What is your ultimate goal in life?

[coberst]

What is your ultimate goal in life?

I can remember two times in my life when I seriously asked my self the question “What are my plans for the future?”

The first time occurred about a year after high school when I decided I wanted to be an electrical engineer. I had been working as an apprentice electrician for many months and had several contacts with an engineer and this impression led me to decide to be an engineer.

I planned several proximate goals that were necessary to reach my goal of becoming an engineer. I had to go into the army so that I could go to school on the GI Bill and then I had to complete my college engineering education.

The second time that I seriously thought about a proximate goal occurred about 15 years into my career when I pondered just what I wanted for a long term goal for my self.

Life is filled with proximate goals and the decision of just what means is best followed to achieve those particular goals. Now I am pondering what my ultimate goal is. I suspect that I have always had some kind of unconscious ultimate goal but it was one that I had not consciously and seriously thought about nor consciously desired.

“What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but suffer the loss of his soul?”

I was raised as a Catholic and taught by nuns; this question was often in the fore front of much of what the nuns taught me. I suspect that this was pretty much what most Christians, Jews, and Muslims were taught. It appears that the three major religions, and perhaps most all religions, taught that the ultimate goal for all men, women, and children must be “save your soul above all else”.

Have we mixed a very dangerous cocktail here because we have developed a technology that places great power into the hands of ordinary people; many, if not most, of whom have as their ultimate goal the “saving” of their soul rather than the saving of life on this planet?

Isn’t it easy to see why many people find that their ultimate goal in life, i.e. to save their soul, fits quite satisfactorily with the ultimate desire for eternal life? Isn’t it easy to see how such individuals might find that using WMDs is not the worst thing they might do if it will help them save their soul and have eternal life?

Can our species last much longer when we have such a dangerous cocktail ready mixed for instant drinking?

[billl]

A generous and interesting post Coberst. Of course, you've also been concerned with how people's minds are vulnerable to influence via technology, as well, and how such dangerous cocktails can be handed out more easily than ever, perhaps (or is that a spin I'm always compelled to put on it? ). Your promotion of increased CT "education" seems to be a much-needed counter-force to the more exploitative meme-spreaders.

For me, a key idea is that a respect for individuals (for oneself, and for others) is necessary if we are to promote life without surrendering our "souls". I think other issues are connected to this, but I have mentioned in other threads started by you that I think that the "evolution" of technology should include a consideration of and a respect for individuals whose strengths and preferences are less-suited to any particular technological development. I think CT should include a consideration of others, even those who aren't particularly good at CT.

[coberst]

bill

Fairmindedness is a basic aspect of CT.

To be fair-minded one must be vigilant (consciousness plus intention) of the need to treat all viewpoints alike. This demands that we adhere to intellectual standards such as accuracy and sound reasoning, which are unaffected by self-interest.

A contrast with fair-mindedness is intellectual self-centeredness.

Fair-mindedness is a challenging task that demands a family of character traits: intellectual humility, courage, empathy, honesty, perseverance, and a confidence in the value of reason.

Our culture places maximum value not on fair-mindedness but upon self-interest, and maximizing production, and consumption.

Intellectual humility begins with the recognition that absolute certainty regarding any matter of fact is beyond human capacity. There exists no mind-independent reality that we have the capacity to know. We can know only that which is “colored” by our experiences and historical perspective.

Our common sense views, coupled with philosophical tradition and religious dogma, all teach us that such is not the case, that we can find absolute certainty. This cultural tradition works aggressively against our goal of intellectual humility thus demanding that we must become more intellectually sophisticated in order to gain the level of intellectual humility required.

Intellectual courage is a difficult assignment. We all tend to place great value on our own opinion, which is more often than not just something that we grabbed as it flew by. But this is even more of a problem when we are “wedded” to something that we have a strong commitment to, for what ever reason. Our political affiliation is one example.

Intellectual courage is especially difficult, and even dangerous to our well being when we hold ideas that society considers them to be dangerous; even though we are confident that they are rationally grounded. Society often punishes severely all forms of nonconformity; the execution of Socrates by the citizens of Athens might serve as a good example.

By developing this character trait of intellectual courage we will often be ostracized from a group or even a large community. Such an experience will give us incentive to recognize that most people live their lives in such a manner as to be secure in the middle of the approval of those about us.

Intellectual courage ain’t for sissies!

