manifesting itself in impolite social interactions. For example, truthers have a tendency to tell others what is true when they do not want to hear what is true.

This thread has less to do with truthers and more to do with egoists in general. The topic title is the way it is because I did not want to give a name as simple and as common as "Egoism".

Conventionally, the word truther is used to refer to 9/11 conspiracy theorists (and sometimes also conspiracy theorists in general.) That's not exactly how I use the term.

Artimas wrote:So truthers are bad? Because they want more evidence than the normal?


Evidence can corrupt. For example, repetitive failure can destroy morale. Repetitive failure produces negative statistical evidence which, if taken into consideration, can become self-destructive. The ability to let go of some of the evidence is thus a necessity.

Here's an inspirational quote:

Image
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Kriswest » Mon Apr 11, 2016 11:07 am

You gotta respect that tenacity.
I will be bitchy, cranky, sweet, happy, kind, pain in the ass all at random times from now on. I am embracing my mentalpause until further notice. Viva lack of total control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not a test,,, this is my life right now. Have a good day and please buckle up for safety reasons,, All those in high chairs, go in the back of the room.
User avatar
Kriswest
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20554
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: stuck in permanent maternal mode.

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Artimas » Mon Apr 11, 2016 1:20 pm

I see what you mean now. Ego blocks humbleness in simple terms.

I am still a little confused on the evidence and failure part though, the way I look at it is I won't give up because of lack of evidence, to me that would only mean I have to search more due to being curious and loving to know. But I suppose if someone wants to stick with an answer they will destroy the wanting/needing aspect to find more evidence.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3822
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Moreno » Mon Apr 11, 2016 2:31 pm

1) The truthers could be mistaken. This seems a missing option. In any situation where something is supposedly secret or secret attempts to bring to light, assert that there is something secret should not be doubly blamed. IOW if they are right, obviously, there are not egoists, following Magnus' schema. There would be something real they are upset about. If they are wrong, it might be because they simply made something up and this would be egoism. On the other hand they might be making a number of mistakes - in dealing with evidence, in there sense of patterns, etc. They need not be both wrong and egotistical, though it is possible. If a customs inspector thinks there are drugs in someone's baggage and calls them over for inspection and then finds they did not have any, this is not now evidence he was egotistical. He mistakenly judged patterns in the behavior, clothing, whatever of the baggage owners. What he thought would turn out to be real, objective drugs in their baggage, were figments of his imagination. Perhaps he is a not very good inspector, seeing patterns of nervousness where there are none for example. This does not make him an egotist, not in the specific situation and not necessarily either if he keeps making such mistakes. He might be an egotist and this might be a factor, but not necessarily at all. And this all presuming (since this is an analogy) there were not drugs in the bags. Maybe they were hidden in a sophisticated way. Perhaps he signalled for them to be pulled to the side and the guy who physically inspected the bags did a bad job.

2) Politeness. Politeness is a way of dealing with conflict and disagreement. It has advantages and disadvantages. Not being polite does also. To restrict oneself to politeness is tactically tying one's hand behind one's back. In complicated political action, being polite with entities that are not polite is not being moral with oneself. Further there are polite truthers. So it is not an either or situation. Having a diverse approach is often best. Think of it as a parallel to good cop bad cop.

3) Building 7 collapsed from the fire is really rather obvious bullshit. Just watch polite videos and polite interviews with people who do not think the official story is correct. That's a foot in the door.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Egoism of the so-called "Truthers"

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Apr 11, 2016 6:09 pm

Truthers are evidence misers. People who hoard evidence and who cannot give up on any of it. They are also known as empiricists.

As strange as it may sound, if you are an evidence miser then your mind will be limited because you won't be able to engage those mental faculties that require certain evidence to be dismissed.

The faculty of pure reason, for example, will necessarily be out of your reach, since it demands separation of concerns, otherwise known as analysis.

An example of a truther would be an individual who thinks that monarchies are bad because history shows -- and they are (probably) right on this one -- that monarchies are tyrannical.

However, faculty of pure reason would tell us otherwise, and that is that only through monarchy is a great life possible. Unfortunately, without an ability to put aside historical evidence, you won't be able to employ such a faculty, and so, you won't be able to reach such a conclusion.

Let us make it clear that there is nothing wrong about gathering evidence per se, the problem is only when one becomes addicted to it, becoming not only unable to switch to another activity, but also motivated to deny its existence, within oneself as well as within everyone else (the latter being known as "gaslighting" in psychology.)

Whether such people are addicted to evidence or to a faculty which demands evidence hoarding is unclear. It may indeed be the case that truthers are in actuality addicted to a faculty of self-preservation which demands strict obedience to evidence. Such a faculty would aim at minimizing personal harm, which would explain why they would be attracted to, and why they would cling onto, any kind of evidence that suggests that an option in consideration will be a risk to their well-being. With plenty of historical evidence showing that monarchies are tyrannical, it is no wonder that such people are against monarchies.

A noble mind possesses both faculties. In fact, most people probably do. But in a noble mind, it is the faculty of pure reason that dominates. In others, it's the faculty of self-preservation that does so. In some, we can imagine, the faculty of pure reason is nearly non-existent.

Regardless of the hierarchical relation between the two, a clear separation between the two faculties indicates a degree of health. There are also cases in which the two faculties have been smashed to such an extent that no clear separation between the two can be made, instead leaving one to a vague sense of multiplicity. Such people usually speak of degrees and balance, and rarely, if ever, of hierarchical structures.

Another example of truthers would be so-called race and gender realists, those who tell us, and who pride themselves in telling us, that certain races are better than other races, and that, males are superior to females, indicating to us a strong faculty of historicism and a lack of faculty of pure reason.

Another example of truthism is gender-centrism which aims to relate everything back to one of the genders. Few of the renowned truthers actually realize that if you choose as your axiom that everything can be related back to one of the genders, that you will, provided that you are skilled enough, manage to relate everything back to one of the genders. Truthers generally do not understand that we do not disagree with their ability to relate everything back to one of the genders, but with their choice of gender as a lens through which to interpret reality.

You see, truthers are rarely wrong about the kind of truths they are truthing about. It's just that they miss the point that their decision making process, lacking in faculty of pure reason, is an inferior one, which is why, others are more likely to dismiss what they accept as truth. Not deny, but simply dismiss, as in, it's irrelevant.

Veronika Kuzniar Clark of Tokio Hotel fangirl fame is an example of a truther whose dominant faculty of historical research clearly predisposes her to conclude that Hitler was a German supremacist. Not a universalist, but yet another relativist who thought that his own people were the best people in the world. She's making an announcement of what-she-calls Hitler Worship Cult imploding, but the only thing that's going to implode is her own idea of HWC imploding. If her faculty of historical research was culled by faculty of pure reason, she would have reached a different conclusion about Hitler.

The more people who lack the faculty of pure reason, the more likely such a faculty would be gaslighted out of the existence. We need to fight against this.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron