Philosophic Philanthropy

true i suppose it's human instinct to react in an emotional way. i do like to add some philosophical points here and there though. i got my first taste of philosophy from a class on socrates. but don't undermine to importance of emotional responses they can help people to understand a situation in a different way.

i love to philosophi with other people. between that, debating, and writing literary works i get a feeling of power from it all. even as a kid i preferred talking to adults than kids my own age.

i'm not into [sychology much. personally i refer to the bible in life crises instead of froyd. not trying to confront you or anything

"How can a society- nay, how can humanity"
^
Ha! Who says nay? We're living in the 21st century Hamlet.

Emotions are humane. You are speaking to a generally young community here. Life experience delivers philisophical insight, not unsure youth.

do not be afraid to say yay or nay. i prefer to step out of the boundaries. we don't have to be like everyone else. you won't catch me calling people dog or saying unproper slang.

i am a man for the people but not a man of the people

"I consider philosophical advice to be altruistic: It augments the overall intelligence of a location, person; helps move the location, person further along in the search for Truth; and benefits the location, person more than they/he/she might think"

First off, I'm wondering how you're defining philosophy. Because... if you could get all philosophers to agree, then you'd have a miracle on your hands. But anyway, we need a common starting point. Do you mean it as in: a way of thinking that's based soley on reason, perhaps?

Using that^ definition, until you give another, I'll give my thoughts:

I don't believe reason and emotion to be so separate. When they are, I think it's only when the understanding of the individual is not fully developed. For example, an American might passionately belive that all Canadians are evil (an emotion), but once they learn that this isn't true, their emotions would be altered. Having said that, however, I think it's dangerous to account for human actions from an entirely rational point of view. We are beings of reason, it's true, but that's not ALL we are. There are ways to "rationally" argue for any terrible thing you can think of. Right now I'm thinking of the Marquis de Sade's "Philosophy in the Bedroom," where he calmly and rationally argues for such things as rape, incest, prostitution, and masochism. Or, to take a less debauched view, take Kant. He believed that, if a man showed up at your house and said "where are your childeren, I want to murder them" you would be rationally, morally obligated to tell him where they were, simply because it's always, (rationally) wrong to lie.

I believe our moral selves ought to be -informed- by what reason we can glean from the world around us, but we cannot discount our emotional selves, because our hearts and instincts can give us insight into whether or not our "reasoning" is good or valid. When it comes down to it, we will only follow those reasonings that we believe, or FEEL to be right. After all, if you're a human that is only Mind, what room is there left for a soul?

Although Christians are not the only group that admires the golden rule, “love thy neighbor as thyself” or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," we tend to remember the wealthiest philanthropist. The people that donate money to good humane causes, which sometimes are extended to lesser members of our animal kingdom I believe that if the golden rule were practiced by a larger portion of the population the world would be a better place to live

Yesterday my wife’s Chihuahua bolted from the door while I was about to run an errand. I immediately realized my carelessness, but I was already in violation of the leash law.
Chico ran into my neighbors yard and began to bark at the children that were playing there. The mother of the children became so angry that the nine-pound Chihuahua had frightened her children that she began screaming I am going to kill that dog ,and I have no doubt that is what she intended to do. Chico was already in full retreat after the irate woman attempted the disable the animal with a kick so she could stomp it to death. In the heat of passion I found myself cheering the mischievous Canine to safety When Chico got close enough to me I picked him up while the neighbor threw the vanity mirror she had in her hand in between us in the hopes that she could kill at least one of the trespassers. She then retreated for reinforcements although I never threatened her. When I put Chico in the car, realizing that apologies are difficult while people are irate, she was screaming at her spouse or son to further humiliate me. I left to avoid any further physical confrontation, and never filed any assault charges. I must admit that some neighbors are hard to love.

to sum up michael's post, i quote shakespeare "this asbove all to thine own self be true"

i wish that everyone gave. but in my opinion, if everyone gave towards the common cause but still believed differently than i did then i wouldn't enjoy this shell of philanthropy.

