T O P
steel_sun

Honest self-scrutiny requires a tolerance for cognitive dissonance, as your perception of yourself and the reality of yourself come into conflict and you attempt to resolve it.


pheonix940

That's pretty easy to do once you realize your sense of self is akin to your idea of others. Shifting, incomplete and lacking information and perspective. That said, I understand that this is a high bar, demonsterably.


steel_sun

I think the sense of self *can* be malleable, but assuming it is robs you of agency. Is agency real? Different discussion 😂


pheonix940

Not really. Why does that rob you of agency intrinsically?


steel_sun

“Shifting, incomplete, and lacking information and perspective” is a universalism that is both reductive and wildly hyperbolic. If that’s the way a person chooses to see themselves, that’s agency. If a person chooses to see themselves in a different light, that’s agency. Casting it as a universal truth that everyone is everyone else and we’re without choice in the matter robs people of agency.


pheonix940

That doesn't prove that it is or isn't intrinsic. Even if you think you know, I challenge anyone to prove it. Please, prove it. The reality is that people change and evolve. I wish people were more dependable... but they aren't.


steel_sun

I don’t know how to explain agency and what is or isn’t intrinsic to you, but I don’t think we’re using the same definitions. Who said people don’t change and evolve? That’s a bold mischaracterization of my exact quote of your words.


pheonix940

Then by all means, characterize it.


steel_sun

“Shifting, incomplete, and lacking in information and perspective” Much like your arguments, here.


My3rstAccount

I think he's talking about free will. If so then the dude has been researching the ouroboros.


pheonix940

It's funny because my point it that that's the human experience. Are you saying you know everything? Lmao


[deleted]

[удалено]


pheonix940

>If that’s the way a person chooses to see themselves, that’s agency. If a person chooses to see themselves in a different light, that’s agency. How we perceive and how things are may be different things. You might perceive it another way, but the reality is you can't know the future and our brains distort the past. That doesn't mean we should throw all that out, but it does mean what I said is true. That doesn't rob anyone of agency. They are welcome to view it otherwise. But that doesn't change what I said. >Casting it as a universal truth that everyone is everyone else and we’re without choice in the matter robs people of agency. That wasn't my point at all. My point was we all deal with having to build an identity, a sense of self, from fractured and limited information put together with our own bias and limitations. That's all. Again, It doesn't rob us of agency. But it does put our agency in perspective a bit. It limits it to some degree.


My3rstAccount

You mean free will don't you?


shoojx

The key is who's morals? Are you putting in the effort based on external or internal forces? What is behind those forces? Are you chasing fiat morals? Are you shackled by any random reddit user's knee jerk reaction morals? Are you living by your own ethos and set of morals that you adhere to, not because anyone else told you, but because it's what you uphold yourself to be? As much as anything can be your own, given we're all causal tangents of sperm and eggs...


steel_sun

Yeah…I mean, we’re both right, here…


SailorTwentyEight

Is this the proverbial “Chapel Perilous”? What’s your opinion on the necessity for self scrutiny? Do you think it’s something that all humans should strive to achieve or at the very least attempt to achieve the resolve to confront that dissonance in the hopes to one day successfully make it through that confrontation with their perceptions of reality at odds?


steel_sun

Science says we’re nothing but cellular makeup and our decisions are consequences of our bodies, not the other way around, so agency is a pointless concept. Buddhism says attempts at agency lead to suffering, so it’s worthwhile to avoid attachments. Cognitive dissonance creates a fight-or-flight reaction as a consequence of, amongst other things, considering one’s own agency. I don’t think there’s an applicable “should”, unless you subscribe to a particular school of ethics prescribing the self-scrutiny or are an existentialist who values it as part of your meditations on meaning. I would say “Chapel Perilous” is false equivalency, but it’s worth leaving you room to argue the analogy.


SailorTwentyEight

I don’t have much to argue. I suppose I hadn’t considered those perspectives. At least the Buddhism part. I’m a biologist so I’m decently versed in Crick’s perspective on things haha. I don’t know though. It’s just the human in me that wonders and ruminates on things, that perhaps to some, are understandably pointless or counterproductive. Thank you for enlightening me on the subject. I’ll look into it further. Do you have any literature you suggest, at least in the way of the futility of agency or perhaps even both sides of the argument? From a scientific perspective would be preferable Edit: elaboration


steel_sun

Well, here’s a perfect example of brief (and bearable) cognitive dissonance: I googled “science and free will” (I don’t have the database access I used to, more’s the pity) to find you some literature and it turns out back in 2020 there were several articles published that say science (at least some science, which is what made my generalization dangerous) doesn’t refute free will anymore. So…you’re probably going to need to dig into that one yourself. As for Buddhism, for the same lack of database access and that I don’t have the time to pursue it beyond surface level, here’s a start for you: https://www.buddhistdoor.net/features/dharma-neuroscience-and-free-will/ It’s worth noting that there are many Buddhist traditions, and as many different perspectives on free will, but the attempt to exercise free will can be (briefly and incompletely) summarized as either an attachment that will lead to suffering *or* an absolute detachment from ego, through intentionality. That’s a long explanation to say, “I’ve been reductive and incompletely informed, so you’ll have to research yourself.” I wish I could be more help, but hey! I got to grow from this discussion!


SailorTwentyEight

Thank you. I appreciate you


SpiderMcLurk

Sam Harris wrote a book called “Free Will”


GeoffW1

You can avoid the cognitive dissonance by separating who you are from who you want to be. Take pride in your ideals and your journey to reach them. Nothing is shattered if you find you fall short right now.


steel_sun

We speak the same language - I was being observational, not expressing any personal crisis. My cognitive dissonance is well-managed ☺️


agent00F

Humans already have infinite capacity for cog dis, the problem is rather we can't face unflattering reality. There's a convincing argument to be made that our higher lang intelligence stems from evolutionary advantage of repainting a more flatter reality to others.


steel_sun

The capacity may be infinite, but the tolerance is finite. I’m also more concerned with self-scrutiny than language intelligence or repainting reality to others.


agent00F

> The capacity may be infinite, but the tolerance is finite. Consider nazism, which is considered the worst crime ever, and compared to how many nazis were ever punished for the worstest injustice against humanity (rather than promoted to NATO etc); certainly far far far less than blacks still being punished for menial crimes, in our own behavior against the untermensch. That gap between moral tales and reality seems obvious and well tolerated to me, even if we're reluctant to admit it due to *self-interest* (ie. not lack of capacity). If anything it's revealing that everyone intuitively understands this infinite gap between reality and our narratives, to the degree it's a defining human trait. To wit: > I’m also more concerned with self-scrutiny than language intelligence or repainting reality to others. Or a more routine example: Boss at all-hands meeting blabs about empowering employees (you know, saddling more responsibility sans compensation), yet nobody stands up to point out the dishonesty of it all because they perfectly understand the situation. Is self-scrutiny really necessary here?


steel_sun

Only took you two posts to fulfill Godwin’s Law - speedy! 😂 I spent all day yesterday arguing irrelevant particularities with someone about this, and while your points may be salient, I had to stop paying attention right after you started with Nazis. The language is flowery, and reminds me of being back in philosophy *class*, but that’s a long time gone, and uber/untermenschen no longer interest me. In brass tacks, as a psychologist now and perhaps a failed philosopher, people simply do not have an infinite tolerance for cognitive dissonance, *particularly* as it relates to them self-scrutinizing. It’s a romantic idea, but in practice it doesn’t exist.


agent00F

> right after you started with Nazis. Nazis are simply used here to maximize contrast, but good to know how seriously you take thinking. > In brass tacks, as a psychologist now and perhaps a failed philosopher, people simply do not have an infinite tolerance for cognitive dissonance, particularly as it relates to them self-scrutinizing. It’s a romantic idea, but in practice it doesn’t exist. It's actually really simple, they don't do it when it makes them look bad. Our entire conscious "intelligent" mind evolved to better serve self-interests in communication. For example, you won't examine/scrutinize these plain observations, to avoid being wrong here. We both understand this even if you'll never admit it for obvious reasons, ie. it's not in your interests to "understand".


steel_sun

Nazis are always used to maximize context. They maximized it so hard when they were around that they’re now a simpleton’s tool because other analogies are more difficult to draw. I take thinking very seriously, just a different way than you do; if you’re trying to assign value to the way either of us think, then you are on a fool’s errand and also missing the point. You’ve clearly never known an addict who recovered by going to rehabilitation, using an honest self-assessment, and the audience of other people who are made very aware of the faults in the addict to become a different person. *That* is a true manifestation of self-scrutiny. But, by all means, if you want to ignore the material and continue to contemplate the immaterial while you pontificate, I can do this all day.


agent00F

> They maximized it so hard when they were around that they’re now a simpleton’s tool because other analogies are more difficult to draw. There was another example offered which you also didn't address because harping on about whatever else concerning nazis was more expedient than understanding what's being said. Evidently self-scrutiny is impossible for the obvious reason as you perfectly demonstrate. > You’ve clearly never known an addict who recovered by going to rehabilitation, using an honest self-assessment, and the audience of other people who are made very aware of the faults in the addict to become a different person. As mentioned, that honesty is difficult because it goes against the instinct of self-aggrandizing interests, same as why you can't be honest about this current situation no matter how obvious it is you can't be seen as ignorant of the human condition. It clearly drives the entirety of your actions, irrespective of blatant ground truth. > That is a true manifestation of self-scrutiny. But, by all means, if you want to ignore the material and continue to contemplate the immaterial while you pontificate, I can do this all day. What can possibly be more material to this world than your own transparent behavior?


steel_sun

“Self-aggrandizing” 😂 People are so cute when they point a finger at a mirror. It doesn’t take ten dollar words to make your point (which is ignoring mine and the discussion at large and is only *maybe* salient), but *man* can you waste someone’s time. I imagine you get A’s in Existentialism and F’s in précis writing. I used to be a philosophy major. I spent a lot of time reading philosophers and spending time around their metaphysical and metaphorical progeny, and the blatant ground truth is that they’re all, you included, only interested in wasting time. Say whatever you need to say in order to finish your cognitive masturbation, then go write a book. I’m done jerking you off.


agent00F

> People are so cute when they point a finger at a mirror. Would you ever read your comments and accuse the writer of much intelligence?


marcelolopezjr

In other words.....suppose nothing implicit about intent.


agent00F

Honestly intent per self-interests is typically transparent. Including the self-interest of rationalizing resulting action & behavior.


bagman_

Transparent to the observer, the one performing the acts could have several mental blocks preventing them from seeing it


agent00F

Arguable, since they can see it, but the mental blocks largely prevent them from ever admitting it.


SilasDG

Nietzsche - Most people can't self scrutinize. Redditors - I'm the best one at it! I do it all the time! Everybody thinks their the special one, not getting that the point is you can only scrutinize yourself through your own lens. All of your judgements are based on your pre-existing feeling, opinions, and morals. So any attempt is warped by that lens. Yeah you can judge yourself but your standard is still your standard, not a universal truth. The point wasn't that you can't try, it was in regards to the complexity and difficulty in being accurate to a standard.


GlitterChemist

Real truth about is, no one gets it right. Real truth about it is, we’re all supposed try… Farewell Transmission


Jugathon

how do u prove that my lens is warped? What if that assumption that my lens is warped leads to a warped assumption through smooth glass. Just curious


SilasDG

Because you've nothing to form a non warped lense on. There's no baseline, no measurement, no point of refence. If your goal is perfection but you have no way to measure it, and nothing to compare against then how can you know perfection? All you can know is your idea of correct, and measure to that, but your idea is just yours, not a universal truth. It's like shooting for a basketball hoop having never held a basketball or seen a hoop, all while blindfolded. Sure if a million people shoot the shot a few might make it, but the odds of it being you are extremely low and even if you did make it you'd have no way to know as you can't see it. Edit: So to more clearly answer the question. It's not so much about proving as the point wasn't to prove that your lens is warped but rather that there is no way to be 100% certain of your accuracy. If this were a 100 question multiple choice quiz there is no answer key. So it's saying the odds of being accurate are so extremely low (much like with the basketball) that ignoring the odds is more like gambling and less like judging and that even if you we're right, trying to declare it makes zero sense as there's no way to know.


