Introspection and morality

[bborg 0]

Well sure, but it still recognizes some actions as immoral. Not by a list of actions which are good or bad (which would be intrinsic), but by the standard which one used to direct the action.

If a person steals, murders, evades something crucial - these actions are immoral, would you agree? (I am not assuming any special context of error of knowledge for any of those).

It’s the context of the action that determines whether it serves or rejects the standard – your life. Understanding what is a value to life is what allows you to make moral judgments. You don’t need a list of commandments.

It is important to be able to distinguish actions (as inseparable with their motivation) which are moral from those who are amoral. Not for the sake of superiority and the negative stuff you mentioned, but for an actual very important reason that serves one's life:

The usual response to injustice or an immoral act is anger (also depending on the degree of how personal the issue to you). Anger can impel us (using your word) to act in self-defense and serve as a motivation. We need to be able to unite the emotion with some conscious judgement of its source. If one is angry when no breach of morality has happened then one can know that the emotion needs to be corrected. But without that - without knowing how morality relates to actions and motivations, a person is unable to verify a basic emotion of survival - anger.

Reason, not emotion, is our means of survival. Even if you are fully integrated, you should not be using the fact that you’re angry or upset as the reason for taking some action.

And it's not just a matter of understanding the emotion. It is important to distinguish between an immoral act and error of knowledge for the purpose of self-defense. How can the legal system function without the distinction of moral/immoral vs. amoral actions? (as an example separate from the subject of introspection of course).

In personal relationships, a person needs to be able to distinguish between error of knowledge and immoral decision.

If a friend is immoral then it is perhaps better not to be his friend. If it is an error of knowledge that he is making, then it becomes worthwhile to invest effort into it.

In any case, there are certainly important reasons to be able to judge the morality/immorality vs. amorality of actions.

Well, I personally don’t build friendships on judgments of someone’s psychology; I decide that I want to be someone’s friend if they offer a value to my life. At first my reaction will be purely emotional, I may just know that I enjoy talking to them or I may feel “at home” with them. I may introspect and see that what I enjoy is that we share views on some subjects that are important to me, or they have a sharp wit or similar sense of humor or they have a contagious smile.

What I think it comes down to is these judgments of something being moral or immoral are very personal. I don’t mean subjective. Try not to think of morality in the detached way that it has been treated by most thinkers. If something is moral, what does that mean to you? Does it mean that somewhere on some tablet, either real or metaphorical, this thing is written under a large heading “right”? And that under another heading, “wrong” there is a list of those things that are immoral? It’s really not that way at all. Rather, think of “the moral” as those things that will enrich your life and help you to enjoy every minute of life on earth. It’s not enough to say, creating values is good. What values? Many values are highly personal and not necessarily shared, even among Objectivists. Can you say, “this person is moral, therefore I should be their friend?” Of course not.

Rather than focus on judging whether someone else is being moral or not, I would suggest focusing on what values they bring to the table. Neither I nor anyone else can tell you whether someone brings enough value to your life to be called your friend; that’s a decision only you can make. Maybe that’s taking your example too far, but I think the point is that moral judgments should be made only by the standard of how a thing improves your life. We’re not moral in order to tie our emotions to reality better or to judge other people. We’re moral to be happy.

[JRoberts 0]

Can you say, “this person is moral, therefore I should be their friend?” Of course not.

Rather than focus on judging whether someone else is being moral or not, I would suggest focusing on what values they bring to the table. Neither I nor anyone else can tell you whether someone brings enough value to your life to be called your friend; that’s a decision only you can make. Maybe that’s taking your example too far, but I think the point is that moral judgments should be made only by the standard of how a thing improves your life. We’re not moral in order to tie our emotions to reality better or to judge other people. We’re moral to be happy.

I think that this might be a bit misleading.

While it can be difficult to understand what a person is doing and why they are doing it, the virtue of justice means that we as individuals must objectively evaluate or judge an individual. Thus, if we are to be friends or have relationships with people, we must judge them. The only proper friendship is a friendship of virtue (as opposed to a friendship of utility, or "feelings", etc.). Thus, we must evaluate the morality of a person. There is, however, a catch. Very, very rarely can you judge one action, or a few actions, of a person, and from these form a picture of their moral character. Instead, you have to evaluate "the larger picture". If you think that a person is evading (being dishonest) by not introspecting but you still have other reasons to believe them to be moral (they are very productive, they are honest to others, they seem pretty rational, etc.), then continue to be friends with that person until you truly figure out the problem of "introspection". Maybe they were tired and in a bad mood one day and did not introspect. Maybe they were going through an emotionally traumatic time of their life and did not introspect to "save their sanity" for a week. Who knows? The ultimate point is, we must judge an individual's morality in order to properly function and gain true friendships, but we must do so carefully, with as much data as possible.

