Rhyme and Reason- Morality of Truth

[Arson Hiroha]

Recently, some thoughts have been troubling me, and I believe the people of this guild are well equipped to answer them. You have all demonstrated great wisdom and reasoning while I have been in this guild, thus I will turn to you all for some insight. Mainly it has been between the artful deceptions of Machiavelli, Casanova, Sun Tzu, and the truthful innocence of those like Socrates that have fought countless battles in my mind. It is the battle between Truth and Power. Innocence and Vast Knowledge.

In my heart, it almost seems as if it's a conflict between my goals and the methods to achieve them. In my quest for truth and creating a better world, am I spreading lies and deceit to accomplish it? Was the true goal ever really truth all along?

Thus, I propose a challenge to those within this guild: Which is more valuable: the harsh truth of Socrates, which brought him closer to rescueing Athens from its own foolishness, while at the same time ended with a poison cocktail for his uncontrolled words; or, the artful general/politican/seducer, who holds the ultimate power of deception, but the ultimate risk of madness and loss of purpose?

Indeed, this topic is very close to me. I am drawn between disseminating the truth that I find, or weaving lies that people like to hear so that I can gain ability and use it myself. It is undeniable that Socrates ultimately died for his practice, and he did not have the full effect he could have had on the society of Athens. It is also undeniable that if we spoke outside of this guild the same way we do here, people would either become bored or be offended by some word they misinterpreted (the more words there are, the more likely this is). Even the famous ancient Chinese general Sun-Tzu said to love your followers like children, and at times it seems this society is, without denial, full of them. Even the hippies fell to the likes of Charles Manson because of his persuasive abilities and their rampant drug use.

Even if you do regard them as children, do you lead them like an authoritative parent, dictating everything for them? Do you let them do as you please? Or, lastly, do you try to teach them some of life's most difficult and arduous lessons?

To whom would you place the greater wisdom: The Machiavellis or the Socrates of the world? If you say morality is debunked, you need not apply; saying there is no moral code is a moral code, simply because you act by it, and I'm afraid I don't have the patience to dispute this.

Thus, I give you the philosophers' favorite request to be asked of him: implore you all to argue with me.  

[Niniva]

I'll be honest right away here.

I struggle with my own principles at times. I accept that the vast majority of moral codes is in a way subjective, but at the same time I ascribe to follow it in some manor and because of that I cannot allow myself the ability to not live according to my own principles.

My principles are that you do the greatest good within the span of your life that you can. That is, I am to act according to what is good for the world, to find those things which I can deffend as right, and defend them, to find those things which are wrong thinking and deffeat them, and to harbor and love the persuit of Truth in all things.

There is a struggle in my head of a similar nature, notice how I said the "persuit" of Truth. That is to say specifically that I already am quite aware that if I stumble upon the realy Truth of things then I would never know what it was. I would only know parts and not the whole, and so I am left to continually seek in an infinite journey that will take up my whole life just to find what bits of Truth I can so that my purpose will have gotten man to think more clearly.

I would agree that the temptation to use my ability to reason and mix words for my personal amusement and gain is there, but were I to follow that then I would be a broken man, failing ultimately in my endeavors for I have not lived up to my own principles and if I have not done that then no words that I have ever spoken are as credible as they once were.

So my answer to your musings is that in spite of a superficial moral code it is one's duty to live up to their own principles. If you say the persuit of truth is more important to you, then persue it. If you say your personal gains are more important to you (much like the hedonists Socrates battled) then do not stop to trouble yourself with the truth of things. Ultimately your nature will form your principles, and your principles should then be what your actions are dedicated to following. Let yourself not fall into hypocrisy by saying one thing, believing one thing....and doing another.  

[Arson Hiroha]

In many ways, I agree with you entirely. We both probably agree entirely on what the goals may be; to increase common intelligence, dispel the lies of others for our own puruit and that of others, as well as the great evils like poverty and corruption.

However, my entire inner debate is all about method. You mention hypocrisy, and that is where I am troubled; do I lie to defeat the smooth speaking fools of the world, or do I speak the truth plainly and await my place at the modern-day gallows? I already hold many points of knowledge that I by no means doubt to be true, and have undeniable evidence behind them. However, the point is so controversial and uncommon that people would ignore the evidence and go for the rope. Many things could be listed, like how the pharmaceutical company Bayer made heroin originally as a pain killer, and President Lincoln was openly racist in his public campaigns. Whether these two are particularly valid or not is irrelevant, the point is simply how controversial and unconventional in the nature of them. They are so insanely controversial that I dare not speak them to a large audience, or else I would be torn apart by public opinion. To recover, I would inevitably have to lie about these facts (there are many letters and speach transcripts that back up Lincoln, and Bayer even advertised heroin in fliers).