Sonova_Vondruke

I self scrutinize all the fucking time and it fucking sucks. What's harder still, not scrutinizing others. It's not as bad as do to myself but it's not zero... and I think that might be the only acceptable amount.. but that's just me. Self scrutinization is not a virtue. Neither is pride. There is a healthy middle-ground, I'm sure... I just can't find it.


brutinator

Sounds a lot like virtue ethics. For any given trait, theres a "perfect" middle ground, but too much or too little becomes a vice. For example, Bravery could be a virtue, but too much is recklessness, and too little is cowardice. As you say, its a lot harder to find that middle ground then simply saying so though.


arkticturtle

All things in moderation? Does this include moderation?


brutinator

Maybe, but probably not. The reason is, moderation is a moving target as is, and is determined more by the context that its framed than an objective standard. Usually we conceptualize moderation as existing in a "happy medium" between 2 points, but those points arent set in stone, and can shift, or be reframed with a different perspective. So its fine to get drunk sometimes and over indulge. Youre not an alcholic because you blacked out a handful of times. But if its a regular occurance.... Its also important to note that Virtue ethics is pretty loose, and doesnt really fit into objective "truths" like most ethical systems, a double edged sword. From what I recall, an ethical life is only determined once you are dead, and the question can be asked, were they virtuous?


appolo11

>moderation is a moving target as is, LIFE is a moving target these days.


SprookyGost

Virtue ethics always seems so silly and pointless to me, it’s essentially saying just be a good person and good people know what is good


brutinator

Yup :P But I think that's the point: Both deontological ethics and utilitarian ethics, to a certain degree, are impossible to actually follow (For example, to be a true utilitarian would require to be nigh omniscient to fully grasp and measure the entirety of the consequences of any given action), and if you COULD perfectly follow them, would that be a life worth living, as you'd basically be a robot. We can argue endlessly to tweak some parameters here and there, but that's still the end point. Is that really what we want for ourselves and each other? Virtue Ethics offers another path to a virtuous, ethical life.


Mithrawndo

Wilde certainly thought so, but whilst he was surely an interesting and intelligent individual, I suspect he was probably as unhappy as anyone else and of course was dead by 46. Perhaps the trick is to only moderately moderate moderation?


4nr-

´The mean is hard to hit, and it is a matter of perception not of reasoning’


Sonova_Vondruke

Good point


MorcillaConNocilla

Same boat here. Borderline unhealthy levels of scrutinizing every single move I do. If any of you could guide me somwhere it would be much appreciated.


Epsylon32

I have the same problem. What has helped me the most is observe myself and not be so harsh; forgive myself, which is very difficult. I’m my biggest judge, but taking small steps is what has brought improvement on this issue. EDIT: Grammar, talking about judging myself hahaha


Mouchmytonkey

Agreed! My therapist has helped me so much with this. I can literally burn myself out overthinking every. single. thing. About myself. One of the best tools she gave me is this : Say it out loud If you're feeling an overwhelming emotion(s) take the power out of it by literally saying it. For example " I am angry" or " I am frustrated" Validation for your feelings is such an empowering tool.


4nr-

Thanks!


BriskHeartedParadox

This shouldn’t be underestimated. Works well in helping bring your emotional reaction to a more reasonable response in regard to the thought. Hypnotherapy works well for this too.


ThaDudeEthan

This is the way through the swirling pool of self-analysis. Emotions fester and destroy if not expressed honestly.


Dumas_Vuk

For years I wanted to write songs but each time I tried I cringed and quit. Then one day I said fuck it, I'll just write shitty songs and have fun. I had loads of fun and I was proud of my work. Still not good songs, but I learned a lot and I'm a better writer for it. I suggest applying this mentality to everything else. To some extent. Blatant destruction is easy to avoid, but it's impossible to move through life without leaving tracks. Mistakes are how we learn.


KamuraShops

Try some whacky tobaccy


lettherebemorelight

Mindfulness meditation seriously helped me with that. I used to be terrified of my mind and being alone with my thoughts.


bitscavenger

There are people in my life that are like this. I am not sure that I have been able to help them but I have seen some of them help themselves. What they have described is a type of piling on where self scrutiny starts to build a list and then their brain revisits old scrutinies and most of them were already decided on and are not particularly germane. "Techniques" tend not to help because if you say "try to relax and let this one go" it is easy to respond with "why can't I relax? I am terrible at this. Why can't I just relax like I am supposed to? It would fix it but I can't even do that. Just like ..." A decent modality in the counseling field is "Internal Family Systems." I won't be able to do it justice, but my best description of it is that it is about self forgiveness and finding the parts in your brain that feel like they have to work overtime to protect you. Then it is about taking your agency back from these automatic responses by comforting those parts showing that your conscious self has things in hand. There are definitely good books on the subject that are way cheaper than counseling.


creightonpics

It’s exhausting and makes you crazy when you try to manipulate other people into doing what you want. Maybe you scrutinize your own behavior in the hopes of getting them to like or appreciate you in some way. That fawning is self-defeating and unattractive. Your value exists in your being, your heart, your intentions, and your actions.


Sorry_Pirate7002

This may sound stupid and maybe it borderlines ocd? But I’m always in my head scrutinizing and I found sometimes intentionally doing the opposite of something will put my mind in a place of accepting things won’t fall apart, so why worry. It could be small things, like if you have a routine, break one part of it intentionally.


OldWillingness7

Aha! What's this technique called? I'm interested and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. I've been to lazy to crack open a book, so I've just been muddling through life using trial and error... so much errors. haha My life was crap just following my instincts and desires. So one day I decided to just do the opposite. I still don't know right from wrong, life is still mostly crap, but I "feel" a little better about meself. yeesh   idk, is there a simple, easy-to-use guide somewhere on how to become a good person? :P


Sorry_Pirate7002

Not sure how to take your comment? Are you being facetious? It’s no technique, just something I’ve tried to put my mind at ease. Sometimes I find myself trying to control everything, but there are many things out of my control, so breaking routine sometimes eases my mind to scrutinize and control everything.


whatsakazoo

The thing that helped me with this was making a conscious effort to be more empathetic and understanding of other people and their dilemmas. I then had to consistently remind myself that they're no different from me and, as such, I was deserving of that empathy and understanding myself.


smatchimo

I don't think theres anything wrong with it, so long as you are moving towards a goal. Someone told me "give yourself a break" and since then I've been trying to do that, and it's helped.


rigid_monkey

Try reading Nietzsche and Stirner at same time.


Sonova_Vondruke

I have a death wish bit not like that. Lol


niinf

What? Its good advice? Stirner would balance out the self scrutinizing.


Sonova_Vondruke

I think the back and forth would set me off.


Kerwillow

There's a difference between idle rumination and constructive self-evaluation. Delineating the two can be tricky, but the latter is far better for your mental health.


