Introduction

[Martin Hash]

When you are young you thirst for answers – for truth. Unfortunately, truth is hard to come by, and the people you are depending on to provide it, your parents and other adults, are ignorant, sometimes willfully so. When the cluelessness of the world becomes apparent, you read philosophy and religion hoping that the answers lie there, and though there is part of truths, it is clear that those ideologies are incomplete and flawed.

I’ve read all of the standard philosophies: Empiricism, Rationalism, Sophism, Skepticism, Stoicism, Scholasticism, Mysticism, Taoism, Idealism, Naturalism, Materialism, Pragmatism, Existentialism, etc., and only Machiavelli came close to identifying the actual truth. I suppose it’s because we, as human beings, don’t want to admit to ourselves that our actions and motivations are the result of instinct, and unfortunately the basest of instincts: envy, resentment, jealousy. One of the reasons people are so susceptible and ill-equipped to deal with their reactions to base instincts is because they are improperly represented, Our early religious and ethical training throws us off the scent, instead substituting guilt for truth. Book plots and television programs almost always portray the complex, positive motivators of altruism and love, probably because we use stories to relieve ourselves from the monotony of everyday life while reaffirming our mythology.

I hope with age indeed comes wisdom because after decades of consideration I propose that the problem lies in the premises. Past thinkers simply have not dug deep enough to strike the bedrock of all human motivation. Some have gotten tantalizingly close but simply did not take the ultimate step of declaring the obvious, or if they had their writings were censored by those who choose to suppress unpleasant realities. The essays here are honest and frank. I hope they will spark discussion but my experience tells me few will be brave enough to enter the debate. Most people will simply ignore these propositions in favor of mysticism and illusion, but for those of you with the same thirst for answers – let us discourse…

[JohnDonne]

When you reduce human motivations to "instinct" you are saying nothing more than this: "From the standpoint of evolution, your motivations are instincts." One may also say, with the same certainty, "From the standpoint of chemistry, your motivations are just a chemical reaction." Or, "From the standpoint of architecture, your motivations are structures projecting from other structures." You are really saying, "That which is of this category, is of the category." But I posit that there are as many categories as there are stars in the galaxy, and each thing belongs in some part to each. I am a human that enjoys the multi-faceted nature of life, I do not choose to think of human motivation as merely "instinct", for it is as false and vulgar as to say a gorgeous woman of society holding a parasol is merely a sexual organ and a mouth. In reality I am all encompassing, a universe unto myself, the laws of the universe distilled in perfect proportion. What motivates humans is what unraveled the big bang, what makes the sun rise, the rain to drop. You cannot reduce a thing to categories without a loss of its essential nature derived from its complexity, and the levels of complexity go on indefinitely through the micro and the macro. We merely possess a piece of the truth with our rational minds, but that which is the greater part of truth, though unfathomed and mysterious, is sensed and communed with only by more primitive states of awareness.

[SuburbanFarmer]

[Montegriffo]

Was that financed by NASA ?
The girl who kicked a cat should go to hell but the rest of it was about right.

[Martin Hash]

I've since expanded this into a short book, Philosophy of an Old Cyber-Cowboy, available as an ebook on Amazon for less than a $.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Was that financed by NASA ?
The girl who kicked a cat should go to hell but the rest of it was about right.

my posting of it was indirectly financed by NASA

[Montegriffo]

Was that financed by NASA ?
The girl who kicked a cat should go to hell but the rest of it was about right.

my posting of it was indirectly financed by NASA

Your tax dollars well spent.

[Martin Hash]

Scott Adams is the most astute of any philosopher I've ever read. His new book, "Win Bigly," reaffirms some concepts I've been toying with: that 90% of all decisions are irrational; and that virtually everyone is delusional.

In this new ebook world, as an author, I will soon expand on these concepts, probably after debates in this forum, and integrate them back into my philosophy book.

[JohnDonne]

Scott Adams is precisely the modern Machiavelli, Trump being the model for his "Prince." He treats his own readers ostensibly as students of his persuasion, but actually he willfully employs persuasion tactics, which are basically just fallacies, at them to persuade them that what he's saying is true. I don't know if he actually buys into his own spin, or what, but he clearly breaks his own principles at his own convenience, either without realizing it, or perhaps his predilection to fallacy is the result of a denial of any truth but subjective perception, so instead of seeking it he follows his own biases with the mere intent to persuade others, not find any truth, as it wouldn't matter since none of it exists in his view. In that regard one could say his philosophy is essentially incoherent post-modernism.

[Martin Hash]

I've been reading Scott since "The Dilbert Principle." At the time he was wiser than me, or at least my circle of expertise was not yet complete, and he was wiser in areas I had not yet pursued. As I got more sophisticated (as did he I noticed), I could see the holes in his philosophy. I think he was simply limited by his life experiences; he became even better at what he already did well. Because he didn't have a complete arc of knowledge & experience, he substituted metaphysics, just like everyone does, but his observations were still astute, and not wrapped in pretention like most philosophers.

If you remember, I was the last holdout on DCF who believed Trump would win. That was before I knew Scott predicted Trump too, but whereas my reasoning is logical, Scott slipped into "Trump is the greatest persuader ever," clearly Scott's own delusion. We're on the same wavelength but my conclusions have better foundations.

Specifically, where Scott missed out (it's too late now), he never had a real family; he's a sociopath on the level of not being able to establish lasting relationships & social commitment. He hasn't traveled the world to any great extent, and certainly not to imbibe cultures & people's attitudes, both in other countries and in fellow travelers. He chose metaphysics over science somewhere along his life trajectory which distorts his thinking, and there's his overt tendency to seek adoration, ("Coffee with Scott Adams" creeps me out even though there's lots of cleverness).

However, whatever insights Scott Adams has in his philosophy, I will integrate those portions into mine.

Martin Hash, Wysest Myn in the Wyrld