[bborg 0]

I think that this might be a bit misleading.

While it can be difficult to understand what a person is doing and why they are doing it, the virtue of justice means that we as individuals must objectively evaluate or judge an individual. Thus, if we are to be friends or have relationships with people, we must judge them. The only proper friendship is a friendship of virtue (as opposed to a friendship of utility, or "feelings", etc.). Thus, we must evaluate the morality of a person. There is, however, a catch. Very, very rarely can you judge one action, or a few actions, of a person, and from these form a picture of their moral character. Instead, you have to evaluate "the larger picture". If you think that a person is evading (being dishonest) by not introspecting but you still have other reasons to believe them to be moral (they are very productive, they are honest to others, they seem pretty rational, etc.), then continue to be friends with that person until you truly figure out the problem of "introspection". Maybe they were tired and in a bad mood one day and did not introspect. Maybe they were going through an emotionally traumatic time of their life and did not introspect to "save their sanity" for a week. Who knows? The ultimate point is, we must judge an individual's morality in order to properly function and gain true friendships, but we must do so carefully, with as much data as possible.

Maybe an analogy would clarify what I mean. Engineering is a rational, productive career. Does that mean you should be an engineer? No, you should only be an engineer if that profession is of special value to you. You don’t choose a career based on whether it is moral. Similarly, you don’t choose friends based on how integrated they are, nor is the fact that someone is integrated a guarantee that they will make a good friend to you.

I did not mean to imply that judgment is unimportant, because obviously finding something worthwhile in another is an evaluation of their character. You can’t pursue values without making moral judgments. What I said is the focus should be on what values a person has to offer. No friendship starts by reading each other’s autobiography (or trying to read their intentions) and deciding that they are moral enough to qualify for friendship. Such an analysis would likely be flawed, not to mention invasive. Friendship starts by recognizing shared values.

[JRoberts 0]

Maybe an analogy would clarify what I mean. Engineering is a rational, productive career. Does that mean you should be an engineer? No, you should only be an engineer if that profession is of special value to you. You don’t choose a career based on whether it is moral. Similarly, you don’t choose friends based on how integrated they are, nor is the fact that someone is integrated a guarantee that they will make a good friend to you.

I did not mean to imply that judgment is unimportant, because obviously finding something worthwhile in another is an evaluation of their character. You can’t pursue values without making moral judgments. What I said is the focus should be on what values a person has to offer. No friendship starts by reading each other’s autobiography (or trying to read their intentions) and deciding that they are moral enough to qualify for friendship. Such an analysis would likely be flawed, not to mention invasive. Friendship starts by recognizing shared values.

Thank you for clarifying this-I totally agree-as long as: the value is a proper value for friendship (you should not be friends with somebody just because they are rich and buy you all kinds of things, even if they are not good people, for example).

[Ifat Glassman 0]

Note to iftart.

Based upon your last few responses, I find that I no longer understand your question and the context about introspection and its morality. I don't understand why you would even be considering the issue of introspection when thinking about activists who oppose BB&T or murderers or thieves. These examples are way outside the context of moral judgment pertaining to introspection. Perhaps if I were a prison psychologist, then it might be of interest.

I was talking about thieves, murderers under a broader context. I'll bring it here:

Betsy said: "Objectivism, unlike most other moralities, does not regard particular choices and actions as intrinsically moral or immoral. Because it distinguishes between errors of knowledge and breaches of morality, it recognizes that even bad, wrong and self-destructive choices, if made innocently, are not immoral."

So I replied:

"Well sure, but it still recognizes some actions as immoral. Not by a list of actions which are good or bad (which would be intrinsic), but by the standard which one used to direct the action.

If a person steals, murders, evades something crucial - these actions are immoral, would you agree? (I am not assuming any special context of error of knowledge for any of those). "

This reply had pretty much nothing to do with my opening post. It was just responding to the specific comment Betsy made, which I quoted here.

As for the activists (from BB&T story) - that was an example of people who avoid introspection, and, in my opinion, are immoral for it. This was in response to Betsy who made the point that not every failure to introspect is a breach of morality. (I agree with this, but wanted to stress that there are cases when it is).