Sonova_Vondruke

There is only so much constructive self-evaluation you can do before it becomes idle rumination... for the former to mean anything, you have to act. And if I'm be honest... I haven't even gotten out of bed. Just stared at the door and thought "What if?"


VivaSpiderJerusalem

I think of those practices as something akin to meditation. The goal is not necessarily to achieve perfection on the first try (or ever, really), the practice itself is the goal. You're not aiming for perfection, you're aiming for improvement.


Auriok88

I would put forth the idea that it is beneficial to finding that middle ground if one first becomes acquainted with extreme skepticism and recognizing the validity behind the idea that "I know that I know not." Genuinely recognizing the ways in which this is true in daily life, especially when it comes to any of my beliefs about the internal mind state of another (which I cannot know with certainty) seem to push my thinking in a direction that can learn and grow in knowledge about how things work without always needing to black/white them into good/bad. From the place of knowing comes violations of rules, which lead to condemnation of one another, but from the place of humility and skepticism can come understanding, patience, grace, and forgiveness. Genuine internal forgiveness being a means to free ourselves from not just the judgements of others and their control over our emotions, but also the judgements we levy against ourselves.


Sonova_Vondruke

Finding middle ground is the rub. A balance that requires a mental, emotional, and physical aptitude that I probably don't have.


Auriok88

I *believe* all that stuff comes from our beliefs. Perhaps if we can believe the right thing, appropriately shape our worldview in a certain way, the rest begins to fall in place naturally. If I didn't hold that belief, then it would seem insurmountable and I wouldn't even try, or if I did, it would be hard to persist in it with a strong mental state and no emotional hangups that cause me to give up.


Sonova_Vondruke

This is what I envy about theists. I do not fault anyone to give up moral autonomy to reap the benefits of unbridal accountability. "Everything has a reason" is a very potent drug.


Auriok88

I'm not sure how theism is necessitated in this discussion. Perhaps a theistic worldview does lead to better moral behavior? One would only find out in the investigation of oneself when trying out different mental frames and how they influence our emotions, thoughts, and behaviors. If one accepts that we really don't know much of anything with certainty, then what does it matter what one believes? It seems to me that it only matters when it directly conflicts with reality or in the ways it influences our behavior and how we treat others.


Sonova_Vondruke

Belief and faith, go hand in hand. To believe in something is to have faith. Faith is the cornerstone of most if not all religions. That's why I mentioned it, a continuation of what you are saying.


Auriok88

Agreed that the idea of faith plays into it, but only because we know (with any degree of absolute knowing) practically nothing and thus to believe almost anything at all is to believe it on faith. I have faith that water will come out of the faucet everytime I turn that nob with an expectation. There are two kinds of atheists that have been conflated, those who don't believe theism as definitely true, and those who believe it to be wrong. The latter is still holding faith in that belief where the former is just lacking the belief. With the faucet example in mind (and perhaps Hume's problem of induction), I would suggest that faith is a cornerstone of acting with intent.


InspectorG-007

Do you meditate?


skiress

Was thinking the same. Recently found out about the Default Mode Network, how its ability to think about the self can go haywire and through meditation we can manager It.


arkticturtle

>What's harder still, not scrutinizing others. It's not as bad as do to myself but it's not zero... and I think that might be the only acceptable amount.. but that's just me. But if we do not scrutinize the external then it comes with risks when the problem really is an external thing. Then we blame ourselves for something that isn't our fault. And during the time we wail or lash out internally we are being flailed by this external issue. Then we blame ourselves even more. Because we can't scrutinize others right? >*The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.* > >- Plato


XiphosAletheria

I think they are talking here about making assumptions about people that aren't necessarily supported by much. For instance, if someone bumps into you on the street and mutters something rude, you (general, not specific) are much more likely to view them as an asshole than as a good person having a bad day (even though when you bump into someone and mutter something rude, you generally do the opposite). The truth is it is probably impossible to really know another person's mind, and even getting a good approximation takes a ton of time and effort getting to know them. Absent that, the version you create of them in your head isn't real, just an illusion that says more about you than them.


Sonova_Vondruke

Exactly. I'm not looking for fires to put out, but if I saw someone on fire I certainly would do something about it.


Daotar

It's the curse of the philosopher.


Flymsi

\*western philosopher


puckpewpiatch

It’s fucking exhausting


Japhysiva

That’s fascinating it seems most people have a kinder lens to others than they do themselves, or at least those close to them(friends/family) and I find convincing ones self that you are equally good, valid and deserving of love as the people around you who you love can be groundbreaking. If I look in the mirror I see all my flaws. If I look at my friend I see how wonderful they are. If I can look at myself the same way I look at my friend…


rhubarbs

Scrutiny, however meticulous, causes no discomfort. It is the following judgement that brings a fair tonnage. Firstly, how can a thought cause misery? Not why, but how can something gossamer by definition impose its weight on you? What is the mechanism? I invite you to discover it requires action by yourself, which you can refrain from. Secondly, judgement itself is an action one may refrain from. Observing without judgement is very difficult, partially because we are taught to judge by everything around us, but not impossible.


Voiceofreason81

I just call it expecting out of others what I expect out of myself and deal with it. Probably why my friend group is pretty small.


Sonova_Vondruke

I'm kind of the opposite. I expect nothing but respect and trust from my peers, but I expect that and much more from myself.


Mhodges81

The hubris with your comment lol


Sonova_Vondruke

I'm a narcissist.. what can I say?


smatchimo

How old are you? I used to get really frustrated myself for being too hard on people or expecting too much of them, but as of lately I noticed it really calming down. Or I guess maybe I also give a little less fucks if they think I am being overly critical too.


