General: What is the starting point for philosophical inquiry?

The issue of this essay really concerns the structure of knowledge. When we discuss the foundation of knowledge, its readily apparent that it starts with sensation > perception > basic conception > abstract conception. This hierarchy should be readily apparent to us if we observe children or reflect on our own childhood.
When humans are conceived they progress from subconsciousness to consciousness, but their existence as independent beings starts in a total unknowable flux of sensations, for which they have no idea whether these sensations are for them or against them. Birth allows them to rise to a new level of awareness, where they have use of the 5 senses:

1. Sight
2. Sound
3. Feel
4. Smell
5. Taste

Its only over time that a baby is able to integrate these sensory experiences into percepts. Percepts are the basis upon which we establish the Law of Identity - recognition that things exist with a certain nature. Another element of that law is that things possess to relationships to other things - sameness or difference. Our basic conceptual development allows us to distinguish attributes and differences between entities. Higher level abstract thinking allows humans to progress beyond the level of animals, where we are able to establish `causation` - that is direct and indirect relationships between things. The highest abstractions involve relationships between many concepts, eg. discussions of politics, which culminates in the confusion on such matters. But the contention with these issues often has less to do with complexity but lack of accountability for our thinking and evasion by those whom are wrong. Those issues pertaining to human values take on greater personal meaning than purely scientific facts. Issues like philosophy (ethics, politics) are fundamental to every human, so its not surprising that most people are defensive on such issues. Being wrong invalidates not just an isolated premise, but may well undermine the `whole world view`. By necessity - its always personal.

Philosophers vary in their starting point. Some take `the good of society` as the standard of value and construct a philosophical framework for human ethics from that. The error in this approach observed by Ayn Rand is that proponents of it subsume a certain relationship between men - an ethic of self-sacrifice or servitude to the state. This thinking has dominated philosophical thought for thousands of years, and was only questioned implicitly by the Industrial Revolution during the 1700s by the likes of Adam Smith. Smith and others were of the Utilitarian school that saw capitalist greed serving the `good of society`. Ayn Rand was the first to recognise a theory of values which frees the individual from `social` or state-sanctioned values.

Ayn Rand identified certain axioms (self-evident knowledge) that no one could refute. These axioms are:

1. Existence exists
2. Consciousness perceives that which exists
3. Law of identity - to be, is to be something, to possess attributes which distinguish one entity from another. The legitimacy of `reason` as a cognitive tool is closely linked to the law of identity - that entities have a nature, and cannot behave contrary to that nature.

Ayn Rand recognised that philosophers had to accept these basic premises.

I would invite anyone interested in philosophy to read the following books to get a better understanding of philosophy:

1. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (introduction to philosophy ideas)
2. The Philosophy of Objectivism by Leonard Peikoff (well explained theory)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pleased to hear comments or criticism if reason is the standard.

Politics: Common political misconceptions

Political organisations or mere individuals are often categorised as `left` or `right`. I want to argue that this dichotomy is erroneous, as well as offering reasons why.

Contemporary thinking is that - the poles for debate lie between Socialists (extreme left) and Fascists (extreme Right). Liberals and democrats are identified somewhere in between and are interpreted as `moderates`. Foremost these terms demonstrate how words are misused. Lets consider a few here:

1. `Extreme`: What is wrong with being extreme. How can an adjective have any meaning divorced from a noun. It just shows you how concepts can be used to disparage others and avoid intelligible debate. No one would argue that extreme virtue, good health or honesty are bad things. In reality it depends on the context. Does to serve life or undermine it? Human thought has progressed greatly over the centuries. Contemporary values would be regarded as `extreme` by people living just 100 years earlier. The facts of reality have not altered such would demand a change in values, just we are freer today, thus able to redefine our values. There are 2 ways you can change your values....by implicitly accepting or `absorbing` contemporary values, in which case you are likely to have little self-efficacy since you have subjugated your mind to a pollster`s parrot. Or you can develop an explicit set of values where you pro-actively define the type of person you are. We all have a philosophy - the question is - `do we know thyself` and are we `being effective`.
2. `Moderates`: By what standard could `moderation` (the mean) be considered a standard of value. Either the facts support one position, or another, but what justification is there for accepting a consensus between 2 opposing concepts. Should we not embrace principles - which pertain to facts of reality - if they are based on natural laws? What basis is there for accepting anything but principles that pertain to human nature (philosophy) and the nature of existence (science).

Continuing on from this thinking, its apparent that contemporary thinking is flawed:

Left (socialism/communism) <<<>>> Right (fascists)

The problem with this thinking is the following:

1. Arbitrary concept: Both extreme Left & Right poles do not pertain to the facts of reality. The concepts are based on arbitrary constructs which stem from the fact that fascists have fought communists. But that saids nothing, since communists are prone to fight communist.
2. Common ethic: The Left & Right of politics have the same ethics fundamental. Political structures do not exist in a vacuum, rather they reflect the values inherent in a society. Both socialism (Left) and fascism (Right) hold the same ethical premise that all men exist for the sake of others. You can add religious values as well - all assert that humans should find virtue in the sacrifice of self - whether to the poor (socialism), God (religion), dictator (fascism) or the environment (greenies).