Re-reading that post I think it was too lengthy, not focused enough on the topic, and I misunderstood one of the things Betsy said.

So I suggest just to ignore that post.

I agree with Betsy's comments about what morality is for. And those are the issues that one passes moral judgment: values and actions. One does not morally judge a person by his introspective abilities or inabilities. One does not need to know any aspect of a murderer's introspective abilities to morally judge him.

I do judge people by how they introspect. I do not judge their ability to introspect - I judge the choice that they make in regard to introspection. I am not talking about a specific choice in a specific event, but about something broader - how a person deals with himself, how much he makes it his business to know and verify his motives.

A murderer who acted thinking he serves justice and a murderer acting knowing he is evil but evading his own judgement are evil to a different degree, in my opinion.

So I do see a relation between introspection and morality.

At this point, however, I don't feel ready to debate over it yet, since I don't understand the relation between morality and actions. As you can see I am asking about such relation, and I also intend to read about it (starting with your suggestions actually).

One last note: Please call me Ifat, that's my name.

[~Sophia~ 0]

So one last note to Sophia: You seem to be saying that understanding someone else's psychology is a very difficult task, and that most people project their own motivations on other etc', then in light of the difficulty of the task, what makes me sure I am not wrong. Well the form of the question is negative, and I don't see why it should be.

I don't see a reason for the tone of probable failure that you're using.

My question was neutral in tone, at least I intended it to be nautral.

Someone's whole psychology is a much broader concept. I was addressing the issue of identification of a particular mental process that lead to a particular decision or action.

I bet some of the things you investigate in your work are very difficult, that people have done it wrong in the past, and that people used unbased assumptions to analyze the data. What then makes you sure you got it right?

This analogy does not apply. Not only I have a direct access to the content but also I can do further testing and re-testing (if it is a process which I am studying - it is reproducible).

[~Sophia~ 0]

As for the activists (from BB&T story) - that was an example of people who avoid introspection, and, in my opinion, are immoral for it.

I do not understand this (and that is why I have asked my previous question). Can you explain how have you reached the conclusion that people objecting to BB&T donation are avoiding introspection?

[Ifat Glassman 0]

[This post is off topic]

I did not mean to imply that judgment is unimportant, because obviously finding something worthwhile in another is an evaluation of their character. You can’t pursue values without making moral judgments. What I said is the focus should be on what values a person has to offer. No friendship starts by reading each other’s autobiography (or trying to read their intentions) and deciding that they are moral enough to qualify for friendship. Such an analysis would likely be flawed, not to mention invasive. Friendship starts by recognizing shared values.

Such analysis is actually done by looking at a person's eyes and face, and listening to the way they talk, think and act. For me, the most basic value in a friendship is the person's character. Being able to enjoy who they are will determine if I am able to enjoy anything else with them.

And while a person is more than moral or not (much more), whether or not they are moral is something basic that I must check about them to myself.

Checking if they are moral or not is not a dry check list that I submit to myself to pass the test of the virtue of justice.

Instead, for me the moral character of someone is an actual value that allows the friendship to flourish, and it greatly alters my emotional reaction in the relationship.

So my point is that the moral character of another is a prime value in friendship, before any other shared values, because it allows enjoyment of sharing the other values. Isn't it like that for you as well? (I bet it is).

[bborg 0]

Such analysis is actually done by looking at a person's eyes and face, and listening to the way they talk, think and act. For me, the most basic value in a friendship is the person's character. Being able to enjoy who they are will determine if I am able to enjoy anything else with them.

And while a person is more than moral or not (much more), whether or not they are moral is something basic that I must check about them to myself.

Checking if they are moral or not is not a dry check list that I submit to myself to pass the test of the virtue of justice.

Instead, for me the moral character of someone is an actual value that allows the friendship to flourish, and it greatly alters my emotional reaction in the relationship.

So my point is that the moral character of another is a prime value in friendship, before any other shared values, because it allows enjoyment of sharing the other values. Isn't it like that for you as well? (I bet it is).

Yes to part of that and no to another. The more fundamental my agreement with someone on the way the world works, what human nature is like, what is "the good", the more solid the foundation is for enjoying my personal values with that person, the deeper and more meaningful it is. However I disagree that this foundation is before any other shared values. How could it be? Do you fill out applications to be friends with people, that includes all of your moral credentials? Rather I think someone's premises is something you discover over time, it's something you infer as you go. You cannot experience their morality directly, only the effects of that morality.

