awaterfallsunset asked: Good answer, haha! I've actually been reading a lot of John Rawls recently, and he is quite the modern philosopher. I discussed this issue with a Yale professor, and he actually told me to look into utilitarian ethics and perhaps even Kantian ethics.
I haven’t actually read much of Rawls at all, I just know of his work peripherally. The veil of ignorance is a powerful tool, though, and one that should be employed more often (even if on a slightly watered-down level in our day to day decision making). In my mind, it’s just another formulation of the Golden Rule - the maxim of reciprocity.
Kantian ethics is a bit weird, from what I know of it, but there are useful pieces to pull from it - such as not using people as a means to an end, but rather as an end in and of themselves.
Utilitarianism, despite its theoretical problems (the utility monster being a favourite of mine), tends to work best on a practical level. While you cannot divorce it entirely from history or religion (some people gain significant utility merely from obeying their religious doctrine, even if it might otherwise be considered ‘harmful’), it can still be valid.
(this is a reply to this post)
1. Filtering: You take the negative details and magnify them, while filtering out all positive aspects of a situation. A single detail may be picked out, and the whole event becomes colored by this detail. When you pull negative things out of context, isolated from all the good experiences around you, you make them larger and more awful than they really are.
2. Polarized Thinking: The hallmark of this distortion is an insistence on dichotomous choices. Things are black or white, good or bad. You tend to perceive everything at the extremes, with very little room for a middle ground. The greatest danger in polarized thinking is its impact on how you judge yourself. For example-You have to be perfect or you’re a failure.
3. Overgeneralization: You come to a general conclusion based on a single incident or piece of evidence. If something bad happens once, you expect it to happen over and over again. ‘Always’ and ‘never’ are cues that this style of thinking is being utilized. This distortion can lead to a restricted life, as you avoid future failures based on the single incident or event.
4. Mind Reading: Without their saying so, you know what people are feeling and why they act the way they do. In particular, you are able to divine how people are feeling toward you. Mind reading depends on a process called projection. You imagine that people feel the same way you do and react to things the same way you do. Therefore, you don’t watch or listen carefully enough to notice that they are actually different. Mind readers jump to conclusions that are true for them, without checking whether they are true for the other person.
5. Catastrophizing: You expect disaster. You notice or hear about a problem and start “what if’s.” What if that happens to me? What if tragedy strikes? There are no limits to a really fertile catastrophic imagination. An underlying catalyst for this style of thinking is that you do not trust in yourself and your capacity to adapt to change.
6. Personalization: This is the tendency to relate everything around you to yourself. For example, thinking that everything people do or say is some kind of reaction to you. You also compare yourself to others, trying to determine who’s smarter, better looking, etc. The underlying assumption is that your worth is in question. You are therefore continually forced to test your value as a person by measuring yourself against others. If you come out better, you get a moment’s relief. If you come up short, you feel diminished. The basic thinking error is that you interpret each experience, each conversation, each look as a clue to your worth and value.
7. Control Fallacies: There are two ways you can distort your sense of power and control. If you feel externally controlled, you see yourself as helpless, a victim of fate. The fallacy of internal control has you responsible for the pain and happiness of everyone around you. Feeling externally controlled keeps you stuck. You don’t believe you can really affect the basic shape of your life, let alone make any difference in the world. The truth of the matter is that we are constantly making decisions, and that every decision affects our lives. On the other hand, the fallacy of internal control leaves you exhausted as you attempt to fill the needs of everyone around you, and feel responsible in doing so (and guilty when you cannot).
8. Fallacy of Fairness: You feel resentful because you think you know what’s fair, but other people won’t agree with you. Fairness is so conveniently defined, so temptingly self-serving, that each person gets locked into his or her own point of view. It is tempting to make assumptions about how things would change if people were only fair or really valued you. But the other person hardly ever sees it that way, and you end up causing yourself a lot of pain and an ever-growing resentment.
9. Blaming: You hold other people responsible for your pain, or take the other tack and blame yourself for every problem. Blaming often involves making someone else responsible for choices and decisions that are actually our own responsibility. In blame systems, you deny your right (and responsibility) to assert your needs, say no, or go elsewhere for what you want.
10. Shoulds: You have a list of ironclad rules about how you and other people should act. People who break the rules anger you, and you feel guilty if you violate the rules. The rules are right and indisputable and, as a result, you are often in the position of judging and finding fault (in yourself and in others). Cue words indicating the presence of this distortion are should, ought, and must.
11. Emotional Reasoning: You believe that what you feel must be true-automatically. If you feel stupid or boring, then you must be stupid and boring. If you feel guilty, then you must have done something wrong. The problem with emotional reasoning is that our emotions interact and correlate with our thinking process. Therefore, if you have distorted thoughts and beliefs, your emotions will reflect these distortions.
12. Fallacy of Change: You expect that other people will change to suit you if you just pressure or cajole them enough. You need to change people because your hopes for happiness seem to depend entirely on them. The truth is the only person you can really control or have much hope of changing is yourself. The underlying assumption of this thinking style is that your happiness depends on the actions of others. Your happiness actually depends on the thousands of large and small choices you make in your life.
13. Global Labeling: You generalize one or two qualities (in yourself or others) into a negative global judgment. Global labeling ignores all contrary evidence, creating a view of the world that can be stereotyped and one-dimensional. Labeling yourself can have a negative and insidious impact upon your self-esteem; while labeling others can lead to snap-judgments, relationship problems, and prejudice.
14. Being Right: You feel continually on trial to prove that your opinions and actions are correct. Being wrong is unthinkable and you will go to any length to demonstrate your rightness. Having to be ‘right’ often makes you hard of hearing. You aren’t interested in the possible veracity of a differing opinion, only in defending your own. Being right becomes more important than an honest and caring relationship.
15. Heaven’s Reward Fallacy: You expect all your sacrifice and self-denial to pay off, as if there were someone keeping score. You fell bitter when the reward doesn’t come as expected. The problem is that while you are always doing the ‘right thing,’ if your heart really isn’t in it, you are physically and emotionally depleting yourself.
Go to college - a university - get a real job, that’s what they said to me.
Socrates (via historysaidwhat)
As previously noted, I’m a sucker for Socrates.
With a 102 philosophic books the library is now up and running at:
Though the list of philosophers is somewhat small right now I’m hoping that it will grow over the summer. If you have any suggestions as to whose works you think should be added feel free to message me.
Also, due to my personal belief that physics, neuroscience, and other branches of science are especially related to philosophy, I shall also be adding introductory textbooks in these fields at a later date.
And remember yall, domain names cost money! Every ad click helps.
P.S. Reblog to spread the word why dontcha ;-)
One of my favorite people on tumblr has done this out of his own pocket. Take a glance, and enlighten your mind with the power of reason. After all, the “unexamined life is not worth living”.
I’m a sucker for Socrates :)
But there is such thing as chance, and how different chance events can cause different outcomes.
The quickest and simplest way to put this is to imagine the world in not our three dimensional view, but to think in higher dimensions. Often philosophers feign to acknowledge such truths.
Frankly, we perceive a fourth dimension—a temporal dimension. But scientists have speculated how higher temporal dimensions allow for different timelines, where different events have occurred. If time is perceived as a line, could it not also follow that there can be a temporal dimension where multiple, different possibilities from a single event can be seen? We affectionately call this the reality of “all possible outcomes,” but do we truly understand what this means?
If determinism is correct, and there is absolutely no free will, and things are all pre-determined, then all realities will be the exact same.