How to maintain Respect for the Law

[PierreGringoire]

The ('universal': edited) Law being duty to do what is right. We must consciously blot out other emotional drives except for that conscious submission of our will to the law.

"Doing that in which at the same time you can declare that it be a universal law" - Kant (edited)

Must we first master how to be "happy"? Which can be done by being consistent which produces confidence which makes a mature emotional platform that enables one to generate happiness internally. One attains the ability to maintain a happy heart despite external tribulations.

Confidence can be established by consistency because one becomes comfortable with consequences through consistent conditioning, one becomes inconsequential even. No matter what outcomes may occur, one remains indifferent--and his heart remains happy.

The individual with confidence then, is willing to take on more risk. Since most of his actions are conditioned, he has the "emotional capacity" to 'jump out' of his conditioned box every once in a while and do something creative and courageous, hence expanding the scope of his comfortableness by slowly adding more things he is willing to be consistent with (after testing them with courageous experimentation). So at a certain stage, confidence and consistency feed off each other to expand emotional capacity (a.k.a emotional intelligence)

So first master happiness. Which in turn will produce confidence. And from there one will be able to best follow "duty to the law," which is to do what is right. Or how Kant puts it doing that in which at the same time you can declare that it be a universal law.

Doing what is right is inconsequential. "Right" is practical love. Which is the only kind of love that can be commanded, and therefore qualify as law. It calls for the individual to see the humanness of everyone in every interaction and make that a precept to any outcome or desired end. People first, and then work. Even if the work is for the benefit of other people. It is imperative that one "see" the beauty of the people they are working with to achieve an end and establish genuine respect of each person in a case by case basis.

Therefore, the greatest thing and end in life that one can achieve is to be in sync with the Law to do right, without regard to consequences but with "pracitcal unconditional love" in mind. Hard to achieve because consistency is hard to master. And its hard finding the "right" things to be consistent with. But surely, consistent pursuit will find its way. Trial and error is what we were made for. And courage enables one to risk trial and error.

This is a question as much as it is a comment. I would like feedback and critiques for the sake of arriving at what is relevant and what is irrelevant.

[billl]

Thanks for another interesting post, Peirre! Here's my thoughts:

Happiness isn't always appropriate
I like the idea of learning how to be "happy," but I'd suggest that it be kept within limits--it would be a good technique, but maybe not a good one for every situation. I cannot imagine Martin Luther King's voice without its perfectly appropriate angry rumblings, here and there. I think that we have a range of emotions and feelings, and we shouldn't absolutely commit ourselves to the most pleasant one. Being consistent in the use of heroin, or learning to smile every time a bunch of criminals robbed us wouldn't necessarily be good, of course. It's a caricature of what you're suggesting, to give those examples, but I think they arrive at the end of slippery slopes that we should keep in mind. The problem with programmatic (and conditioned...) courses of action and training is that they can end up providing us with a limited palette of responses to a great variety of situations. It sounds very efficient, and looks neat, but sacrifices a lot of depth that humans have managed to attain over the course of evolution and history.

But on the other hand, we all recognize the benefits of practice in athletics, arts, and work, and I think it can usefully be applied to the tasks of becoming more affable and fair towards others, or correcting unhealthy, habitual overreactions to certain types of stresses or events. I especially love the idea of being able to "break out of the box," and so I don't mean to object so strenuously as it might seem to your suggested 'program', as you don't seem to be suggesting an extreme "fundamentalist" caricature about this.

EDIT And I see that you added the idea of trial and error, which would also seem to indicate a concern for the errors that consistency and programmatic approaches would likely lead to, in a varied world. And you also added the idea of "happiness in the face of tribulations"--and I assume that the use of the word "tribulations" perhaps leaves a window open for unjust tribulations, and the tackling of those with a brave ("happy?") face. I would suggest, however, that anger, sadness, etc. are also useful to us, as long as we don't become overly obsessive about them. Just as a too-automatic happiness might lead us to tolerate unhealthy developments, so too could our reactions against them become warped, or counterproductively unmeasured.

People are more important than abstracted laws
I have to say that I am opposed, in general, to the idea that we should hold the most important love in our life to be the general love towards all other people. I do however think that sort of love is crucial--a basic necessity. And Kant's categorical imperative is the best approach to morality that I have encountered (but not perfect, or at least more nettlesome than it initially appeared to me). But one thing I would wish to be universal would be the experiences of personal love and friendship between individuals, based on mutual experience and personal attraction, and separate from some commanded or abstractedly-logical general love for all individuals. I think that it (love based on mutual experience, earned-trust, and individual attraction) reinforces the idea of individuality, and keeps us a rich and varied species. It is, to me, more beautiful than an orderly, predictable, and more easily understood (and controlled) collection of near-automatons. We are really better off when trust isn't so automatic, and when a variety of "encapsulated" relationships are adding to the complexity of our responses to a complex world. Not only is such a life more dignified, but I think it would ultimately be more efficient at allowing us to achieve our full potential, and protect us from the evils of over-systemization--although our rule-based analyses might not appreciate this.