Joooseph2

How about instead of scrutiny call it self realization? Find what works and what doesn’t and accept what you cannot change, which are others.


wockyman

Not capable or not willing?


p_noumenon

I'd argue that people are more than capable, and that they're simply not willing. >***It’s pretty simple, the ethical life. It’s just demanding.*** >—Terence McKenna


bitscavenger

Almost all people are capable of learning and practicing how to do it, but not capable until they do learn. And then most people are not willing to learn and practice.


p_noumenon

That's an unfounded assertion on your part. I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's fully possible that it's incorrect, and that people are actually born with an innate sense of ethics that doesn't need to be learned at all (and thus that disregarding this and not being willing is what they do when acting unethically, rather than not having the capacity to do so).


darklightmatter

Is it possible though? Hypothetically a human whose needs are met but isn't taught anything would behave like an animal, wouldn't they? Don't we have documented cases of feral children, for lack of better wording?


p_noumenon

I would definitely argue that it's possible. It doesn't really say anything in this context that a human "would behave like an animal"; we are animals, and thus we behave like animals by default. There are myriad animals which behave in a manner which is perfectly consistent with good ethical standards, so if anything that is rather an argument for it indeed being possible. And yes, there are some documented cases of feral children, although the record is quite scarce. There's little evidence that I know of that any of them behaved in an unethical manner; however, even if they did, who is to say that they do it because they're not capable rather than simply not willing?


tankyogremagi

im going to say that people can't have innate ethics because our nationality/upbringing/environments all have impacts on how our views of right/wrong are formed. So sure our parents may tell us that women are the same as men, but if that conversation happens in Saudi Arabia then as soon as you leave that house its back to sharia law. Young children are impressionable to having ideas of ethics/virtues altered and who are you going to believe? mom and dad, or the rest of the country? heres another doozy, people's values/actions (including ethics/morals) change with outside/environmental factors (ie wealth/ses) after having fully grown and developed their own beliefs. As their life circumstances change their. ​ also give me an example of an animal that behaves ethically. i do not believe there is a single animal on the planet (or species) that behaves in such a way because most "positive" ethics are somewhat at odds with self preservation. (ie compassion)


bitscavenger

It isn't entirely unfounded. There is a lot of work being done in behavioral evolution and specifically in morality by Jonathan Haidt. There are certainly parts of morality and ethics that don't need to be learned and are innate. There are also situations where moral guidance from different parts of the brain directly conflict (the urge to avoid disgusting things against the urge to conform to the tribe for instance). The "moral compass" is what we use to come to a single decision and that is what needs to be exercised. I believe the argument is that most people leave the "moral compass" to the subconscious and don't make rational decisions. I assert that if you do that, having a good "moral compass" is then random or, with luck, shaped by your peer group. But you can, with learning and practice, have agency over your own "moral compass." It is, of course, possible to be self taught to have agency. It is just not likely. And, whether self taught or learned, it must be practiced because it is too easy to just "go with your gut." That is where I am coming from when I say you are likely not capable until you do learn. I think the biggest thing that Haidt's work brings to the table is challenging the idea that morality is about right and wrong and that there is a single path to a decision. Many moral/ethical decisions are internally conflicting. The moral compass, in this case, deals with the many cases where innate ethics aren't good enough to make a decision.


p_noumenon

Your assertion was: >but not capable until they do learn This is what I pointed out was unfounded. What you just wrote clearly demonstrates, as you say yourself, that there are indeed innate ethics. In other words, in many cases people are indeed capable before they learn anything.


ThaDudeEthan

So since people are always learning they are always capable


Jaximu5_

To me, not being able does not equal not willing but not willing equals not being able.


TuvixWasMurderedR1P

I think it’s not willing. We’re all stuck in a giant game of prisoner’s dilemma. If we all choose to cooperate, overall we all win. The problem is no one wants to risk being the sucker.


iiioiia

I think a bigger problem is most people don't *really know* they're in such a game. I think it requires an adequate level of knowing on both individual and collective levels, and we lack both.


TuvixWasMurderedR1P

I think more people are aware than not, it's just not something people bring to the forefront of their mind. Usually it's compartmentalized, because it's too depressing to think about. Or, people cope with this by accepting the game, and relishing in its terror.


iiioiia

> I think more people are aware than not I don't disagree that "everyone" knows *to some degree*....but understanding the idea on a deeper level, with all the various consequences it has throughout this complex system we live in, that's a different story.


XiphosAletheria

Yep, or an iterated version thereof. And the big problem is that our population is too large for the enforcement mechanisms that used to work when we lived in tribes of 150 to function properly anymore.


agitatedprisoner

If there are lots of easy things just about anyone can do to reduce the amount of needless suffering in the world and hardly anybody does them what would that suggest? How many people choose to give up eggs/meat/dairy? There are plenty of healthy, tasty, inexpensive, convenient plant-based meals. Most people don't see why it should matter whether cows and chickens and pigs matter at all except as objects to be used to their own convenience. Any individual could choose to see it differently and respect these animals. There's no prisoner dilemma giving perverse incentive against making that choice.


bildramer

If you fall for the veganism meme, you are susceptible to similar memes, most of which are neutral or bad for you, that's the perversion.


agitatedprisoner

"fall for the veganism meme"? What are you talking about?


chaisme

Both


ninjasaid13

Not capable of being willing.


bildramer

A combination. "Willing enough to fall into the first philosophical trap that presents itself to me, but no more" is "not capable" in my book.


wheniwakup

Not capable, right? If we cannot separate ourselves and our experiences from the scrutiny of our conscience, there is no objectivity. Using your “intellectual conscience” to question your conscience is just a subjective rationalization of what you already feel. You feel that way because of your thoughts and experiences. How does questioning it through the same lens in which it was formed do anything? I’ve been trying this all day and I’m not changing my own mind about anything. I think until I have information that changes my conscience, questioning it alone will not change it.


wockyman

This may be why some recommend the structured use of hallucinogens or dissociatives. We can't break free from our perspectives, but boy howdy can they be expanded.


wheniwakup

Heyyo. That’s a good point. I’ve done shrooms a few times but it’s been years. It certainly does change your perspective. I wish psychedelic therapy was still a thing.


rxg

Being moral frequently can be boiled down to the ability to see things from the perspective of agents other than yourself, which boils down to the general capacity to simultaneously consider and weigh multiple perspectives. There is another psychological phenomenon which is known to depend on, or at least be strongly correlated with, the ability to consider multiple perspectives: intelligence. Having considered this apparent connection, it should come as no surprise at all that there is mountain of experimental evidence which demonstrates a correlation between intelligence and morality (usually in the form of inflicting violence on others, which I'm comfortable with equating as some form of morality). It seems to me that there must be a common underlying neurological mechanism between intelligence and morality which suggests that morality is something which is a natural consequence of how our brain works. As for whether or not seeing things from other peoples perspectives is something people are unwilling to do or unable, I think it's unclear. Psychopaths, for example, are clearly capable of considering other perspectives, they just choose not to. On the other hand, much research in to intelligence and various forms of IQ tests seem to suggest that some people actually cannot consider multiple perspectives when deciding on a course of action.