Intellectual empathy is a consciousness that one must engage the imagination in an effort to intellectually place your self into the shoes of another so as to comprehend that other person as well as possible. To accomplish this transaction we must try to learn as much as possible about the other person’s situation so as to reconstruct that person’s assumptions, premises, and ideas.

Many of these ideas were gleaned from the book Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life by Richard Paul and Linda Elder

[billl]

Intellectual empathy is a consciousness that one must engage the imagination in an effort to intellectually place your self into the shoes of another so as to comprehend that other person as well as possible. To accomplish this transaction we must try to learn as much as possible about the other person’s situation so as to reconstruct that person’s assumptions, premises, and ideas.

Well, without stalking I assume. (Or aggressive, unethical data-mining.)

I think your latest words about CT are all good points, and intellectual empathy is a good technique to employ in discussion and thought. I think your defense of non-conformity is a strong enough defense of individual rights, but I just wanted to make the quick point that we can navigate well enough without knowing absolutely everything about others. One of the important things to be careful about--if we want to value individuality--is a right to privacy. I think an important measure of CT's effectiveness would be its ability to respect others in the face of a lack of information.

It is intellectual empathy that leads me to be concerned about "techno-fetishism" and hyper-intellectualism. The human experience is far richer than our interface with the technologies and metaphysics that sometimes entertain, enrich, and even endanger us. I'd really like to see a limit on the necessity for people to engage with these issues. Community and relationships are in many ways sustained by simple pleasures. At some point, even at the price of efficiency, I think we should allow people to retain some level of continuity in their lives, so that they can turn their attention to an inter-personal development with a lover and/or friends, or a hobby, or art, etc. I think that it is incumbent on those who take a concern in the "higher" concerns to protect the less-interested or less-informed from any mess that might subsequently be created.

Despite the loaded, somewhat hideous nomenclature, I think that the idea of an "elite" is a good one, and I think we already have it. I applaud your concern that everyone become more capable (via CT) of understanding and evaluating (and choosing who to empower among) the members of such an "elite".

[islandclimber]

I don't worry too much about it.. i just want to see the sun rise in the west someday

[coberst]

Well, without stalking I assume. (Or aggressive, unethical data-mining.)

Despite the loaded, somewhat hideous nomenclature, I think that the idea of an "elite" is a good one, and I think we already have it. I applaud your concern that everyone become more capable (via CT) of understanding and evaluating (and choosing who to empower among) the members of such an "elite".

Our culture is very ‘anti-intellectual’. I suspect that this is so because the controlling oligarchy wants us to detest independent thinking. They, the oligarchy, have made the word “elite” nasty upon the tongue of the muddled masses.

What is meant by intellectual? I suspect you would get ten different answers from ten different people but I will tell you what it means to me.

Intellectual activity is exploring and enthusiastically utilizing this marvelous brain we were all given at birth. I suspect the normal adult brain is in neutral almost all of his or her life. When we finish schooling most people seem to consider their intellectual search for ‘truth’ is over. In fact most people do not even examine such an idea.

An intellectual life is a life in which the search for truth and meaning becomes an important hobby. The person with an intellectual life spends as much time trying to understand as s/he spends learning how to hit a golf ball properly.

All of us pass through a schooling system that is designed to fill our heads with the knowledge we need to get a good job. Our schooling prepares us to become strong and industrious workers and voracious consumers. We have been prepared to become maximizers of production and consumption.

An intellectual life is one we must create after schooling so that we can create our value system more in tune with what we are as intellectual beings than what we are as consumers.

I don't worry too much about it.. i just want to see the sun rise in the west someday

That is called adolescence and will pass with time.

[billl]

I think it might, arguably, be called great wisdom, as well. (Except, one probably shouldn't worry about maybe not seeing the sun rise in the West ever...)

[kasie]

Well, without stalking I assume. (Or aggressive, unethical data-mining.)......

Perhaps coberst did not have such a sinister process in mind, billl! I wonder if he was thinking of what I have long thought of as a 'leap in imagination' where one changes places in imagination with the person with whom one is debating/aguing/in conflict with and asks oneself 'How does this look from his/her point of view?' or 'If this were happening to me how would I feel about it?' It often helps to take a step back at certain points of a relationship and try to see it from the other person's perspective.

[Scheherazade]

"Live and let live" is a good goal, I believe.

[billl]

@kasie, I'm (pretty) sure you're right about coberst's intentions . My post was caution-wrapped-in-silliness.

