« Back to Philosophy in Practice
LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS
Contents:
The right internal effects need the right internal causes. Thus, to be motivated, you need to believe, i.e. internalise the right views, values and virtues, and to internalise them, you need to be convinced of them — for a rational person, to convince is to convince with truth and reason (evasion and irrationality destroy your capacity to think and act effectively, and thus, are not a valid alternatives to truth and reason). Intention and will are not omnipotent and do not circumvent the need for the right causes of motivation.
Philosophy is the basis of the way in which you deal with reality, either implicitly or explicitly. To make it explicit is to bring it into conscious focus, thus bringing it into conscious action. While this is always important, this is especially important if your initial internalised (implicit) philosophy is poor. In learning or relearning the right philosophy explicitly, you reinforce and internalise — or begin to internalise — the basis of the way to deal with reality that is rational, self-motivated and happiness-oriented.
The acceptance of reality, i.e. the conscious affirmation of the facts of reality is the basis for rationality and thus for morality. Never place an “I wish” over an “it is”, since doing so means turning away from the real in favour of the unreal, i.e. that which you can neither have nor seek knowledge about. Accept reality for all that it is so you can effectively strive toward what can be, i.e. the pursuit of value presupposes the acknowledgement of truth.
By causality, what has happened is not open to change. Understanding this is key to understanding that (1) one cannot validly wish for the past to not have happened, and that (2) what happened had to have happened due to the causes that were present. At the same time, it is true that the potential is open to change to some extent. Hence, we do not live in a predetermined universe, but at the same time, what has happened was necessary given the causes that were present. Furthermore, the past can lead to our awareness of things that can help us change the future for the better; without the past having occurred, the lessons and motivations that led to our awareness of what to do and not to do would have no basis and thus would not exist.
NOTE: The nature of free will:
The above view is validated by the fact that free will is an extension of causality (see: “Free will is an extension of causality” from Human Consciousness and Free Will). To put it briefly, in the chain of cause-and-effect that lead to our conscious actions, our conscious self is an essential causal factor. However, given that free will is based on one’s self-focused awareness of reality, its capacity to direct one’s own actions is finite since the capacity to focus is finite. Hence, the past even with respect to our choices had to have happened not because we were purely determined by outside factors but because our self-determination was based on certain motives and a certain awareness of reality.
I reject the “necessary vs. contingent” dichotomy outright, but further, I think “contingency” as applied to facts is either useless when used as “possibility” or “potentiality”, or confusing when used to describe the nature of actual facts, because every actual fact is necessary (necessary in the sense that it had to be the case given other facts and/or factors). Even the facts arising from choices of a free agent result from the purpose and context the free agent has at the time of making the choices; why would we act differently without a different purpose and/or a different context? We do have free will, but I think it makes much more sense (intellectually and practically) to think of free will as what we can do rather than what we could have done. At most, we could think of what we could have done as a hypothetical, i.e. as in “what could I have done if I were to face the same scenario again but with a different purpose and/or awareness that I did not have at the time”.
We can change our motives and improve our grasp of reality, but we can only do it now, i.e. in the present, within the context of what we have experienced and learnt. Free will is not beyond causality but a kind of causation, which means an act of free will is definite in nature and not arbitrary or random such that it could change its course for no reason. A choice based on nothing is no choice at all but a random action. A choice is always based on something in particular and always has a particular nature and effect. To make the point clearer, consider free will detached from causal factors. Then, choices would be made in a vacuum, with no basis in existing motives and/or facts. In other words, the choices would be based on nothing, i.e. they would not be choices at all but random actions. Indeed, it is not merely that free will can coexist with causality, but rather that free will requires causality, i.e. definite cause-and-effect; without it, choices cannot exist, since there is no meaning in a choice that is ultimately indefinite and random in effect. In short, causality is the basis for free will, and objectivity is the basis for the full exercise of free will.
SIDE NOTE: Our motives are not irreducible primaries, and can ultimately be examined and thereby accepted, managed or (if necessary) changed with the rational application of focus. Even the most basic motive, i.e. the motive to stay in existence, is not automatic for a volitional being; a clear evidence for its non-automatic nature is the existence of suicide and self-destructive behaviour.
