Open Letter to My Fellow Philosophically Minded Sufferers

  < Previous Political writing Next Political writing >

Actually written MAY 7, 2023 - Elsewhere I have written of the anti-realist/postmodernist/pragmatist’s implication that contradictions are valid. [See here ] I have implied that this is their ultimate defense – to use reason to invalidate reason. Confronted with the self-contradiction of anti-realism, they hold that contradiction is valid, that anti-realism can be true even if it is self-contradictory. Right. So I fantasize that anti-realists believe “Contradictions are valid.”. And I also imagine folks object to my fantasy, wishing to tell me “Nobody believes contradictions are ok. Nobody believes anything so crude and stupid.”. * Well, maybe. On the one hand, I would agree. Nobody can believe in an actual contradiction. I have speculated that it is psychologically impossible to believe a contradiction. The best one can do is flip-flop between the contraries, to avoid integrating them into a coherent proposition. The serious attempt to integrate them shuts the mind down. On this point

Actually written JANUARY 22, 2023 This is a spontaneous little philoso-rant, the conclusion of which probably isn’t valid (like many of my other writings), but tugs on some intuitions that I think sets us up well for another writing following this, in which I describe the great epistemic quagmire. So, my idea here is that the strongest support for anti-realism is incoherent vocal noises, or meaningless arrangements of symbols. The basis for this is the fact that anti-realism logically contradicts itself, a fact we’ve known about at least since Plato’s Theitetus . Briefly, anti-realism is a kind of omnipotence, wherein the mind is omnipotent, as in, the mind can make anything true / make anything exist - precisely because the mind creates all truth / existence. The self-contradiction can be seen in the classic objection to God being omnipotent. If God is omnipotent, then God can make an object that even God can’t move, which is logically impossible. Omnipotence contradicts itself becaus

Actually written JULY 9, 2013 - [This is the introduction to a book I tried to write years ago, but abandoned as I realized I lack the discipline to complete it.] PROPOSED CHAPTERS 00 Introduction [nearly complete] - [Included in this book] [I mean, this blog ] 01 Why Relieve Suffering [half complete] 02 What Suffering Is [half complete] [Included here as Suffering Defined and Cataloged ] 03 Objections To Relieving Suffering [complete] 04 Basics Of Relieving Suffering [half complete] 05 Politics (or political economy) Of Relieving Suffering [mostly complete] 06 Metaphysics And Epistemology Of Relieving Suffering [half complete] 07 Morality And Suffering  [nearly complete] - [Included in this book] [I mean, this blog ] 08 Ugliness And Suffering [nearly complete] - [Included in this book] [I mean, this blog ] 09 Anti-Oppression Ideology And Suffering [far from complete] 10 Spirituality And Suffering [never started] 11 Psychology (Psychotherapy) And Suffering [never started] Non-Human

Actually written MARCH 6, 2014 - Most of us approve of universal compassion in at least a sentimental way. But is it always helpful to wish it for others? Here’s how the wish for others to feel universal compassion can lead to a hurtful glitch in one’s own universal compassion: Suppose others are survivors of abuse who have a strong aversion against feeling compassion for their abusers. They would find such compassion an insult added to their injury. They would find it a means of stifling their voice of much needed protest. Compassion for their abusers hurts them – deeply. (Abuse survivors have a name for the pressure to feel compassion for their abusers: “Compassion Bating”.) Therefore, one's own compassion for abuse survivors should nullify one’s wish that they acquire universal compassion. If one wishes that others feel universal compassion, one should restrict that wish only to those who have not been abused and can emotionally afford to feel such compassion. But is it ok to wi

Actually written DECEMBER 12, 2010 - This writing is an experiment in understanding morality. The idea is to pretend the following: 1, that initially, morality does not exist and 2, that we are superpotent beings who can bring morality into existence and 3, that bringing morality into existence is precisely what we shall do. We are going to build morality step by step. And by following this step-by-step process, we will gain a deep understanding of what morality is. Before we begin to design and build morality, let’s pause to observe humans without morality. What causes their behavior without morality? Their behavior is caused by their motivations, desire and aversion. Loosely put, humans without morality simply do what they most want to do. Motivation as a cause of behavior is actually quite complex, for humans are filled with many of them which conflict with one another or that exist merely for the sake of some other, ultimate motivations. But regardless of this complexity, the whole

Actually written JUNE 6, 2005 - Debates over human nature often employ criticisms of the form “If humans are that way, then we are just robots!” The implication being that someone's theory has stripped us of some characteristic vital to our humanity. I here want to focus on a particular human nature debate known as “determinism versus volitionalism (“free choice”)”. Determinists say we have no volition/choice. Volitionalists say we do. We can well imagine how determinism regards us as “robots”.  Robots just follow programs, making no decisions for themselves. No choice at all. But there is a kind of robot-ism associated with volitionalism too. The notion of free choice implies that we can decide to act in complete disregard of our motivations (our desires and aversions). In this state of pure choice, we act in complete apathy – as robots called “apathoids”. In short, we are stuck with two kinds of robots to represent humanity: Determinism removes our volition and makes us “automato