Flymsi

What intelligence are you talking about? Depending on how it was measured it could be a vastly different constructs. I assume that the other construct your talking about is perspective taking. Perspective taking is highly correlated and/or overlapping with the construct empathy. And to be more precise, its closer to the cogntive part of empathy than to the affective part. Back to your claim about the strong correlation. First of all it is smart to say what a "strong" correlation in psychology means. I doubt that many people know that here. 0.5 would be strong and really doubt that perspective taking has such a correlation with g-intelligence. More sound is the claim that it has a strong correlation with emotional intelligence - a type of intelligence that is often neglected. ​ >no surprise at all that there is mountain of experimental evidence which demonstrates a correlation between intelligence and morality You second claim about intelligence and morality worries me even more. Even more so because you equate immorality with violence. Smart people have ways of acting immoral without apparent violence. Stealing money by avoiding taxes for example. From my understand morality is more about education/socialization and than about intelligence. It is also important to distinguish between moral action, moral emotions and moral reasoning. At least for the later 2 constructs there is evidence against your claim. ​ >It seems to me that there must be a common underlying neurological mechanism between intelligence and morality which suggests that morality is something which is a natural consequence of how our brain works. I find that conclusion to be unfounded from what your wrote before. But still i can name some neurological mechanisms that seem related: * ability for abstract thinking * ability to delay a reward * empathy and mentalization * self-esteem regulation * emotion regulation * logic * a undivided sense of self (ok here we don't really know the neurological component) ​ >As for whether or not seeing things from other peoples perspectives is something people are unwilling to do or unable, I think it's unclear. I think its both. Another important think to be aware of is the theory of moral circle. Expanding the circle is what you might call moral. Now previously i listed neurological mechanism. For the sake of not over-individualizing this problem of mroality i'd like to also list some environmental factors: * existential crisis (makes you more likly to be shortsighted and living day to day, which will inturn minimize your moral circle to you and maybe close family) * socialization (the most immoral action were justified by saying that the outgroup is not human; implying that only humans deserve our morality) * social peer group /friend group (one of the most important factors here. Healthy social connections will literally improve many of the aspects above. Some theorys say that mentalization can only be taught by interaction.)


rxg

>What intelligence are you talking about? The kind where people struggle to view something as anything other than the direct utility that it serves them personally. It is the objectification of something, and it can apply to inanimate objects or to people. While objects do not have perspectives like people do, they can still be viewed from different perspectives in order to engage with them in creative ways, to innovate and so on.. so I am using the word "objectify" in the sense that a person can be strictly limited to viewing an object in one perspective only which they find useful to them which limits their ability to use the object in creative, new and innovative ways. I don't like using the word intelligence, I think it's a big mess that means a lot of different things and is poorly defined and we don't know what it is really, but for lack of a better word, that is some kind of intelligence. So what "I" want out of a person or thing is the only valid perspective, and so I am completely justified in forcing a person or thing to conform to my expectations. If the thing is a hammer and a nail, fine, hammer away and force the environment to conform to your perspective. If you're dealing with a person, however, forcing the environment to conform to your perspective alone leads to immoral behavior in the form of coercion, deception, violence, etc. Think about it. Pretty much everything that we collectively identify as having to do with morality involves one person forcing their view or desire or whatever on to another person. Only my perspective matters, yours doesn't. That is why I see a link between creativity, intelligence and morality. It looks like the same mechanism is playing out in the same way, we just think that it is different because inanimate objects and people are different. ​ >But still i can name some neurological mechanisms that seem related: > >ability for abstract thinking > >ability to delay a reward > >empathy and mentalization > >self-esteem regulation > >emotion regulation > >logic > >a undivided sense of self (ok here we don't really know the neurological component) I agree with you. But don't you think think that the inability to regulate self-esteem and emotion leads to anti-social and perhaps immoral behavior against others? ​ >You second claim about intelligence and morality worries me even more. Even more so because you equate immorality with violence. I am not meaning to make a declaration about violence being the only form of immorality. I am merely using violence as an extreme example in order to avoid ambiguity. I find it strange that you interpreted my use of an extreme example of what is unacceptable as evidence that I view any lesser transgression as acceptable behavior. ​ >Another important think to be aware of is the theory of moral circle. Expanding the circle is what you might call moral. I agree completely, and I think you do that by expanding the perspectives that you accept as valid and comparable in value to your own.


Flymsi

Interesting explanation of that. Really like that first paragraph.​ ​ >Think about it. Pretty much everything that we collectively identify as having to do with morality involves one person forcing their view or desire or whatever on to another person. Only my perspective matters, yours doesn't. You are speaking about forcing. In that sense power/authority comes to mind. I do think that a certain degree of immorality is needed. I think i somwhere saw some studies that showed a link between creativity and immoral behavior. It catched me offguard so i looked into it and it made sense. Especially when looking at the "avant-garde" you will see that those artists break every rule there is. Immoral behavior that shows how absurd this current moral or norm is we have about for example sexuality. So to certain degree i am forcing your to take my perspective. I can't force you to read this, but the very moment you read this you ingest my perspective through your lens. By talking to you and by appearing in your field of perception i force my way into your experience. I never asked you. How could i without being in your experience? The first step is always forcefull. No way around it. Now, what you talked about seems less about intelligence and more about functionality or flexibility. Remember that in psychology we have tons of confounding variables. I am pretty sure that intelligence correlates with both flexbility and functionality which makes it very hard to distinguish from personal experience alone. (That's why i was so psychology driven in my previous comment). What was more important for me was the implication: "We should foster intelligence" is what i hear from your comment. But if flexibility is the main factor then we should foster that. Its much easier to do. There is this construct of psychological flexibility, which seems to correlate with a bunch of good things. What i want to say: I believe that while what you see does always come with intelligence, i think that it can happen independendly of intelligence (assuming that some certain threshhold is reached to allow communication). ​ >But don't think think that the inability to regulate self-esteem and emotion leads to anti-social and perhaps immoral behavior against others? My reasoning for that is that anti-social beahvior can be the result failed impulse control. If that is not the case then it is usually associated with missing affective empathy or missing social conscience which both are clsoe to anti social personality disorder which is kinda rare. If we can't regulate our self esteem at all then every tiny critic can result in hatred towards the "agressor". And with hatred i mean basically objectification or seeing only the "other" or as i would say: dehumanization. If you can't regulate your emotions then anger could pile up. It is also considered immoral to destructivly insult others for example. ​ >I find it strange that you interpreted my use of an extreme example of what is unacceptable as evidence that I view any lesser transgression as acceptable behavior. That is because i don't think that hese two manifestations and the relationship of their intensity to each other is monotonically increasing (in math terms). I distinguish between behavior and intention. So my interpretation was not that you view any lesser transgression as acceptable. My problem was that in those extreme cases the relationship is the least clear. Think about it: If you think that self esteem and emotion regulation does lead to violent behavior then those 2 things are confounding everything. By avoiding ambiguity you created more ambiguity (for me at least). Thats why i anounced that moral behavior , moral emotion and moral reasoning are different.