But I couldn't help but double-check that particular point, because technology is a big part of the discussion, including its misuse. Since he ignored it, I guess we can assume that, yes, coberst is anti-stalking, and pro-privacy-rights-protection.

I think Scheherezade's post was right-on-time, something that I could easily waste a page trying to explain...

[AuntShecky]

To answer your question, yours truly has lived sufficiently long enough (perhaps too long!) to come to the realization that setting goals for oneself often leads to bitter disappointment. Of course, "criticial thinking" would offer the reminder that one should only set "realistic" (i.e. achievable goals) for oneself. But when one finds it frustrating even to achieve small goals, even after hard work and determination, that's where the frustration sets in. I'm speaking about those of us who may have had the misfortune of starting life already with two strikes against us: born in poverty, or orphaned at an early age, or beset with some kind of physical or psychological impediment, or suffering cricumstances beyond their control which forbid them somehow from self-actualization. It doesn't help to be saturated by the media, who ignore the rule and tout the exceptions (with the prominent examples of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama and similar famous rags-to-riches stories.) It may be a matter of luck -- and woe to those who brag that they "make their own luck!" especially when we life hands one such an enormous basket of lemons that he or she cannot even begin to make the proverbial lemonade. Yet, like the remaining item in Pandora's box, we cling to hope.

Those who preach and practice the philosophy of Buddhism try to teach us that not to desire anything, that life is mere illusion. (Why the rich and powerful have more comfortable "illusions" we aren't told!) The Judeo-Christian disdain for "things of this world" is part of this. For centuries, the rank-and-file ordinary Joes have been told by the Church to forget about this life and worry about the next, where after a seemingly "moral" and upright existence, one will be --finally, I guess, rewarded. This "pie in the sky" tradition, I guess, is like a celestial version of the old "layaway" plans department stores use to have in the days before credit cards: pay little-by-little and brink your purchase home later.

This is why the priests and nuns told us that living to insure "salvation for your immortal soul" should be one's ultimate goal. But the big danger of that is that the day-to-day problems besetting both individuals and society as a whole gets placed on the back burner. An example of this comes when the environmental movement began in the late 60s and 70s when the religious right had the mindset of "why should we try to save this world for future generations if Jesus is coming back to destroy it anyway?"

On the other hand, a spiritual or religious philosophy of life that gives one's existence meaning may indeed be more important than setting "goals."

[islandclimber]

That is called adolescence and will pass with time.

I might suggest it is called the realization that planning for the future, having ultimate goals and working towards them, well it makes day to day life tedious and somewhat futile.Unless those dreams and goals are impossible ones, well then things get interesting.

I much prefer living my life day by day, without a care about things like saving for retirement, a steady career, doing things that benefit this world, raising a family, getting rich, etc. etc. I'm 25, I support myself, I live spontaneously and randomly, I enjoy myself, and I don't infringe upon anyone else's right to do the same... If this is adolescence, and it probably is, I hope I remain the eternal adolescent...

[billl]

well, it's fun to make other people happy too, once in a while. maybe you just left it out to be extra-honest about self-interest or something.

[AuntShecky]

I have a question for you, Coberst, as well as for your devoted disciples (among whom you can count yours truly).

When one lives in a relatively affluent society, a phenomenon that could be called a "sense of entitlement" often evolves. In the case of the U.S., there is a basis for it in the documented phrase "the pursuit of happiness." That's all well and good, "positive," as the educationists like to say, and hopeful.

Yet there is a downside to this. Among our many cultural myths, perhaps the most dangerous are the ones that inspire false hope, for instance, the pervasive belief that "anyone can grow up to be President" ( or an NBA star or a Cy Young award-winning pitcher or a Pop star or what have you.) When we see pedestrian examples of folks with ordinary (and often less-than-ordinary) talent rise to the top, that gives credence to this horribly misleading lie. "YOU too! can be the next Shaquile O'Neal or Britney Spears or what have you."

Beware unrealistic expectations!

Contemporary "culture" (I use the term ironically) has proven Andy Warhol's oft-quoted prediction that "In the future everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes." Part of this is the malady which I call the "American Idol Syndrome" in which a young person has vaulting ambition which exceeds far beyond the limits of his or her talent, if such a talent even exists at all.

So here's my question:

How can a individual set a realistic achievable goal without necessarily limiting herself or himself in the first place -- and how can a person regain hope after a lifetime of disappoihtment?

[haraf_ish]

Carpe diem! Don't let others live for you...live your life. Explore and experiment...