We, as volitional beings, have the capacity to act toward a potential chosen by us, provided it is possible. However, our capacity is necessarily finite, since metaphysically, nothing can be actually infinite, only potentially infinite. In particular, we have a finite capacity in terms of:
If, in our knowledge, we lacked the awareness, motivation, willpower, experience, knowledge or mental integrative power to deal with something, then we lacked the capacity to deal with it. For example, if I were not aware of a risk in an endeavour and then faced the consequences, I have to accept that the consequences were practically unavoidable since the right causes that would enable me to avoid them were not present. Even if I could have known something whose relevance was outside my focus and thus outside my awareness, I have to accept that though I did what I could, the consequences have to borne. On the other hand, it is irrational and immoral to evade my responsiblity to focus, exercise my will with respect to experience and knowledge and integrate the facts to the best of my capacity if and when I can.
If you failed in some pursuit, whether it was your moral and/or practical fault or not, you must accept the failure and the lessons therefrom. Regret and guilt can be valid — and must be accepted — only insofar as they build on your experience and do not hamper your ability to seize the moment to the best of your ability. To chastise yourself for failures (including moral failures) is invalid if, to the best of your knowledge, you have either atoned or corrected for them to the best of your ability. If there is more to do but cannot be done yet, hold onto your regret and guilt only up to that point and no further. Acknowledge the harm and loss as well as what needs to be done and what needs to be learnt.
Furthermore, self-punishment must never be an end in itself; self-punishment, if done at all, is always a means to an end, and the end is the internalisation of the lessons learnt and the motivation toward correcting the harms or losses incurred to the best of your ability. Beyond this point, self-punishment is irrational and immoral, leading to the degradation or destruction of one’s efficacy in life and ultimately to self-destruction.
If something happens, it happens; it must be accepted without protest (internal or external). However, the facts must not be accepted passively; it is your rational and moral responsibiltiy to evaluate the facts, grasp their nature and grasp your own causal efficacy or lack thereof regarding the facts. Once you evaluate the facts, you act accordingly, accepting what you cannot change and changing what you can and must. If you face failures (be it morally and/or practically), accidents or misfortunes, acknowledge them for what they are and never wish for the past to change (note that acknowledging failures has been discussed in the previous section).
NOTE 1: Metaphysically, reality is integrated by identity and causality, which means key to accepting the facts is to acknowledge that everything that happens exists in some logical and causal relationship to the rest of reality. Furthermore, it is also key to acknowledge that everything that happens necessarily happens due to the nature of things and due to causality in some form.
NOTE 2: Protest is only valid against volitional acts of injustice, not against facts as such. In other words, if your protest is valid, direct it not toward the state of affairs itself but toward the volitional actors and decisions that are the cause of it (if such is indeed the case).
This is a logical application of the previous section’s conclusions.
Your feelings about the facts are also facts of reality themselves, i.e. they exist and are what they are. Hence, they must be accepted too, before evaluating them and dealing with them however possible and necessary. In particular, acceptance of the facts does not mean you suppress your feelings about the facts; do not suppress feelings (positive or negative). Sometimes, the feelings are well-founded and serve to orient you toward your value for life. Other times, the feelings may be invalid or partly valid in the sense that the premises that give rise to them may be invalid or partly invalid; even in such cases, first accept that you feel what you feel, allow yourself to feel what you feel, and then evaluate your feelings and deal with them rationally (for more on dealing with emotions, see: Emotions).
NOTE: I hold that emotions can be dealt with rationally (i.e. without compromising the use of reason in any way) due to the fact that emotions are effects of one’s internalised beliefs and values, which are in turn open to rational scrutiny and thereby open to rational acceptance, management or (if necessary) change.
Consciousness needs an apparatus to be effective; this apparatus includes the subconscious. The subconscious, to some degree, automates the process of perceiving that which exists and acting on its perception with respect to context (cognitive, moral and situational). Such automation is vital due to: (1) time and energy constraints (automation helps handle responses most efficiently with respect to time and energy) and (2) constraints of focus (automation frees the focus for more conscious units). An illustrative analogy of the relationship between the conscious and the subconscious is the relationship between a programmer and a computer. The computer is far more powerful (in processing capacity) than the programmer, but the programmer needs to and is able to direct and shape the actions and behaviour of the computer through the use of the right method.
NOTE: Automation is more time and energy efficient than deliberation, but of course, deliberation has its own vital place in cognition and action. Time and energy efficiency does not mean efficiency as a whole, i.e. it does not necessarily mean keeping a low cost while maintaining the required effectiveness. To achieve efficiency as a whole (i.e. effectiveness with low cost) often requires deliberation too.