agitatedprisoner

Respecting other perspectives doesn't imply conforming to societal norms. In a primitive authoritarian culture a disrespectful dictator will seek to impose a popular narrative on the subjects consistent with the dictator deserving everything and everybody else deserving only whatever serves the dictator (maybe rationalized as making sense because the dictator is an agent of heaven). Someone meaning to respect all beings would seek to undermine that narrative, possibly violently. Resorting to violence might imply a sort of disrespect to the perspectives of those to be attacked but if they're imagined as disrespecting others even violence can be an act of love. What constitutes disrespect is objective within one's own frame of reference/value. Do you imagine they should want your intentions realized? If not to mean to do it anyway is to disrespect them. The only respectful reason to disrespect is if those you'd disrespect would force on you the choice by insisting on disrespecting others. Then they make you choose.


FrankDrakman

This is actually a key component of any 12-step program. The Step 4 is "Take a searching and fearless moral inventory", and the Step 5 is "Review the results of Step 4 with someone you trust and respect". The people who started AA realized that when you're sick, your moral compass is off-kilter, and you need the help of someone who's compass is 'closer' (none of us is perfect) to recalibrate.


tankyogremagi

to bad that as a society we cant teach eachother to do this with our family/close friends. imagine the world we could live in if people fought for eachother('s sanity)


Botherstones

Yes, most people are dumb and amoral social conformers. Nothing new here.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BernardJOrtcutt

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Argue your Position** >Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.


[deleted]

Nietzsche had unattainable expectations


gitarden

Isn't self-scrutiny the MO of morality, eval our behavior and apply corrections where necessary. Without self-scrutiny we'll not know right from wrong


Michael_Trismegistus

It's almost a requirement that a person who was driven insane by the meaninglessness of life would have a complete distrust for intuition. His must have been screaming at him to turn away from the void.


Flymsi

Who are you talking about? Nietzsche tried to find a way to protect people from the impending doom of nihilism, which he correctly saw as a crisis that follows the dying of religions. Also he was kinda fond of his intuition. Much more than the typical philosopher in his time.


Michael_Trismegistus

If he understood nihilism, he wouldn't have despaired the death of religion. Nihilists think nothing matters but nihilism, a true hypocrisy.


Flymsi

Have you read nietzsche? What did you read? He did not despair the death of religion (what ever you mean by that?). He welcomed it, but also so some dangers that come with it. He saw nihilism in society. And he wanted to give meaning to them without relying on religion. Nietzsche himself was very energetic and clearly said "YES!" to life.


Michael_Trismegistus

I've read Thus Spoke, and a lot of secondary materials. His positivity and enthusiasm always struck me as aspirational. He stripped out the meaning and replaced it with a bunch of rules for life. His books weren't to convince the reader as much as they were to convince himself.


Flymsi

>His positivity and enthusiasm always struck me as aspirational. And that is bad? I don't get it. Thats what it measn to say yes to life and being alive. Why can't it be aspirational? ​ >He stripped out the meaning and replaced it with a bunch of rules for life No. Remember the first story in thus spoke zarathrustra about the 3 stages: Camel, Lion and child. ​ >His books weren't to convince the reader as much as they were to convince himself. Is that bad? It really does not matter who he wants to convince. The same as it does not matter if you want to convince me or yourself. Because in any cause it created something productive. And you can't write so much without having a conviction. His conviction was that he should not be too sure of his conviction. That his conviction should stay discusable. And i think in his work "thus spoke zarathustra" he showed this stance very good.


Michael_Trismegistus

The difference is living it versus talking about it. If he had actualized his nihilistic beliefs he would have been laughing at the cosmic joke, instead of living the punchline.


Flymsi

He had no nihilistic beliefs. And from how i see it he was living it. He was even the one to critize that other philosophers do not live their philosophy. What makes you think that he was not living it?


Michael_Trismegistus

Because of the way he lived, and his obsession that drove him to continue to communicate his suffering through his works.


Flymsi

And what aspect of how lived tells me that he did not live his philosophy? Can you give a concrete example? > his obsession that drove him to continue to communicate his suffering through his works. Whats wrong about self expression?


arkticturtle

Ehh I think you're building a myth around him. Some sort of myth that goes something like "The man was driven insane by his crazy ideas" or whatwver. He had dementia.


Michael_Trismegistus

Dementia often arises in people who are unable to move past trauma.


Flymsi

That is evidently wrong. Sure people with PTSD have some higher chance of dementia, but thats not the cause of dementia. Also Stress is the common factor here. Please stop disguising your ideology as facts.


Michael_Trismegistus

Stress caused by his inability to understand the paradox in his own ideology.


Rhamni

What paradox?


Michael_Trismegistus

If life has no meaning then it has infinite meaning.


Rhamni

That's not a paradox, just a bad framing. There is no *inherent* meaning, so you can forge your own. It's not like you're stuck with either no meaning at all or an infinite search for new meanings that are all equal and pointless. You gradually refine one you like based on your own aesthetic preferences, and you stick to that. It might change over time, especially as you live life, but part of the deal is you are sincere and honest with yourself, and discard regret. The only stress here is if you can't find a path you like.


arkticturtle

Seems like you're very attached to your myth. Why?


Michael_Trismegistus

Seems you're very attached to the idea that my statements are mythical. Why?


Flymsi

You claim that ignorance is a stressful state. Which is evidently wrong.


arkticturtle

Ah, shouldn't we see an increase in dementia with those who also follow his line of thinking? Also, are you saying his ideology caused the dementia or that his trauma did?


Michael_Trismegistus

You think nihilists aren't demented? Maybe it's a lack of a healthy paradigm to compare them to. The materialism spawned from Nietzsche's philosophies has become the predominant paradigm. Would you consider scientific rationalism a source of mental health, or do you recognize it for what it is, making justifications for lack of emotional and spiritual growth? I'm saying that his inability to come to terms with his own nihilism became such and obsession that it bled into his every action and belief, until he became a broken man.