Are you afraid of a little difference?

^ When did fear come into the picture?

"Nay" is outdated. Speaking "outside the box" is not always respectable. I don't need Old English common phrase to express intelligence. I found your upright formality amusing, not offensive or fearful.

I also did not need the definition and usage of "nay," but thank you for comfirming what I already knew.

A nonce, I will venture yonder. Fare thee well, Sir Dolton.

“to sum up michael's post, i quote shakespeare "this asbove all to thine own self be true"

i wish that everyone gave. but in my opinion, if everyone gave towards the common cause but still believed differently than i did then i wouldn't enjoy this shell of philanthropy”

You are very perceptive David, every creature in my post including myself was true to their own nature. For some reason it has been noted that most Chihuahua’s seem to have no concept of size and Chico seems to get more satisfaction out of barking at people that do not laugh at him. If the woman that by her nature wanted to kill the intruders of her property had succeeded she may or may not have enjoyed her victory
I am not sure I could have watched her kill Chico because emotions are powerful while making split second decisions.

"Ugh, that Kant made one mistake (or there is a mistake apparent in your interpreted story)."

Yes, you are exactly right there, in my opinion. Its one of the reasons I'm not a complete Kantian. But, of course, I was using him as an example of what I think people should NOT be - rationality without emotion.

we live in a lol, brb, g2g world. books are often unread-which is partially understandable because of the internet.

you can't expect some high school study to pick up don quixote. i wish that wasn't so. i used to disagree that the printing press was the greatest invention of all time, but now i agree.

"alas that i could not change the hearts of the unbelieving, but i can change the hearts of the believing." david johnson

I'm so confused by what we're even talking about anymore....

all science trembles at the searing logic of our fiery intellect

Yes, sorry to stray off topic. I am surprised my comment in reference to "nay" was recognized at all.

i just like short witty phrases like that.

not to contradict you or anything but to add a bit more. emotions are a powerful tool, but we cannot let them rule us, our lives, our decisions, and our relationships. emotions are powerful.

bend them to your will and they are an excellent servant, but keep feeding them and they will take over you.

what i'm trying to say is it's good to be emotional, but be careful as to how, why, and when you use them.

Dolton, yes. I did.

aw, but it's okay though....well...maybe not. awkward moment.

"I think that, although emotions are valuable to certain people, objective routs to an end are more valuable."

I'm wondering who you might mean by "certain people." Are they the "unintelligent" people you describe next? Furthermore, do you honestly think that their emotions are justifiably valuable, or do you think that they are simply a crutch?

From your apparently omniscient people watching, it seems like you are tying together three things: lack of intelligence = actions determined by emotions = inability to accept "harsh truths."

First off, plenty of people who may not score high on an IQ test, for example, are -living- with harsh truths. Reality cuts across all variations of people.

Second, I don't see how "realizing that death happens on a global scale" can be independent from an emotional response. What good would it be to realize it, if you don't care about it?

I wonder if a certain degree of suppression of reality is essential, in order to retain one's psychological functions. Living unceasingly with the knowledge of all the frightening truths of the world might lead one to simply shut down.

Now... of course I think that people ought to embrace those truths that are revealed to them. In this, I agree with you. I wonder what you believe, though - is it for everyone to shake off their illusions? Or are there only a select few, whose responsibility it is to "bear the brunt" of the truth, so to say?

In any case, this acceptance of logic should certainly not be at the expense of emotions. Instead there should be an assimilation, or even a transformation of emotions, so that they match up with what we logially understand of the world. As Aristotle had it, the virtuous people are the ones who delight in doing those things which they find logically productive; that is to say, their emotions coincide with their rational minds.