The vital role of the subconscious in one’s life means that the core values and principles one validates through reason must be internalised, i.e. made a part of the subconscious. Internalisation is, in essence, the unquestioned acceptance (within some context) of the validity of an idea (e.g. a value or principle). To question it is to bring it into conscious focus; this is vital in its own way, but is not rational (i.e. not practical, and often not even possible) to do in every case.
Such unquestioned acceptance — i.e. absolute conviction — can have 3 sources: (1) faith (unquestioned acceptance from the start), (2) reason (rigorous validation as the basis of unquestioned acceptance) and (3) self-evidence. The self-evident cannot be questioned by its nature, because even to question it would be to accept it, implicitly or explicitly (in this way, it can be shown what is or is not self-evident). In other words, the self-evident is unquestionable by its nature not due to forces trying to stop questions but due to the nature of its existence as such. Hence, the self-evident is the basis of reason.
NOTE: While the existence of the self-evident is inescapable because of the inescapable fact of existence itself, very few things are self-evident, and one must be scrupulous in deeming something to be self-evident.
A key aspect of rational consciousness is fallibility. Why? Reason is a faculty that must be exercised by volition and volition means the choice to focus (integration — a key part of reason — is a result of focus). But focus is finite, which means it does not always seek and hold all the parts of the necessary context. However, when focus can seek and hold all parts of the necessary context, reason can be validated so as to be unquestionable. Can such a case be identified? The answer is yes, it can, through (1) the affirmation of the self-evident, (2) the affirmation of the aspects of the self-evident, and (3) the affirmation of the logical necessity of a relationship between the self-evident and another object of consideration (note that the laws of logic are themselves the affirmation of the aspects of the self-evident, namely the fact of existence and the law of identity).
NOTE: Being fallible means not that certainty is impossible, only that certainty is not automatic.
If steps (1), (2) and (3) create the context, then this context is one wherein reason can be validated so as to be unquestionable. Such is the case with metaphysical truths, the epistemological truths and the standard of value in ethics. Thus, once validated, these can and must be accepted unquestioned as if an article of faith. But why not use articles of faith? Because, as stated, volition and hence ability to know reality are finite and thus fallible, which means no article of faith is sure to be true to reality. But being true to reality is the way to deal with it to achieve ends within it; thus, the use of faith over reason is unconscionable in its recklessness — you leave your ability to deal with reality entirely to chance (which may or may not favour you). Hence, the unquestioned acceptance and thus the absolute conviction found in faith is vital to human life (especially long-range); the issue is not unquestioned acceptance but its source — is it the self-evident and rational or the arbitrary and irrational?
Note that introducing doubt without reason (e.g. by professing uncertainty when certainty is possible and proper) undermines the internalisation of valid notions, thus undermining your ability to act, especially when in pressure, hardship or distress. To put it in other words, a non-absolute conviction is necessarily a wavering conviction on some level, and a wavering conviction is not a firm basis for confidence or courage and in fact undermines them on some level; this is only valuable if there is a rational basis for doubt or a lack of rational basis for certainty. But if certainty is achieved or achievable in the given context, leaving your conviction wavering undermines your pursuit of life on some level because rationally earned confidence and courage — which cannot be reached with a wavering conviction — are vital in pursuing, upholding and defending one’s values effectively and consistently.
To reframe the above point in more essential terms…
Motivation is based on one’s internalised premises; shaky premises lead to shaky motivations that would be too weak to withstand challenges and adversity beyond a certain point. Hence, certainty is the basis for persevering motivation and thereby confidence, courage and one’s ultimately one’s pursuit of values.
Whatever you profess, if you internalise a notion to the point of it being automatic, you — in practice — accept it as an absolute. Hence, the question is not whether to accept absolutes but what absolutes to accept. Note that if what you call “confidence” or “courage” are irrational, i.e. not based on one’s rational judgement of the facts, then they are dangerous to oneself and others in principle, possibly to the point of being suicidal; in such a case, “confidence” is in fact presumptuousness or arrogance, while “courage” is in fact recklessness or foolhardiness.