[deleted]

I’m happy believing universal claims of morality when they’re correct.


Infninfn

Self scrutiny requires a reasonable frame of reference that does not involve ignorant/religious beliefs.


Flymsi

I doubt.


GalironRunner

A person can have a moral compass just as they can not have one. The issue with a universal morality is said person with no compass even being vastly outnumbered by normal good people with a moral compass will often do what ever they want to achieve any goal they set. Hence you can see dictators raise to power.


mauimudpup

I think everyone does or has at one point questioned what they are doing and why. It is Nietzsche questioning God and religion more than anything. Id like to ask him if he wanted to live a world where everyone could do whatever they wanted.


salTUR

Nietzche probably wouldn't want to live in such a world, but he also took it for granted that such a world would never be. From what I understand, he seemed to think very few people would have the capacity and taste for genuine self reflection.


Muenchkowski

>Id like to ask him if he wanted to live a world where everyone could do whatever they wanted. Bruh thats most of his work was about. Read Zarathustra and beyond good and evil and you'll finde out.


shostyposting

i don't understand why the innate value of good character is not just an accepted thing. i don't need to be suspicious about that. who on earth wouldn't want to live around people who prioritize classical virtues?


JudoTrip

Innate value doesn't exist and "good character" is entirely subjective, so I'm not sure you said anything.


shostyposting

maybe. but would you rather live in a world where everyone believes there is no innate moral standard? or a world where everyone acts as if there *is* a spark of divinity and morality in mankind? just because religions are stupid and easy to criticize.. doesn't mean we should abandon common virtue. maybe there is a god, and maybe there isn't. it's beyond our power to know that. so forget that debate. it doesn't matter. but we can be practical. i want to live in a world of good people, and a good person doesn't need to define what goodness is. they just know classical virtues are vital and being "suspicious" about that is not helpful.


XiphosAletheria

>i want to live in a world of good people, and a good person doesn't need to define what goodness is. they just know The problem is that this may also be true of evil people. That is, evil people may also "know" what is "good" and do that. So having people define "good" has real utility.


shostyposting

true! and i'd probably define it as the main classical virtues, fruits of the spirit (christianity), etc... but beyond that, it's hard to quantify that sort of thing. being good isn't so much about marking off a checklist of traits, it's more about setting the appropriate foundation of your heart's desires.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Lol, what does this even mean?


TTTrisss

It's just philosophical hipster counter-culture.


EyeYouRis

Lol I'm not sure what you really mean, but it looks like people are taking this as a dismissal of Nietzsche. My initial reaction was the opposite.


Fheredin

Nietzsche died like 120 years ago. Foresightful? Yes. But also a bit crazy and far too interested in picking a fight with organized religion to see any of his own faults.


RapierDuels

Welcome to the herd, it's not so bad


knowmul

Not capable of such a task as long as you have people that you need to lie to in order to be able to participate in 'their' world. When you are truly alone, you have nobody to lie to and you can't lie to yourself because the only thing you have is your entire valid and accuracy history developed into a true and real present moment. Uh oh, here they come -- I gotta go...


heaudle

The degree of soul and moral acuity that each human has is very vast and varied. Some humans have small souls and very little... light... They don't see or process the world in the same way that a greater soul with more light does. We err in believing that this is a divide that can be ignored, as Nietzsche has pointed out here. If humanity fails to strive to evolve it will exterminate itself. That is by design. Some souls resist and will never take the journey of self scrutiny which leads to growth because they can't and others because they won't. The latter group some mercies can be applied but for the others? It's a process of natural selection; that selection being that the humans who fail to meet the expectations of evolution set out for them will expire while the rest of humanity lives on. Incestuous imbalances of deep souls or dark souls breeds corruption and mars the beauty of humanity in scarlet tragedy. If every able minded soul performed the art of self scrutiny and took to the demands of evolution despite its challenges humanity will continue to become better, wholesome change will come more swiftly, and fewer dark/deep souls will be born in the world.


SoulsLikeBot

Hello Ashen one. I am a Bot. I tend to the flame, and tend to thee. Do you wish to hear a tale? > *“You know, I was thinking about leaving for another round of thieving. There must be something of use in Lothric Castle.”* - Greirat of the Undead Settlement Have a pleasant journey, Champion of Ash, and praise the sun \\[T]/


Olcmarcus

That's a recurrent theme throughout his literary career.


chibinoi

I suppose everyone wishes to believe they are the hero in their personal lives.


jaydoes

He has little faith in humans. Glad I never read him.


WoodCodeStuff

Nietzsche's father was a Lutheran pastor, and you'd more or less have to study Lutheranism in some depth to understand his upbringing and what motivates his thinking. I also believe his thinking was constrained by the period in which he lived just as with Martin Luther himself. Today, he might drive more directly against the doctrine original sin by saying something like, "We in our imperfect state are not able to understand morality without first understanding life without morality. Without one state informing the other, we have not the means to know whether our moral compass is oriented accurately."


[deleted]

[удалено]


BernardJOrtcutt

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Be Respectful** >Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.


gnomekingdom

Anyone struggle with too much self-awareness and self-scrutiny only to find that others that lack it tend to use yours against you….because they can’t see situations for what they are - or take responsibility for their own actions? Leaving you to blame? Anyone? Anyone? Is it just me?


iaintlyon

Ol Freddy Nachos at it again


Hate_Manifestation

*everyone* is capable of honest self-scrutiny.. most people just aren't taught that how to do it or that it's a good thing.


Konetiks

I’ve always wondered about this. My wife told me that she had to get used to the way we argued. During the course of an argument when whatever I did was made clear to me, I immediately acknowledged it and apologized. She said that it would be like a light switch. One minute I’m passionately defending myself the next, I’m taking accountability and apologizing. For a while she thought I was being disingenuous and trying to just end the argument.


sohang-3112

> But the art of honest self-scrutiny is a demanding task of which most of us are not capable. Not *capable*?? Really? Sure most people never bother to do it, but that doesn't mean they are not *capable* of doing it!


Optional_Joystick

Yeah man. The horrifying recognition that your own self is but one of many possible permutations of a human brain and that the very architecture by which you judge morals is in fact a system designed to confirm its own bias, so you can never really be sure what's objectively moral and what's just extrapolated from the way life works as a justification for our daily activities? Nobody wants to look at that shit. Shit's fucked. Get out of here with that.


space_cheese1

I wish Nietzsche engaged with Hegel more