EDIT I see that you have added the idea of "practical, unconditional love." Would this be a compromised form of "unconditional love," keeping in mind the importance of the sort of love I am promoting as primary to human experience and evolution (i.e. The love between individuals who have grown to know each other through their private shared experience)?

The spiritual path is a special one
Finally, I will say that, as one possible path through life, I think that what you are suggesting is a rather wonderful addition to our variety. It reminds me of the approach taken by monastics, and it is certainly a valuable expression and reminder of an important notion of our universality, and the need to love everyone, as we are all in this together. It's important because those wonderful passions, and the limitations of individual perspective, can often lead us astray. I believe we aren't meant to be perfect (i.e. perfectly boring, or perfectly reductive), and that we need variety, and surprises, and a lot of different (often conflicting) ideas in the face of surprises--but selfishness can sometimes be an overly-expressed side effect of our "human-ness."

[SunnySleepsLate]

I read these posts because they were the most recent ones. - Just have to suggest that you guys think about what your objectives are in this sort of moralizing. The "law", "happiness" and "love" are just words. They aren't really compatible with one another unless you make them that way, unless you redefine them or just stop using them altogether.

If you want to obey completely the written law, do it; but that will probably limit what "love" or "happiness" is possible for you. If you want "to love" in some way that is inconsistent with the lax, practically useless, general definition of it your gonna run into some problems with the law and other sociopolitical standards. If you imagine that the goal of human life is to sustain some sort of evolutionary movement then be prepared to throw everything out of the window, cause who knows where that might be headed. Thanks. Stop reading Kant.

[billl]

Sunny, I'm afraid you have misunderstood, or just skimmed my post. I actually am taking your position on this. 'Haven't read Kant in quite a few years--and you might notice in my post that I found his moral "system" to be a useful ideal (among many), and one that came closest to how I feel, but still insufficient for systemic application to our rich and varied world. I am certainly not a Kantian, nor anything else that would trap me in a system. And I really tried to make it clear that I wasn't interested in any love based on universally applicable rules, or commands from on high.

My only regret, looking it over and seeing your reaction, was that I was maybe not vague enough when I said near the end that we should "love everyone." I meant it as a sort of olive branch, perhaps an overstatement of the idea that we should be fair to each other, and even generous to whatever extent we might be comfortable with. I figured after attacking the idea of the primacy of such a love, (and the attendant dangers) I would recognize the "goodness" of the sentiment.

I am always happy to hear someone attack overly-systematized "evolutionary" movements--and I understand the indignation. But I tried to spend a little more time explaining, and avoided bringing a visceral confrontational attitude, simply because it is precisely the sort of thing that a "one-love" universalist approach is bound to turn a blind eye to.

[SunnySleepsLate]

Cool.

Billl, I was responding to themes in both posts, really - Pierre's and yours. I did read yours and noticed that your general idea was the more practicable. But it's practicable to the extent that it doesn't necessarily posit anything. To me, this is a good thing, but for those that still aim to live morally by a more rigid system, it's not - it's important to address the problems that usually arise when one tries to do this. One of the last things you want is for someone who currently thinks to slip back into some sort of fundamentalism.

[Nax]

I am a little bit thrown by this thread, the title says one thing, but then there is much talk with very little relating to the topic.

The problem with law is that it is written by man, morality is not written but simply implied by something inside us. When law becomes written it becomes stagnant. It loses its dynamic and human qualities and instead becomes oppressive but enforceable which is very important in todays society.

Law however also has a tendency to have nothing to do with right and wrong, and everything to do with revenue raising, subjegating particular social classes, and putting the people in power into more power. In this way I personally find it very hard to respect law as a whole. Granted without law in todays modern society everything would fall to pieces, human morality is at an all time low due to other influences like commercialism which replace our sense of morals with material objects in an attempt to create profit.

Furthermore, many people dont care for the law at all, and rather fear the punishment of financial deprivation, imprisonment, etc. This is important because when discussing the maintenance of respect for the law, a gigantic majority of people have absolutely no respect for it, and rather live in fear of its attempts at "justice" usually in the form of monatary exchanges.

This has bred a new complacency in the law system, as justice has become synonomous with money. Court cases are no longer about right and wrong, but who owes who what sum. They have replaced the morality and humanity of the law with the very thing that causes so many of the problems in the first place. You cannot equalize the loss of soul, the rape of a personal being with funds.

Anyways im ranting a bit, but as you can tell i maintain little respect for a system which is flawed and supports and contributes to the nightmare of a society we have. Corperations own the law system, because they own the politicians who write the laws. Granted many laws are for good, dont murder, dont steal etc. but for the most part I think were due for a drastic upheaving.

When unjustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty

[PierreGringoire]

"Unconditional" as in "unconditional practical love" a.k.a "consistent rational way of treating other people." I believe love, like "way" are very general words. I would prefer to define love as really "seeing the other person" as a person that really deserves honest care and respect because it is objectivly correct. Keeping our limited judgmental ability in mind-- it is indeed the objective way of doing things.