NOTE: The consequences of universal doubt and certainty without reason:
What are the consequences of each of the above two positions? The consequences of the former: lack of conviction, lack of efficacy in the pursuit of knowledge, lack of motivation toward the pursuit of truth and efficacy (see: “Certainty is contextual and key to expanding one’s context” from “Certainty” from Knowledge and Certainty from Epistemology), etc. The consequences of the latter: taking whims and emotions as knowledge, holding revelations or intuitions as truth instead of seeking evidence, etc. Now, note a key point based on Knowledge and Certainty: certainty is the basic state of human cognition and must be reached for cognition beyond the perceptual level according to the facts in order to deal with reality effectively. Someone who “doubts everything” cannot really doubt everything unless he gives up his consciousness. Hence, he must hold some things as certain. But since he has no means of making the distinction between reality and fantasy, the validity of what he holds as certain is up to chance. Ultimately, both positions (universal doubt and certainty without reason) lead to false or unfounded certainty. Of course, acting on false or unfounded certainty is profoundly irrational and devalues your life since you degrade or destroy your efficacy in dealing with reality.
SIDE NOTE: Universal doubt is also self-contradictory since it holds as certain that nothing is certain.
A conviction can only be under “threat” (from the perspective of the one holding the conviction) if one senses or feels that one’s efficacy in reality would be diminished, degraded or destroyed if one’s convictions were challenged. However, in my view, such a fear betrays an evasiveness at the root of one’s convictions, because only an evasion requires that it not be challenged in order to be sustained; reality is the evasive mind’s greatest antagonist. On the other hand, a conviction drawn from a rational grasp of reality cannot be threatened by opposing views because reality is what it is as an absolute and reason is the valid means of knowing it. I hold that only a scrupulously, fundamentally rational view cannot be threatened, and only a person with reason as his absolute can explore opposing views without fearing the destruction of the ground beneath his feet.
I am talking about philosophy, but it also applies generally in all fields of study.
The fundamentals of ideas as such serve to form a solid, reliable basis for your further learning that strengthens your ideas, convictions and actions in narrower contexts. However, the fundamentals by themselves — being very abstract — cannot inform you about more concrete cases, situations and issues. Hence, you need an expansion of your fundamentals into more concrete or specific contexts to understand their application. Note that this is not primarily a deductive process; you do not start with the fundamentals and merely deduce how to apply them. No, it is more of an inductive process (though, of course, applying logic in general will involve both induction and deduction), wherein you integrate your experiences as well as specific lessons and ideas either to the fundamentals or using the fundamentals, thereby forming new knowledge informing you about how to deal with more concrete or specific contexts. On the flip side, just focusing on the expansion, i.e. the concretes and the specifics can deprive you of the means to integrate or validate your conclusions and ground them in firm, retainable convictions that relate to other convictions. Such deprivation diminishes your overall capacity to act (since you would be swamped by particulars with no way to organise or integrate them).
Hence, you need to focus on both as required: the fundamentals and the expansion.
Observations:
More specific principles are not enough…
When first trying to concretise or apply my fundamentals (specifically in ethics), I tried to expand on the broader principles and obtain more specific principles that I could use (you can see these principles here: Specific Moral Principles from Ethics). While helpful and a good step forward, such principles are still too broad to depend on entirely. I realised that I needed more than more specific abstract principles. I needed experience and the integration of experience into learning, methods, approaches, perspectives, etc. All that (and maybe more) is necessary in order to successfully apply my basic philosophy in life. Broader abstractions and abstract principles are necessary, but they are not sufficient.
Including informative failures and pitfalls that you experienced…
When trying to discover the effective ways of applying my philosophy, I often ran into pitfalls, mistakes or flaws in my approach or thinking that led to certain failures or poor results. However, these failures and poor results served as important data to help point me in the right direction. Now, while documenting the right direction that I had learned, it was very beneficial to include where and why I had failed before; not only would it help me or others out of similar situations in the future, it could also serve to strengthen and validate the inductive process that led to the right conclusions.
NOTE: The last observation above extends to the value of including concrete observations in general (successes, failures, attempts and others).
All truth and value is ultimately of and from concretes, because ultimately, only particulars exist. Abstractions are objective but do not exist apart from particulars; they are the results of the selective focus of consciousness on particulars (the objectivity of abstractions is discussed in epistemology). Of course, the same holds for philosophical ideas. If a philosophy is to form the basis of your thoughts and actions, you must grasp how concretes integrate into the broad abstractions in philosophy and how the broad abstractions can be reduced back to concretes. You must grasp truth, value and philosophy as much in terms of concretes experienced first-hand as in terms of abstractions.
In terms of truth, concretisiation consists of reducing concepts to their concrete refers and applying generalisations to concrete contexts. In terms of values, concretisation consists of the concrete, self-sustaining experience of life, i.e. concrete life-affirmation in some form. In terms of philosophy as a whole, concretisiation consists of the actual practice of philosophical principles, especially of principles in epistemology and ethics.