Also, there is the issue of implicit vs. explicit premises. More often than not, what someone says about their beliefs should not be taken at face value. How do you discover their implicit beliefs? Only through experience with them. I personally think that even if it were possible to quiz everyone and, in an attempt to build friendships only with the best sort, filter out those who professed mixed or even immoral premises, you would inexplicably be stuck with a lot of people you don't like and fail to meet a lot of the great ones. There's no shortcut, which is part of why I think the best way to build friendships is to focus on shared values rather than on someone's moral code. Their actual values are far more accurate indicators of what they believe than anything they could say. I'm sure you know many examples of this.

[Paul's Here 0]

--------------------

This reply had pretty much nothing to do with my opening post. It was just responding to the specific comment Betsy made, which I quoted here.

As for the activists (from BB&T story) - that was an example of people who avoid introspection, and, in my opinion, are immoral for it. This was in response to Betsy who made the point that not every failure to introspect is a breach of morality. (I agree with this, but wanted to stress that there are cases when it is).

How do you know that they avoid introspection? Are you assuming that if a person introspects well that he will make correct identifications or make moral choices? There are people who know they are evil (to whatever degree) and like it that way. There are people who get confused or frustrated when they introspect, so avoid it. You have provided no evidence that people who avoid introspection are immoral. If I enjoy movies and know someone who loves going to movies also, are you saying that I shouldn't associate with such a person because he hasn't introspected to identify why he believes in a supernatural being?

Re-reading that post I think it was too lengthy, not focused enough on the topic, and I misunderstood one of the things Betsy said.

So I suggest just to ignore that post.

OK.

I agree with Betsy's comments about what morality is for. And those are the issues that one passes moral judgment: values and actions. One does not morally judge a person by his introspective abilities or inabilities. One does not need to know any aspect of a murderer's introspective abilities to morally judge him.

I do judge people by how they introspect. I do not judge their ability to introspect - I judge the choice that they make in regard to introspection. I am not talking about a specific choice in a specific event, but about something broader - how a person deals with himself, how much he makes it his business to know and verify his motives.

Is not "how a person deals with himself, how much he makes it his business to know and verify his motives" exactly what is involved in an ability? If not, are you saying that as long as someone tries to introspect he is moral but whether he succeeds or not is unimportant to moral evaluation?

A murderer who acted thinking he serves justice and a murderer acting knowing he is evil but evading his own judgement are evil to a different degree, in my opinion.

I disagree, and I doubt the victim would agree with you.

So I do see a relation between introspection and morality.

At this point, however, I don't feel ready to debate over it yet, since I don't understand the relation between morality and actions. As you can see I am asking about such relation, and I also intend to read about it (starting with your suggestions actually).

One last note: Please call me Ifat, that's my name.

So the real issue for you is the relation between morality and actions. Then what we need to discuss is what is moral action? Which actions constitute moral action and which actions do not constitute moral actions. If you agree, Ifat, that that is the basic issue that you'd like to discuss, then we can move on from here.

[Ifat Glassman 0]

I said:

As for the activists (from BB&T story) - that was an example of people who avoid introspection, and, in my opinion, are immoral for it.

Can you explain how have you reached the conclusion that people objecting to BB&T donation are avoiding introspection?

How do you know that they avoid introspection? Are you assuming that if a person introspects well that he will make correct identifications or make moral choices?

Yes, but I am not reversing this. I am not assuming that if someone failed to reach the right conclusion then necessarily they did not introspect.

To reach a conclusion that somebody avoids introspection as a way of living there needs to be a proof that there is something that they know, and evade, and that this is something long-lasting for them, like a view they hold for a long time, or a habit. The character of James Taggart is an example. In the novel his entire psychology is laid out before the reader, but it is possible to learn that such is the psychology of a person without having someone laying out his psychology before you (like Ayn Rand did).

Here is the way I am making that conclusion:

Certain facts are so obvious to a person, that they are practically "pushed" into his consciousness like sight and sound, even though those things are conceptual. I know this from my own mind: I cannot wake up tomorrow, walk into the kitchen, see fire and somehow not have in mind the concept of fire that I have. The only way I can avoid the knowledge of the fire is if I decide to shift my focus away from the concrete.

Not all concepts are brought up to a person in such an easy, immediate way. Most require purposeful thinking and effort.

But some level of conceptual thinking is automatic once a person has already formed the concepts.

