To start reading phylosophical books?

[bounty]

lifeisart---I would not recommend Nietzsche for someone just starting starting in the genre. I think plato's republic is a good place to start.

[lifeisart]

Thanks bounty, I'll check it out after finishing my 3 books.

[lifeisart]

Actually the topic is really moral values.

And because i dont know anything about phylosophy, i dont know what i am. Individualist, existialist etc... And i totally agree with it. There is no proof for things unseen and some people talks very strongly about them. Some can say ''you cannot drink alcohol, because it's forbidden''. It's forbidden to them not me. But they talk strongly like ''look at him he drinks''.

And yes, i think i make bad things and my sister-in-law makes me bad things. That's how i correct her. But i dont have particular standards for it.

[YesNo]

I think bounty is right about Nietzsche. You might find you agree with him too quickly and then look no further.

I was converting old VHS tapes to DVDs yesterday in the basement. That is also where I have bookshelves and so I looked over books I had not read or forgot I read. I found Deepak Chopra's "The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success" on a shelf. It is only about 100 short pages and I was thinking about you as I read it. This book probably contains what you are looking for. However, I don't think you will understand it. I don't really understand it either, but I thought it was interesting.

The seven laws are: (1) Pure Potentiality, (2) Giving, (3) Karma (he's a Hindu), (4) Least Effort, (5) Intention and Desire, (6) Detachment and (7) Dharma or Purpose.

I was also thinking about your sister-in-law. It is amazing the different forms the goddess takes. If you want to surprise her, try eating whatever she prepares for you, and enjoy it.

[lifeisart]

Nope! If i do that, she will be the winner.

And please don't ask me ''what's gonna happen if she wins''. If she wins, she'll be the winner. For now, I'm the winner, because i have them pay the price of what they do to me.
It's like an uncivilized place. If you lose once, other one is the new king. That's how things work with them.

And if i find those standards, that means im gonna finish her! I already finish by giving some subtle messages and make her feel a bit lame. But that's not enough. I'm playing the game with her rules. And i have to play better than her.

[YesNo]

It's true. She'll win, but you are losing every time you play this game. Even when you win, because you have to keep your mind focused on not losing. That seems like a major waste of energy. Isn't there anything you would rather be doing?

I am pretty sure there aren't any standards that would justify either side in this game, at least, none that are satisfying for very long.

[lifeisart]

Actually i dont care about it too much. And i really have much things to do and thing. We talk this because you actually opened a topic about why i wanna find standards .
I normally do my works without thinking about it. but when it's time to show off, I'm at the stage with her. When I'm out of the stage, I do my regular works.

Do research about politics, read some books, watch movies and study for my exams.

[YesNo]

What kind of moral standards are you looking for? What is an example of a moral standard?

There are people who think we are completely determined and can't make any choices. If that is the case, and, by the way, I don't agree with them, then there is no point in looking for moral standards since we cannot make a choice to follow one moral standard over another.

[bounty]

Heck YesNo, my fear rather with Nietzsche is that someone would read him, find him pretty incomprehensible, and then give up reading philosophy.

Lifeisart, im reminded of a saying that might steer you in a fruitful direction. The philosopher is a blind man in a dark room searching for a black cat that isnt there. The theologian finds the cat.

I don’t totally buy into that, but there is a lot of truth in that if you are looking for readings/instruction in morality, you might also turn towards the spiritual side of things.

[lifeisart]

@YesNo, i look for standards that i can fight people, with concrete proofs. For example; you didnt invite me house even when we're at the same house, you must invite me.

like this. She's psychologically retarded. She tells me she's been to a school for helping students. And she comes and tells ''I didnt say hello to the teacher at the school'' (FYI; I'm a teacher)

and i said ''you dont have to say anybody to say hello''. Yes, theoratically she doesnt have to say hello to anybody, but that's not appropriate i believe.

@bounty, I think that might actually happen to me. I dont know much about phylosophy. So i should read Republic first i guess. Should i read Nietzsche after reading Republic? If so, what book by him should i read?