Another is that to truly affect change, power is a necessity. I personally believe that power is amoral, but corruption is based on how you use it. The question is also whether a lie in politics is a vice; if so and I refuse to lie, I wish to do good work in the realm of thieves and charlatans. Their lies have become far more accepted than the truth; a hedonist I am not, in fact the drug trade would be one of my greatest targets; I come from a bad area, and drugs are something which truly ignites my ire.

Before I was a social libertarian, and valued the truth of the government as the greatest necessity, and power as the ultimate evil. However, it was only through a philosophy professor that this was broken. Before then, my rhetorical skills were such that I could spin every fact towards my favor by some logic. Thus, the irony of ignorance comes: the ignorant man lies while believing it, as that is the ultimate definition of his character. I thought truth to be the ultimate good, yet I lied in rhetoric to uphold this principle. I even made compelling speaches, taking moral (not official) leadership from the hands of others (this is also ironic, in that I sought to be the most morally adhered to).

So is it possible to do good work behind closed doors, while pretending to be a liar? Is the populace my enemy... In trying to improve it?  

[Niniva]

In most cases I would say that your questions are more simply put.

"Do I really want to brave the bowls of human existance to seek out the truth and then spread it?"

Of course you don't "want" to. No one would wish upon themselves (at least at first) the trials that come along with today's social view of those who are informed.

I get screamed at for having killed many animals in my life (was a hunter when I was younger) or for littering, or for using words of "questionable" nature, or worse yet for not recycling to save our planet.

Of course I have well thought out and informed information that leads me to believe that by recycling I would be a part of the growing problem...and that is sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

I refuse to shut out the facts of the matter in persuit of personal "ok-ness" with my actions and live under the moral dillusion that it somehow makes me a better person by doing some action that appears at first to be good, but when reviewed fully leads me to the truth of the matter which is that 90% of the things sent to the recycling plant are shipped straight to the dump for several reasons I don't want to get into.

Being a man of principles who believes that once knowledge about a wrong action is gained he must change his action....I must then change my action.

You sound like a man who could make a real difference in the world but I sense a youngness there as well. I sense that you have not experienced the willingness of people to listen to those who have more knowledge then they do. Give it time and you will see perhaps...then again perhaps not. I cannot predict your own future experiences but I can tell you that a man who chooses to act according to his own principles can never be blamed, and that I fall in line with Emanuel (sp?) Kant in that those principles, if universally applied by all men, would make the world a better place.

Is it possible to do good work behind closed doors? Yes...I have done it. Is it more affective to earn yourself a reputation as one who does good before you strive to do things of a "greater" good? Yes.

One thing you will need to remember though, is that compelling speeches don't make a lick of difference if they are first mean spirited and second....come from the mouth of someone who has zero credability.

Always remember that "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -A close friend

If you would allow such attrocities to go on unchecked then you are a fool. To use it for your own gain you are a devil....to do everything within your power to stop it within yourself and you will be at peace.  

[Arson Hiroha]

Hmm, if I think about it, I suppose many of my ideals could be supposed in a way that's appealing even to the lemmings of the Earth.

For example, take my position on drugs. Public opinion is generally agaisnt them, but the growing trend is towards greater drug use and more acceptance. I suppose there are two ways I could take this, both just, if not a bit deceitful: On one hand, I could propose things with an emphasis on possible outcomes that benefit society. People who focus on the current bleakness are largely ignored, because they simply lower the confidence of those listening (and are also horrible for morale). On the other hand, I could go after drug dealers as murderers, and completely ignore my other motive, the drugs; this is true, they are largely murderers, but the only problem is that "passive" drug dealers, if there is such a thing, would be exempt.