If I see a person who is capable of understanding some issue easily, and yet when they are involved in the same issue themselves, all of a sudden, like magic, they cannot see some contradiction, which they would easily detect in someone else, then this is my proof that they avoid introspection. If this happens in many areas, or in a fundamental one in their life, then I know they avoid introspection on principle.

And such was the case with the activists, who were yelling about violation of freedom of speech, while attempting to do the exact same thing. Such a thing can only be the result of two options: 1. They never have a real understanding of 'freedom of speech', yet they are using these words to justify their actions. 2. They do understand the meaning of it, but yet internally avoid the obvious meaning of their actions.

Personally, I'll go with number 1 option.

And Ayn Rand has profound insight on this kind of mentality, the anti-conceptual mentality:

“The Age of Envy,”

Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 39

A person of this mentality may uphold some abstract principles or profess some intellectual convictions (without remembering where or how he picked them up). But if one asks him what he means by a given idea, he will not be able to answer. If one asks him the reasons of his convictions, one will discover that his convictions are a thin, fragile film floating over a vacuum, like an oil slick in empty space—and one will be shocked by the number of questions it had never occurred to him to ask.

The state of mind is enabled by avoiding introspection, and never examining one's own ideas.

I'll answer the rest of your post tomorrow or the next day, Paul.

[Paul's Here 0]

I said:

As for the activists (from BB&T story) - that was an example of people who avoid introspection, and, in my opinion, are immoral for it.

Can you explain how have you reached the conclusion that people objecting to BB&T donation are avoiding introspection?

How do you know that they avoid introspection? Are you assuming that if a person introspects well that he will make correct identifications or make moral choices?

Yes, but I am not reversing this. I am not assuming that if someone failed to reach the right conclusion then necessarily they did not introspect.

To reach a conclusion that somebody avoids introspection as a way of living there needs to be a proof that there is something that they know, and evade, and that this is something long-lasting for them, like a view they hold for a long time, or a habit. The character of James Taggart is an example. In the novel his entire psychology is laid out before the reader, but it is possible to learn that such is the psychology of a person without having someone laying out his psychology before you (like Ayn Rand did).

Here is the way I am making that conclusion:

Certain facts are so obvious to a person, that they are practically "pushed" into his consciousness like sight and sound, even though those things are conceptual. I know this from my own mind: I cannot wake up tomorrow, walk into the kitchen, see fire and somehow not have in mind the concept of fire that I have. The only way I can avoid the knowledge of the fire is if I decide to shift my focus away from the concrete.

Not all concepts are brought up to a person in such an easy, immediate way. Most require purposeful thinking and effort.

But some level of conceptual thinking is automatic once a person has already formed the concepts.

-------------------

But you are substituting your values and psychology for someone else's. Suppose I was a poor person who was unhappy. I say to myself, "I need to do some introspection." So, I look at my life and say, "I'm bored with everything. I hate my house, it's a real dump. There is about $50,000 insurance on this house; that's just what I could use to get a better place to live, which is what I'd really like to do. I think I will cook some really greasy chicken tonight and start a fire that burns my house down. Wow. What a great idea this is. I'm glad I introspected."

This person has not avoided introspection, he engaged in it to identify his emotional state and develop a plan of action. You may say that he's evading some facts, but I could just as well include those facts in the example to demonstrate that the person is aware of them.

The moral issue is NOT whether he does or does not instrospect. The moral issue is WHAT he introspects about, how he evaluates the facts, and how he acts based upon their evaluation.

You state, "In the novel his entire psychology is laid out before the reader, but it is possible to learn that such is the psychology of a person without having someone laying out his psychology before you (like Ayn Rand did)." How? Taggart's psychology is laid before the reader by showing the actions of the character. It is the reader who is inducing the psychology of Taggart by introspecting about himself and his values. I haven't studied this, but can you show me one scene in which James Taggart's psychology is discussed without reference to his actions? And it is his actions that form the basis of the reader's moral judgment.

[Paul's Here 0]

------------

------------

If I see a person who is capable of understanding some issue easily, and yet when they are involved in the same issue themselves, all of a sudden, like magic, they cannot see some contradiction, which they would easily detect in someone else, then this is my proof that they avoid introspection. If this happens in many areas, or in a fundamental one in their life, then I know they avoid introspection on principle.

-----------

My question still remains. On what grounds is this a basis for moral evaluation? All that you have done is identify a psychological element about that person. If such a person is relatively harmless to your physical well-being, but (for example) likes to go skiing, as you might, or likes to go hiking, as you might, or go to the movies, as you might, why not pursue values that the two of you could have in common. Just don't discuss the things that you know the person can't handle.