Its apparent from the above that there is one important measure by which politics should be measured - its the ethical relationship between humans. There are fundamentally 2 choices in principle:

1. Selfishness: Either humans live for their own sake, embracing their own happiness as their primary value, or
2. Selflessness: Humans exist only for the sake of serving others. Such an ethical premise treats humans as either sacrificial fodder (suckers) or perpetrators (bullies) imposing their standards on others.

But ethical concepts have a broader context as well. In fact there are several levels of thought pertinent to people`s relationship to other people, and it starts with the nature of reality, next we need to consider our relationship to reality. To elaborate:

Metaphysics: Objective Reality vs Subjective Reality

Epistemology: Reason/logic vs Irrationalism/emotions/passion/instincts

Ethics: Selfishness vs Selflessness

Sense of life: Romantic values vs Naturalistic/Tragic values

Politics: Capitalism vs Socialism/fascism

These philosophical poles are `extreme` by most people`s standards because people place little trust in principles, they are prone to distrust ideas and accept the operating mode of the moderates - the status quo, or the intellectual bromide of the mob or unthinking majority. We thus have liberals,moderates or democrats embracing some compromise between these 2 poles. No one would argue you should be too selfish or selfless, rather they would prescribe some moderate position between. The idea that you should pursue the middle-ground was advanced by Aristotle 15 centuries ago, but it really highlights human ignorance of human nature. Consider the following:

1. Metaphysics: We are arguing here for a subjective or objective reality. Its difficult for anyone to argue that they can evade the facts of reality (objective reality) because few people would walk in front of a speeding car, since they don`t believe they can escape their nature as a human being merely by willing it.
2. Epistemology: Epistemology embraces the study of human`s means of thinking & acquiring knowledge. People often justify actions at a level of abstract values by appealing to emotions. They fail to recognise the proper relationship between thoughts & emotions. Emotions are not tools of cognition, but rather the product of thinking in the context of our values and experience. The fact that we can have very different emotional responses in the same crisis is evidence of that.
3. Ethics: There is no question that human survival requires thinking - even at the level of a cave man. Cave men had to fashion tools and to hunt with a strategy in order to survive. Since prehistoric times, humans have recognised the benefits of specialisation, which has given humans a greater level of autonomy in terms of the productive process, but less independence in terms of his product output (because he is producing a surplus for sale). Whilst he necessarily requires a degree of empathy to meet the needs of the customer, humans have a hierarchy of values (incorporating survival needs & expressive values) they require from their productive work. It is by necessity that human effort is selfish, in the first instance to support his immediate survival, in the second instance to support his desire for self-expression and personal efficacy, and in the 3rd instance to support those values in others (generosity as opposed to altruism). There is no justification for supporting poor values (altruism) when there are more positive values to reinforce among those with conflicting values (moderates). The error arises because values are perceived to exist in a vacuum, as opposed to being considered in the context of a person`s life, their nature as a human being, or their previous experience. The subjective would argue that - if he wants it, its a value. The objectivist theory of value argues that values must be considered in 2 respects - the fact that we want it and why? The subjective theory permits a great many people to rationalise that they are helping others (virtuous) when in fact they are self-serving (in their pursuit of subjective values - since they have not earnt it honestly).
4. Politics: There is a dichotomy between capitalism and collectivism (any form of government that sacrifices individual values to God, nation, the poor or the environment). Capitalism is a socio-political system based on the protection of individual`s from the use of force or fraud by others. It embraces relationships between individuals and organisations on the basis of negotiation and contracts. Such a political system requires a high level of personal responsibility so its important that individuals embrace a set of values consonant with that political system. If they don`t, then they are embracing conflicting values at odds with the facts of reality, and at in opposition to their nature as human beings. Such conflicts underpin the modern liberal.

The intellectual framework for the modern liberal is a compromise between these poles. The liberal concludes that there are things beyond his control so gives some credence to a subjective reality, whilst respecting the contribution that science has made to human progress, thus reinforcing the existence of an objective reality. In epistemology, the liberal regards both reason and emotions as legitimate tools of cognition, not in fact recognising their proper relationship. For him there is thus a conflict between his thinking and emotions. The liberal takes the subjective theory of values which saids that anything a person values is in fact in his interests. eg. Suicide is a justifiable goal because he wants it, even if the decision is not supported by the facts of reality. He thus regards selfishness as greed and selflessness as kindness, when neither is the case. In politics the liberal supports free markets regulated by governments to preserve the interests of the poor and downtrodden. He is thus an advocate of a mixed economy.

Philosophical values also impact upon a persons sense of life - whether they are tragic or reflect favourably on others. Whether they are tight (suspicious & scared) or generous (trusting & confident) when dealing with others.