And when I say "blot out other emotional drives," I mean to blot them out so much that you don't even see them as a fleeting option. Its like commiting yourself to a set path right from the start. Kind of like the complete opposite of Nash equilibrium. A philosophy where you do not have your opponents next move in mind to arrive at your "best option." A philosphy that forces you to think creatively to make "the right path" work. This creative thinking is what produces courageousness. Because it is courageous to keep your mind off your opponent. It also takes a lot of hard work to succeed this way. But its the correct way. It is simply medicinal to our human mind to live this way or at least involve this kind of thinking in as many situations as you can.

Don't apply it to the complicated business/personal situations. Apply it to the easy ones. And don't make the excuse that just because there are grey areas (subject to the limited capacity of the individual) and it seems like its impossible to apply it to a certain situation that you cannot at least apply it as much as you can to ensure your emotional development/maturiy. - This is why I am not an extremist, and its how I personally survive.


I'll get back to all these posts as soon as possible. Thanks for the feedback :).

[PierreGringoire]

"Pierre's and yours. I did read yours and noticed that your general idea was the more practicable."

"I am always happy to hear someone attack overly-systematized "evolutionary" movements--and I understand the indignation"

Ouch. This is my first time reading people's comments. My post above came without even skimming your replies. Hopefully, I addressed the fact that I am not an extremist by stating it (ironically) it seems like you interpreted my post as that of a fundamentalist extremist.

"Systematic automative responses."-- That is really interesting. It is interesting because the philosophy I'm suggesting is to be "truly sincere" consistently. However, I wonder if you take that attitude in every situation perhaps it becomes a "systamatic automative response." Which is kind of fascinating.

Bill - yours has been the best post. I liked how you spoke about happiness as not always being the best way to handle things. And as Sunny pointed out, you have to redefine words continually because words always mean something different applied to everything. Happiness, in the way I define it, is ability to act the most rationally in every situation. Hence the "mature emotional platform." Which tends to be happy. But doesn't need to be always happy.

I think I'm Kantian a bit though. And I'm not afraid to admit it. I am a fundamentalist because I believe thoughts and ways of thinking can lead to different degrees of contstructivness. And I see that as a mathmatician witnesses his pyramiad and marvels at the mathmatic rules behind the pyrimaid.

I think its hard to put a finger on thoughts. Its hard to quantify fundamental thoughts. But I believe they exist.

I am a very rational person. And I have many good relationships with people. I understand thinking patterns really well and am by no means sociopathic.

Yes, maybe it can lead to problems. I can see why it could. But it can also lead to amazing social progress.

I can see why it can be harmful for some people when they read my words and then by becoming rigid or overself punishing they become Branch Davidians--addressing the evolutionary comment. But the emphasis on trial and error and hard work hopefully brings those interpretations down to a smaller size.

Its hard to communicate ideas-- which is why Kant wrote a 1000 page book called the Critique of Reason with a very simple message. I personally think he wasted his time because at a certian point we can't understand each other.

Please read my first post again, but with an open mind. Maybe you come up with the same conclusions. Which is fine-- you should believe what makes you most comfortable.

Most weathered academics believe that they adjust with circumstances--that is their philoshphy because they've read so much philosophy and overall REALLY understand their thinking limitations. I believe is beautiful-- but when the two of you agree that this is the way most people should live-- your really not agreeing on anything. Because both of you have fundamentally different motives in a variety of situations.

So I believe that life is about a mixture of fundamentals and flexibility. Just because I recognize that fundamentals exist doesn't mean I believe I do not realize my own thinking limitations. It does not mean that I'm an extremist.

The most important goal in life again, in my opinion, is to take each person in a case by case basis and treat them as much as you can like they are the only ones in the universe. Treat them (as much as you can) as you would a family member. As much as you can.

Just because I'm stating a fundmental does not necessarily mean I'm automizing it. However, as people, I believe we automize many more things than we think we do.


Thanks for your replies. This was the best reply I could do. Good luck with your philosophies (whether you want to state them or not, they can't just be ------"I adjust, that's what I do"------.

Thanks once again :)

[PierreGringoire]

As an aside, I love the use of the literary device when you call something interesting or fascinating because you briefly see the other person's perspective but you don't really agree with what they had to say, you just think their perspective is fascinating. But you say to yourself "but they are missing out on something" or you tell yourself "They are just not getting it."

At this point I can already anticipate counter arguments to my above post and this will become like we are a bunch of toddlers in an enclosed play fence. Not wholly understanding what we read and even (I hate to say this) what we wrote.

That crazy other thread I started "The Power of Confidence" really is relevant for real world "success." I do believe all of us are incorrect-- but were all getting at "something." Or lets hope we are-- because that would be tragically sad if we weren't. :) but kind of hilarious in a sad way :( you can't take it seriously. Its all speculative, it always was...

But lets give our minds some credit. Afterall we owe a lot to our minds. Everything we interpret as beautiful is because of our minds. So let it play and you can either trust it or at least indulge it. Or somewhere in between. But trusting it just might work out...and your mind will love you for it...hahaha I don't know what I'm talking about. But there could be a relevant serious theme in this paragraph. That is for the reader to decide.