As living human beings, we must act in a certain manner to remain alive. Life requires action; life IS action. When people interact, they affect each other in ways that can be good or harmful. In those areas that are open to choice, one must identify whether someone has the potential to aid or harm one's life before they actually have an effect on one's life. The way to identify such potential is to observe their behavior, i.e., their action. This is what moral judgment is about: identifying the action and making a choice to engage or not with the other person. Introspection does not fall into this category because I do not interact with other people's ability to introspect. I interact with the consequences of such introspection, and it is those consequences that are morally judged.

[~Sophia~ 0]

And such was the case with the activists, who were yelling about violation of freedom of speech, while attempting to do the exact same thing. Such a thing can only be the result of two options:

1. They never have a real understanding of 'freedom of speech', yet they are using these words to justify their actions.

2. They do understand the meaning of it, but yet internally avoid the obvious meaning of their actions.

Personally, I'll go with number 1 option.

From what you have written here you don't have the factual evidence required (even by your own evaluation of what is necessary) to make a conclusion about the identity of those people's mental processes. The only thing you do know is that they are mistaken with more than one possible explanation for their error.

[Ifat Glassman 0]

A note: I have exams coming up, so I don't have the right settings to think this subject through as much as it needs to.

So I'll return, hopefully in a few days when I have some more peace of mind to think about it.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Well, I believe the simple answer would be this:

If you refuse to introspect, to discover things about yourself and your views, your beliefs and your emotions, then you are evading. Evasion runs against the virtue of Honesty. So in this sense, yes, you should introspect. But more broadly, you should always seek to know, to understand yourself, and to not evade your beliefs or your feelings.

There are several ways one can come to know himself. One can drill down and introspect. That is surely one way. Then again, one can examine the objective and empirically knowable consequences of one's actions and choices. The first method, lacks empirical verification. The second (by definition) has an empirical basis. I learn from consequences.

Personally, I avoid introspection, not because I am afraid of what I will find, but because I consider introspection a second rate form of cognition, right up there with daydreaming and wishful thinking. I prefer things that can be objectively verified which means they can be independently witnessed by more than one person. With introspection there is no sure-fire way distinguishing wishes and facts. Being judge, jury and witness all rolled into one is an invitation to bias. It is very difficult to be just and true under this circumstance. Thus, I consider my introspecting a waste of my time.

The extent of my introspection is a form of recollection. When I make an error I ask myself what was I thinking? That way I will spot my error and I will not repeat it (hopefully).

ruveyn

[Paul's Here 0]

Well, I believe the simple answer would be this:

If you refuse to introspect, to discover things about yourself and your views, your beliefs and your emotions, then you are evading. Evasion runs against the virtue of Honesty. So in this sense, yes, you should introspect. But more broadly, you should always seek to know, to understand yourself, and to not evade your beliefs or your feelings.

There are several ways one can come to know himself. One can drill down and introspect. That is surely one way. Then again, one can examine the objective and empirically knowable consequences of one's actions and choices. The first method, lacks empirical verification. The second (by definition) has an empirical basis. I learn from consequences.

Personally, I avoid introspection, not because I am afraid of what I will find, but because I consider introspection a second rate form of cognition, right up there with daydreaming and wishful thinking. I prefer things that can be objectively verified which means they can be independently witnessed by more than one person. With introspection there is no sure-fire way distinguishing wishes and facts. Being judge, jury and witness all rolled into one is an invitation to bias. It is very difficult to be just and true under this circumstance. Thus, I consider my introspecting a waste of my time.

The extent of my introspection is a form of recollection. When I make an error I ask myself what was I thinking? That way I will spot my error and I will not repeat it (hopefully).

ruveyn

Thanks for the information, Ruveyn. It helps me grasp the basis of many of our disagreements.

[RayK 0]

There are several ways one can come to know himself. One can drill down and introspect. That is surely one way. Then again, one can examine the objective and empirically knowable consequences of one's actions and choices. The first method, lacks empirical verification. The second (by definition) has an empirical basis. I learn from consequences.

Personally, I avoid introspection, not because I am afraid of what I will find, but because I consider introspection a second rate form of cognition, right up there with daydreaming and wishful thinking. I prefer things that can be objectively verified which means they can be independently witnessed by more than one person. With introspection there is no sure-fire way distinguishing wishes and facts. Being judge, jury and witness all rolled into one is an invitation to bias. It is very difficult to be just and true under this circumstance. Thus, I consider my introspecting a waste of my time.