This resolved, the only thing that bothers me is if I do become someone with a vast following; largely, people submitting their judgement to someone else on these tactics is something I oppose. Not only do they form the mindset of dependant followers, but the leader may become too wrapped in grandeur, and fancy himself a god. After my whole bit with Berkely, my philosophy professor gave a speach about how the Roman and Greek kings would wear laurels for crowns instead of gold. Like all power, laurels withered and died, showing the kings their own mortality and humility. In some cases, when a ruler rode out to battle on a golden chariot, surrounded by zealous and loyal soldiers who would die for his word, trumpets blasting his approach, on the back of his chariot sat a chained slave whispering into his ear: "You are not a god, you are not a god..."

The thing I fear is becoming a charlatan, in a sense. Even if my changes are legitemate, I fear that the people who follow me, after my death or dissappearance, may come across someone outwardly like me and follow someone who is just that: a charlatan. In my charisma, I open the followers to my image, and others may use it to deceive them. From the very beginning, this is a problem: even in simple social interactions, I start to make people gather around me and value my presence more than others. What if I were someone else, and would lead them to ruin? The paradox is, can I get someone to completely submit their loyalty to "follow" reason?

Jesus the Christ, whether you believe in him or not, is the perfect example. He espoused knowledge and kindness, and by our time has risen to incomparable stature in our society. The very foundation of the religion was based on philosophy, and the principle of monotheism introduced largely in sympathy to Socrates' monotheistic ideas (For example, he would say that two gods could not be all-powerful at once, or they would contradict each other). However, over history it drove itself to insane ends. The crusades for Jerusalem, the various transfers of power in England, the Salem witch trials in search of "devils" in their society, thinking themselves on the side of Jesus and God. It goes even further to today, with corrupt megachurches where one man receives an illustrious profit and regular charlatans, men posing to be faith healers, when really all they did was go to a random town with a buddy who happened to own a wheelchair.

What I have outlined with Jesus is even evident with presidents; over time, many presidents have campaigned on images based on past presidents, yet found themselves to be either charlatans or deceivers with horrible policies. Thus, if I do good and make many followers or believers, do I only succeed in creating followers, ready to follow a fool to the same whims they invested in me, and thus undo all of my actions?  

[Niniva]

It occurs to me that every idea is appealing when it is said just the right way.

The nazi Germany was brought about because an overwhelming majority of the people there were persuaded that Hitler knew what he was doing. And I'd wager he did know. He knew deep down precisely what he was doing.

Charles Manson picked his followers because they were easily persuaded teenagers and spent years upon years sweet talking them and persuading them and "teaching" them that his ideas were right until they listened and obeyed his every command.

Every idea...SOUNDS appealing when it is rationalized correctly; Justified as correct in some way. Even the most morally unsound ideas can be construed as morally correct because we convince ourselves that what we are doing isn't "THAT" action. We know "THAT" action to be wrong but by some justification we convince ourselves (and others) that "THIS" action isn't "THAT" action because of reasons A, B, and C. This is a common practice psychologists call self-deception. Does this absolve us from the consequences? Of course not, this is why Charles Manson is in prison and Hitler killed himself to escape being killed by others.

Your example of Jesus (and eve socrates for that matter) is a good example of this actually. People convincing themselves that their actions are correct because they are acting on behalf of some morally correct end. They take the name of someone they know to morally sound and have credability and apply it to their cause and ride off to strike down those who oppose their own personal convictions. Is this what Jesus stood for? No. Was it Jesus who should be blamed for the Crusades? No. Socratic teachings were used and missused much the same, though no one fought wars over the name of Socrates (unless you count the figurative wars in the philosophical community), but his ideas were taken and missrepresented and yet his name still used.

The same thing has happened with Charles Darwin, who denounced the theory of evolution before he died and stated emphatically "I wish I had never published it." Just as Lincoln is given credit for being the abolisher of slaver when in fact he ran his campaign as appealing to slave owners. Leonardo DiVinicy is hailed as the greatest mind in the world making astounding progress in engineering and paining what we hail as the greatest and most famous painting of all time....the Mona Lisa...the man responsible for reshaping the Catholic religion and yet he was homosexual, and in point of fact would not have had sex at all were it not for boys under the age of 12....this does not disscredit his brain or how it worked but to say he was a morally sound individual and worth building a church around is hardly acurate.

On the other side of the coin there are some men that history remembers for being morally upstanding...St. Thomas Acquinas, St Augustine, Plato, Arristotle, and Kant to name a few, there are others as well.