As a university student, the university press argued that the extremes were evil because capitalists sacrificed the interests of the poor for the rich, and socialism sacrificed the interests of the rich for the poor. This is nonsense. True socialists do sacrifice the interests of the rich, but they will similarly sacrifice the interests of the poor to justify their existence (retention of power). By way of example consider that taxation was imposed in the US upon the `rich` landowners, but now everyone is taxed (sacrificed). Nor is such sacrifice about problem-solving, abolishing poverty, its an end in itself. They would merely lift the standards of what constitutes poverty to justify their existence. In North Korea, socialism has forced the poor into poverty....the poor being anyone without special status or connections. The country is falling apart because there is no one left to sacrifice. They now resort to intimidating the western world to win food aid concessions. Its all about preserving their power....its never about defending the interests of the poor.....if it were, why would they be socialist. What precedent exists to support the practicality of socialism? Where? In which century? A rationalisation might be made here & there because a socialist government has coersed a remaining capitalist class (China), or production increased at the expense of other resource allocation (Cuba), but really there is no long term evidence of socialism (or collectivism in general) causing anything but destruction of wealth and personal egos.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pleased to hear comments or criticism if reason is the standard.

General: What is the role or relevance of philosophy?

When I was 18yo I was fortunate to have been introduced to philosophy. When first introduced to it, I responded with the same apprehension that grips most people. `Ideological nonsense detached from the real world`. I thought my suspicions would be validated by reading the first chapter. Boy was I wrong. In the last 18 years my interest in philosophy has expanded into philosophy, as well as enhanced my understanding of economics, science, politics, ethics, law, and other subjects.
That is not to suggest that the suspicions that people have about philosophy are not wrong. I came to realise that not all philosophies are the same, in fact a great many of them are destructive. Of course my support of a particular philosophy has to be questioned as much as any other. So I encourage people to learn philosophy so they can determine what system of ideas offers them value. I see the role of philosophy as giving people:
(1) A method of thinking
(2) A system of values
The benefits of philosophy are thus:
(1) Greater mental efficacy
(2) Greater understanding of the human sciences
(3) Greater confidence
(4) Greater personal effectiveness
(5) Greater curiosity
Results are by no means guaranteed. We are all introduced to philosophy at different stages of our life, and we bring to it a specific set of values cultivated by our own thinking and the environment in which we are raised. One of the greatest benefits of philosophy in this context is the belief that we can ultimately know, though we might struggle to understand ourselves and others.
Perhaps the greatest failing of philosophy is that it has remained a `pure` abstract science. To some extent it has been overshadowed by more applied thinking, by subjects such as `life coaching`. This is an unfortunate development because such self-improvement books lack the depth of understanding to be helpful to many people. That`s not to say they offer no value, just that their effectiveness or applicability will be undermined because they are concrete-bound. Perhaps there biggest failing is that they lack any code of ethics, or reference to a theory of values. A life coach might assert that we should pursue our values, whatever they might be, whether they are based on sound thinking, a reasonable understanding, or not. Pursuit of such values might be to impress others. Many of them in different chapters might highlight the dangers of such thinking, but its because some psychologist has asserted this premise, rather than reflecting any theoretical understanding of human nature. For this reason, a great many human scientists are left concrete-bound, unable to anticipate human behaviour. Its my pride that I can anticipate such events with greater predictability. Thats not to say I have mystical powers of prediction, just that the science of humanity offers some scope of predictability like the physical sciences based on cause & effect.

It is this understanding that prompted me to predict that the US coalition`s efforts to rid opposite in Iraq would fail, and that democracy was not possible for all of Iraq. There necessarily had to be a separation of fates between those that believed in freedom and those that believed in coersion, recognising that they are philosophically poles apart.

The road to philosophical understanding is not all gold. I have struggled over the years to deal with the fact that the great majority of people don`t think. I have spent alot of time bashing my head against the wall proving it. I spent alot of time being self-righteous, in the process demonstrating the impracticality of being right, and the practicality of being goal-orientated. But thats not to suggested I abandoned principles, but rather that I had to broaden their applicability to embrace my goals. For example, having shunned the education system that assigns an intrinsic value to `accredited` qualifications, I sought to become self-employed and prove my own effectiveness in the market. In the process, I have avoided working with people that dogmatically accept the status quo, an instead sought to produce my own results, even though they fall short of my effectiveness had I been working within a team. Its a far better solution than having others undermine your values.

I was never going to work well in a team with such values. I would have been vulnerable to their entrenched `social` values, and they would have been vulnerable to my reproach. I know in abstract terms that we are incompatible, and they have a `sense` that I don`t fit in their organisations even if I brought untold productivity to them. Assuming I would feel comfortable there....and of course I couldn`t because I`d have to downgrade my expectations.

Perhaps the most important premise I have grasped....somewhat belatedly... was the need for empathy and to be goal-orientated. These are related and critical to personal effectiveness.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pleased to hear comments or criticism if reason is the standard.