The extent of my introspection is a form of recollection. When I make an error I ask myself what was I thinking? That way I will spot my error and I will not repeat it (hopefully).

ruveyn

So, I guess when you shoot yourself in the foot, you will (hopefully) not repeat the same error.

"Extrospection is a process of cognition directed outward—a process of apprehending some existent(s) of the external world. Introspection is a process of cognition directed inward—a process of apprehending one’s own psychological actions in regard to some existent(s) of the external world, such actions as thinking, feeling, reminiscing, etc. It is only in relation to the external world that the various actions of a consciousness can be experienced, grasped, defined or communicated." [Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 37.]

"A major source of men’s earned guilt in regard to philosophy—as well as in regard to their own minds and lives—is failure of introspection. Specifically, it is the failure to identify the nature and causes of their emotions.

An emotion as such tells you nothing about reality, beyond the fact that something makes you feel something. Without a ruthlessly honest commitment to introspection—to the conceptual identification of your inner states—you will not discover what you feel, what arouses the feeling, and whether your feeling is an appropriate response to the facts of reality, or a mistaken response, or a vicious illusion produced by years of self-deception. The men who scorn or dread introspection take their inner states for granted, as an irreducible and irresistible primary, and let their emotions determine their actions. This means that they choose to act without knowing the context (reality), the causes (motives), and the consequences (goals) of their actions.

The field of extrospection is based on two cardinal questions: “What do I know?” and “How do I know it?” In the field of introspection, the two guiding questions are: “What do I feel?” and “Why do I feel it?”" ["Philosophical Detection, Philosopy: Who Needs It, 17.]

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

So, I guess when you shoot yourself in the foot, you will (hopefully) not repeat the same error.

To answer your first question first, I will shoot myself in the foot at most one time. Probably I won't shoot myself in the foot at all since others have done it and I use their misfortune as a negative lesson.

The field of extrospection is based on two cardinal questions: “What do I know?” and “How do I know it?” In the field of introspection, the two guiding questions are: “What do I feel?” and “Why do I feel it?”" ["Philosophical Detection, Philosopy: Who Needs It, 17.]

The first two questions are important. The last two do not matter very much to me. I avoid feeling as much as I possibly can. Feelings will mislead. Emotion is a third rate form of cognition. Feeling and $2.27 will get a medium coffee at Dunkin' Donuts.

Except for my family, I tend to be both hard hearted and hard headed. Getting to this stage was not easy since compassion was part of my childhood training. I am perfectly willing to be cordial and polite with people but I will not get sucked into their sorrows. As to first person feelings, I avoid guilt and shame as much as possible by not doing things of which I am ashamed or feel guilty about. If one does no evil then there is no reason for feeling guilty or ashamed.

The feelings which I permit myself mostly are curiosity and the pride of solving a hard problem. Curiosity is an itch I am glad to scratch and I am always game for overcoming something difficult.

I try to stay clear of compassion. The bad guys of the world will use compassion as a delusion and a snare.

So I do not do much introspection beyond recalling stuff.

I leave introspection to others. If they feel the must they will.

ruveyn

[RayK 0]

Feelings are an automatic response to one's values. So, shutting them down is illogical and something that you cannot actually do unless you of course have no values. Anger, fear, sadness, compassion and more all come whether you want them to or not. Without questioning why you are feeling those emotions (introspecting), you will most likely be full of contradictions.

Feeling compassion for a true victim, such as a woman that has been raped, is perfectly moral. To not have compassion for a true victim is, in a certain context, an act of injustice. But, a person would not know these things without introspection.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Feelings are an automatic response to one's values. So, shutting them down is illogical and something that you cannot actually do unless you of course have no values. Anger, fear, sadness, compassion and more all come whether you want them to or not. Without questioning why you are feeling those emotions (introspecting), you will most likely be full of contradictions.

Automatic for you, maybe. I am wired differently from you NeuroTypicals. I am an Aspie (Aspberger's Syndrome) and (most likely) a high functioning autistic.

I have values which I came by via hard work. What for you is natural and automatic, I had to learn by the numbers (so to speak). It took me over forty years to pass for human.

ruveyn

[RayK 0]

Feelings are an automatic response to one's values. So, shutting them down is illogical and something that you cannot actually do unless you of course have no values. Anger, fear, sadness, compassion and more all come whether you want them to or not. Without questioning why you are feeling those emotions (introspecting), you will most likely be full of contradictions.