I don't think it's emotions that are ruining our survival. I think its a combination of incomplete logic, and a surpress of emotion that is not informed by knowledge and understanding. Good (you could say virtuous, rational) emotions are, I believe, one of the very things that have the capability to save this world.

emotions alone won't win the day. it takes more than that.

i know what's right so i do it. wrong, what is right to my emotions can be wrong towards another.

if we lean on our emotions like you say then some serial killer or rapist can just plead in court they were leaning on their emotions, in fact that's what they do.

in the heat of the moment is often used as an excuse. emotions need a foundation of knowledge and wisdom to do good. otherwise they're like leaves blowing in the wind.

"if we lean on our emotions like you say then some serial killer or rapist can just plead in court they were leaning on their emotions, in fact that's what they do."

I'm not sure if you were responding to my post here. If you were, than I'd read this again:

"There should be an assimilation, or even a transformation of emotions, *so that they match up with what we logially understand of the world.* As Aristotle had it, the virtuous people are the ones who delight in doing those things which they find logically productive; that is to say, their emotions coincide with their rational minds."

I agree that emotions should not stand alone. That is how you get those murderers "killing in the heat of the moment." Obviously, their emotions don't match up to logic. But cold logic, likewise, isn't worth much if it can't complement the human heart. In that way, your last paragraph seems to match up well with my stated views above.

i know i was agreeing. good show old bean

heh, that was cute. never been called a bean before, i must say...

no prob, i'll call you whatever you want

With so many different truths out there...I think we should all just cool it with debating philosophically. In the end...your strongest reason can only hold true to yourself so why stress so hard to force it onto others. Share it gently, if you wish, by living it in your life...that way..you've already done your philosophy justice. You don't have to scream it to the world...unless that's your philosophy...haha...contradictions...see what I mean? No not really?...=P

Who are we to say, for sure, one person is more intelligent than another just by walking down a street with them...or that one of logic or emotion is harder to understand just because one of them we don't understand well...so on and so forth...haha

We can only be sure for ourselves...at least I think so haha...look my philosophy in practice =P Good luck with your OWN philosophy(ies)

By my view though...you shouldn't have to listen to what I said here...but then you'd be following my view...wow...O.o

joseph we live in a world where no one stresses...at all. everyone is out for the buck, out for the easy way.

stressing over something means that you are passionate about it thast you are willing to spend countless time on it. why not stress over philosophical teachings and opinions?

^ what's the point you're trying to stress?

=P

I don't think your interpretation is correct. If you ask around, I'm sure you'll find that people do have stressful lives. I'm also sure people have other passionate acts they spend countless time "stressing" over [Dear Ruler...if you read this...no perversion intended =P].

Can't say I agree that the world is a place where no one stresses. You might need to further explain and/or examine & revaluate your definition of "stress"

I'm not anti-philosophy. I don't tell people not to think about it...NAY (haha..though I gotta say...it is out-dated), I encourage philosophical thinking.

tenacity.

perserverence. to try to reach your goal no matter what. if to reach my goal i have to stress a bit then so be it.

i would rather a doctor say that i'm working too hard than not enough. george patton once said

"accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory."

they can say all they want about david johnson but they can't say that i did not do what i could with the time that was given me.

i try to be tenacious with everything i do, including this conversation. i won't and can't quit. i owe that to the great men and women in history who have come before me and if you can't get that then i don't feel the need to debate with you any longer.

we were debating?!

hehe...I suppose I have a better understanding of what you mean now. I guess we were just talking about different things. You're talking working hard...I was talking about...what was I talking?! haha oh..."stressing" ones opinion on others. I guess one thing we did debate about is whether people have stressful lives.

What you said there...still doesn't make it true that this world doesn't stress for life. You're not the only one working hard.

You don't have to quit. I'm not in this to win anything...that's exactly what I'm trying not to do and not to prove haha. Have philosophy but don't be too forceful with it is what I'm saying. Your philosophy is yours and yours alone. Though I do wish your efforts amounts to good results :)