[YesNo]

I haven't read Nietszhe in many years. I assume there are many parts that I would find rather incomprehensible. However, the parts centered around the "God is dead" rhetoric would be very comprehensible, not because it is true, but because as an assertion it doesn't require anyone getting too far away from their expectations of what is true. It fits a pre-rational, un-examined social mood that I hear people promote as if they are saying something superior or intellectual. It is what the sheep would say on some Orwellian animal farm. I can't blame the sheep. We all think in these contexts. Unfortunately just understanding an assertion is as close as we get to any criticism of it.

There is another author, Emil Cioran, whom I assume is more popular in Europe and whom I first heard about on Lit Net when discussing moral issues. Some of his writing, the only part that I have read, is just arrogant nihilistic assertions. If one gets caught up in this writing it is no deeper, probably even less significant, than getting caught up in a Trump or Clinton campaign argument.

For me, moral standards do not help me fight anyone but myself. A moral standard would be a form of spiritual practice, often associated with a specific religious practice. This would include taking walks, being mindful, meditating, contemplating, praying, singing and so forth.

[lifeisart]

Yes, I've heard about Nietzsche's thoughts. I dont know what Nihilism is, though. I think I also want to learn human nature. For example, I learned humans are self-seekers. So that helped me know peopel and I dont get offended when they're self-seekers. I'm not saying I have very intellectual sayings, I'm just saying some people's sayings are incredibly stupid. I still respect them unless they just push me to do the same.

I dont get caught up in this argument with her. She just try to make me angry and I just do the same to her. Also I think politics is important, some politicians endanger people's lives and that's important to me. You might think my thought will not change anything. But that would cause a world without any thoughts.

What I dont understand about moral standards is... Why would I fight myself when I'm totally right? I think we need moral values, I'm okay with different moral values that doesnt harm me. But her behaviours are totally about me. She just wants to make me crazy.

[YesNo]

I started reading this https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ to get some idea what morality is.

Perhaps after I understand that, I can start putting together a set of moral "standards" that at least I would find worth following. The first standard would be a "somatic" one, or one related to the body. It would essentially be to stand tall so that one can breathe deeply. It would probably fall under a heading of how to be physically fit, but I think physical fitness is also a moral standard to follow.

[YesNo]

Here is my current progress on creating the YesNo moral standards.

The article I cited earlier says there is a distinction between morality, etiquette, law and religion. The etiquette part would involve how brothers and sisters-in-law should behave toward each other. The law would involve those codes of conduct that one must perform or risk being punished by some legal system. Religion provides a justification for morality, etiquette and law, but goes beyond them.

Although I don't recall seeing this in the article, there might also be how-to rules of conduct such as how to program a computer or fix a faucet. These rules of conduct one can learn by getting a good video on YouTube.

Morality also involves "moral agents". They are expected to be able to make a choice ("volitional") and able to consider different choices ("intellectual"). This supposedly involves a "rational person" but I wonder if such rational people are fictions. Are we really "rational"? Sure we make choices and sometimes even consider alternatives, but are we rational in those considerations? I suspect not. Besides, I think my cat does these things as well. So, we are not talking about only humans although I will limit my standards to what humans should do since I have no real power to get my cat to behave.

Also, some of morality is concerned about avoiding "harm to others" with an emphasis on constructing a guide to conduct that is "interpersonal". This seems to imply that we are individuals perhaps to a greater extent than we are. As I see it if we avoid causing harm to ourselves we indirectly avoid causing harm to others since we are not totally disconnected from those others. Even when we, or some monk high in the Himalayas, are alone with our thoughts, this could be viewed as an interpersonal activity.

So, here is my moral standard #1 which I call "Respect Gravity". Stand or sit with the back straight so one can breathe more deeply.

This should become a habit and it should improve one's health. One does not have to go to a gym to perform this. Going to the gym goes beyond this moral standard since I have no intention of working out in a gym.

[lifeisart]

I actually do not expect someone to be rational. I totally mean it. People, including me, are sometimes irrational.

But behaviors and attitudes can be better. for example; If someone makes me fall in the street and says ''watch your around, didnt you see me going!'' I would get angry and tell him the similar things.

But if someone makes me fall in the street and says ''I'm so sorry, i didnt intend to do this, how can I fix it?'', I would say ''No, it's my fault, I should watch my around and I should've see you, I'm really sorry''.

So, I think the first example is just disgusting. Thats what I wanna say.