Automatic for you, maybe. I am wired differently from you NeuroTypicals. I am an Aspie (Aspberger's Syndrome) and (most likely) a high functioning autistic.

I have values which I came by via hard work. What for you is natural and automatic, I had to learn by the numbers (so to speak). It took me over forty years to pass for human.

ruveyn

So, if a person break's into your home, puts a knife to your throat, takes your money, steals your bike and rapes your wife, what emotions would you feel and why?

That hard work that you mention is called introspection.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Feeling compassion for a true victim, such as a woman that has been raped, is perfectly moral. To not have compassion for a true victim is, in a certain context, an act of injustice. But, a person would not know these things without introspection.

Not feeling anger at the rape of an innocent victim is a non-act therefore it is not an act of injustice. I have no a priori duty nor a contractual obligation to feel sorrow for a victim (outside of my family) or anger at what befell the victim. My only implied contractual duty is to inform the agents of law of anything I know concerning a case of rape (or other violent crime). My problems are my problems. Their problems are their problems. I have found from experience that being hard hearted and hard headed is a form of bullet-proofing. What does not injure me and mine (or threaten to) does not bother me overly much. Lacking emotional tone, I have found, is more convenient than inconvenient (for me, and that is what counts). The only problem is that it rubs Normals the wrong way, so I keep my indifference well disguised. I do not need to be at odds with my neighbors or people I associate with.

You are quite concerned with your emotions (probably to the extent that I am not concerned with mine) so it behooves you to drill down and deal with them. I have no such need. And that simplifies my life considerably. Good luck in your quest for Inner Truth.

ruveyn

[RayK 0]

Feeling compassion for a true victim, such as a woman that has been raped, is perfectly moral. To not have compassion for a true victim is, in a certain context, an act of injustice. But, a person would not know these things without introspection.

Not feeling anger at the rape of an innocent victim is a non-act therefore it is not an act of injustice. I have no a priori duty nor a contractual obligation to feel sorrow for a victim (outside of my family) or anger at what befell the victim. My only implied contractual duty is to inform the agents of law of anything I know concerning a case of rape (or other violent crime). My problems are my problems. Their problems are their problems. I have found from experience that being hard hearted and hard headed is a form of bullet-proofing. What does not injure me and mine (or threaten to) does not bother me overly much. Lacking emotional tone, I have found, is more convenient than inconvenient (for me, and that is what counts). The only problem is that it rubs Normals the wrong way, so I keep my indifference well disguised. I do not need to be at odds with my neighbors or people I associate with.

You are quite concerned with your emotions (probably to the extent that I am not concerned with mine) so it behooves you to drill down and deal with them. I have no such need. And that simplifies my life considerably. Good luck in your quest for Inner Truth.

ruveyn

You, as usual, have avoided the question that was asked of you. No one here is stating that you have a "contractual duty" to anyone. So, if your coworker, a person that let us say you value, was raped you would not feel any anger nor compassion? Knowing why I have certian feelings, through introsepction, is what allows me to enjoy life, not search for "Inner Truth."

Further, why do you value your family members and how do you know that?

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Further, why do you value your family members and how do you know that?

Why? Because my spouse and I chose each other and we -made- our children. Also we help each other out, as happens in healthy families. There is little value in being atomic or solitary in one's life if one has good company.

I do not have to search my soul for reasons (which would be useless since I have no soul).

How do you know you are alive? The same way I do.

Now the general problem of why we do this or why we do that.

1. I deny the existence of an infinite regress of causes.

2. Therefore at some point, if one digs down, one hits rock bottom: to wit, a causeless cause.

Since one will hit rock bottom sooner or later, why bother digging if one does not need to?

The only time I dig is when I make an error. Then I have a reason for taking the trouble and time to dig. The reason is to avoid making the same mistake twice, which is a waste of time. If I haven't made an error then what is the point of digging? I will not find anything important to me. If I am lucky I will live about 25,000 days so I should not waste time.

You see just compassion as a virtue. I see compassion (generally) as a weakness and a burden and a potential danger, something that a hostile actor might attempt to exploit. If I have no handles, then no one can grab me. (that is a metaphor, by the way).

Also the less baggage I carry the less energy I spend. Why work harder to live than is necessary?

I think I have stated as clearly as I can why I do not do those things you consider necessary and virtuous. I do not consider them necessary and I do not consider them virtuous and there it is, as plain as plain can be. You are deep and I am shallow. That is how it is.

ruveyn