Actually written MARCH 1, 2012 - Nothing matters but through our desiring it. And I mean absolutely nothing matters, not your life, not the lives of others, not the fate of this world, not love or hate, not rape or murder. Desire is the sole reason any of this matters to us. [Excuse me while I pretend to be certain of this. It probably seemed very certain to me on the day I wrote this.] And once we fully grasp this fact, morality must disintegrate in our minds, for morality is precisely that pretense that something matters regardless of desire. Morality is that great engine of human action disconnected from mere personal desire. It is the edifice of one group provoking another group to comply against their will. Morality has always proclaimed loudly, “To hell with your subjective desires, do your objective duty!” But once we finally understand that desire is the only basis of “mattering” or concern for life, we must shake off the illusion of morality and face the balance of our benevo

Actually written JULY 19, 2023 -  Next random mental spew:   When suffering, write a shitty book about the relief of suffering. Depression has ruined my life. I make the best of it. I obsess over how suffering can be relieved. Not just mine, but everyone’s. I think about it and think and think and think. And sometimes I write what I think. But my thinking and writing is all disorganized because I’m depressed. And my thinking is probably wrong, just plain wrong, for the same reason. Now I also panic. With my physical health deteriorating by accelerating degrees, maybe I got 2 years to live. Now I gotta produce my shitty book about relieving suffering as quickly as I can, making it even shittier for being a rush job. And I might not make it in time. Will the ideas in the book redeem its otherwise garbage presentation? Will it be an unexpected hit? Will the sales pay for better health care? Will the sales and popularity bring me new kinds of problems I can’t foresee? Will I remain self-ab

Actually written AUGUST 2, 2023 -  Allegory showing the problems in choosing between realism and anti-realism. Imagine you want to discover the most effective way for humanity to relieve widespread, sustained suffering. Imagine also that you observe how humans inflict much suffering upon one another over disagreements about how suffering can most effectively be relieved. So you want to get to the bottom of these misery aggravating knowledge conflicts. You want to discover how to validate knowledge and truth. So you embark on a quest to discover how truth and knowledge can be validated. Off you go, on the mythical metaphorical quest for real knowledge, hoping it will end the wars over how best to relieve suffering. You’ve gone several days on that road. Finally you round the side of a steep mountain and see before you a kind of shrine in the shape of a giant boulder with a shovel slightly embedded in it from the top. Surrounding the shrine is a small encampment. When you arrive there, y

Actually written SEPTEMBER 24, 2016 - [Cue: Robyn Hitchcock - Welcome to Earth ] The next ancient civilization on our galactic tour is Earth. You’ll notice it just now on your experience horizon. It will be the pale blue dot encroaching on your left. The civilization of Earth is most interesting to us because its language-using inhabitants bear a striking behavioral similarity to our own species, as we were 7 million yakons ago. Language-using earthlings, called “humans”, suffer a natural environment hostile to their happiness, just as we ourselves once did. As such, the lot of them constantly seek ways to relieve their suffering. Items in their environment that relieve suffering are called “resources”. Policies for distributing and maximizing the effectiveness of resources are called “economics”. The most fundamental resource is the bodily strength of the individual, since through it, all other resources are acquired. And, since the relief of any individual’s suffering overwhelmingly

Actually written JANUARY 8, 2023 -  I don’t understand why the right and left constantly demonize each other. It honestly seems rather bizarre to me. And I can’t fall in line and take a side, so I end up feeling alienated by both sides. Each side finds a villain in the other. I find the same villains, but in both sides. Both sides are right about the villains they see in their opposition. But each side refuses to acknowledge the villains spotted by their opposition. It’s all like, “Naw, our side is nothing but heroes – y’all are the only villains!” Here are the villains the right find in the left: the power hungry corrupt bureaucrat/politician. Their motivation is not to protect us all from the harms of dog-eat-dog capitalism. No, their real motivation is only to act out on a certain insidious “glee of the destroyer” and an “envy against achievement”; and to enact this upon large populations, and therein to feel a perverted kind of power that compensates for their lacking the ability

Actually written APRIL 24, 2017 -  I love people who struggle to relieve the suffering of others. They are my heroes. But my heroes have divided themselves into two opposing armies who kill one another over their difference in opinion about how best to relieve suffering. And I have to wonder whether this war they wage creates more suffering than their combined efforts manage to relieve. ... One of these armies I call “my heroes of the abundance premise”. These are the ones who believe and shout: “There’s enough to go around if only we distribute it all equitably!” and “Scarcity is an illusion created by malevolent capitalists!” ... The other army I call “my heroes of the scarcity premise”. These are the ones who believe and shout: “Nature is a harsh realm of scarcity! We are plagued by disease and shortages of food and shelter, and even by the scarcity of the healing touch of our fellow beings!” and “Only our ingenuity and productivity can turn nature’s scarcity into the abundance that