Which of these men you become is up to you essentially. But in the end if you have no secrets, then when you die your ideals may be held most dear and it is, at least in my opinion, our lot in life as humans to hope that those things we say and stand for are remembered and practiced by others after we are gone. Progress can never be made toward truth if one never attempts to make it there.  

[Arson Hiroha]

Hmm, I agree. Each of these men have their own fault, though those of Jesus and Socrates are hardly evident (except for Socrates, who was homosexual at a young age. However, since I'm not an opponent of homosexuality, this is hardly a great vice.)

Over the years, both of their ideas have been greatly misconstrued and have countless interpretations. Jesus, for example, wears a thousand faces and masks that people have given him to wear; over the years, it is nearly impossible to tell which one was the true Christ. Socrates was misinterpreted at the very end and executed because of it, and today many people believe he advocated censorship of the media. Really, this is not true; he only advocated censorship within the military, and otherwise just because it concerns strictly tactical information. That seems only common sense. Actually, Socrates is the greatest example of this. The truth is that we have never truly read his writings; only his student, Plato. As a matter of fact, Socrates may have simply become the mouthpiece for Platonic ideas, however similar.

The thing that sounds most at fault with the realm of politics is this: Take Plato's famous metaphor of the people chained up in the cave with their backs to the fire. Plato attempts to bluntly break their chains and lead them to the light; The moralistic politician, however, blindfolds the person and whispers in their ear, saying "This is still the cave, this is still the cave..." and when he leads the person into the light runs away, deceiving them into the truth. That is the most peculiar position of the politician...  

[Arson Hiroha]

Although Niniva's given me some insight into the situation, I feel like my problem is far from solved. The questions still exist in my mind, strong as ever.

If anyone is willing to take up the discussion, I will be greatly indebted to them, even moreso if we can find the answer together.  

[shall she sail seas]

Bleh... I have to run soon and I only skimmed through the first post. But this might be of interest to you:
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_08_3_calhoun.pdf

I'll check back later and give a normal reply. ninja  

[Arson Hiroha]

Alright, I'll be looking forward to it then. 3nodding

So far I've read the first few pages or so, and it looks interesting. I'll revisit later on to read the rest.  

[shall she sail seas]

So, how did you think of the article? Btw, it's been a long while since I've read it (it's a bookmark in my "Old Notes" section) so I may not remember exactly what I gave you in there.

Anyway, you're thinking a bit too far ahead by comparing your future (maybe even present) influence to those of Jesus Christ, Socrates, etc. It's almost impossible to predict how your words and actions will become distorted over time. In the case of Jesus, the influence shifted and changed constantly over two millenia. Within your lifetime, can you really predict will happen in two millenia because of you? Is it that important to dwell on this when your time could be better spent actually applying yourself to an action you decide to commit to?

Of course, taking the time to decide what action to commit to is completely reasonable. I guess the issue here is how long of a time frame you're willing AND CAPABLE of holding yourself 100% accountable. I say 100% accountable because the actions of the characters you listed in the past have tried to positively influence the world. However, they do not take full responsibility over the distortion of their philosophies by other people for their own selfish agendas. And this distortion happens over time. You can only correct them within the limits of your own lifespan.

Maybe more later. I know I'm only tackling one element of this issue out of many in this topic right now.  

[27x]

I say that if the world is so easy to take over, just by reading a bit of philosophy, and lying to people, then why hasn't somone done it sooner?

If it were possible then I wouldn't hesitate to do so. That being said, the real question is, if it is so easy to do, is it worth doing in the first place?

No. We as philosophers like to think that in the end, the majority of people who hear ideas will be our devout followers, and then we start to look at people as, "Potential recruits, devoid of their own opinions and agendas." The truth is, you can't convince a large group of people the way you are saying, without using the methods you're rejecting.

You don't need to LIE, you need to CONVINCE, and there is a big difference. Charisma, and works are the two keys.

All in all, don't go for the majority, or they will just be a confused mass that says they follow your ideas, even though they don't know what you are saying.

Spread your word in your desired way, carefull to make it understandable to people who arn't well read. Your followers will turn out to be the ones who are really like minded to you.

You can't just convince people to believe in what you believe in, no matter how you try. They are people after all, and can simply shut their minds to you. Pick your battles...  

[shall she sail seas]

Dude, I_27_04, you're reminding me of Kierkegaard here....
http://www.sorenkierkegaard.org/kw22d.htm

And yeah, my brain's starting to fry a bit now.