h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm fond of the softened form of egoism, which in fact is altruism if done right and with a long period of time in mind. As you stated, life could be better for me if I built up a social environment for me to depend on for a long period of time, thus fulfilling my egoistic interests.

Personally, I vary between softened egoism and what I call 'Aesthetics', but decided not to mention in the entry because I felt it was too personal and opinion.

Aesthetics, in this context, is the belief that all is meaningless, including ethics, so therefore the only way to choose behaviour is on aesthetical considerations of beauty and suchlike. Acting in a way commonly perceived as 'ethical' is, to me, aesthetically pleasing, so I do so. Unfortunately this does leave me vulnerable to the desire to commit the 'perfect crime'.

I do find human beeings aesthetically pleasing. That's what drives me.

This is basically how I feel too. Plus if certain automatic responses (not going round being randomly nasty) are my defaults, by upbringing, society or genes, then its really not worth the bother trying to go against them unless I have a really good reason.

Someone suggested a name for my world view/philosophy/ethical system, less descriptive than 'long term egoism', but somehow more poetic:

'nihilism with a smile'

The problem is that our upbringing often causes grossly amoral behaviour. If I was a citizen in ancient Rome I would probably be brought up to accept slavery, for instance.

Of course I agree that slavery is amoral. But then I grew up in a society in which it is viewed as such. How can I say I am objectively right over the Romans? Perhaps I'm stating my case too strongly - I'm merely saying that our morals do come in part from our upbringing, and that this is not a bad thing, as long as you are willing to break them if you have good reason.

We are a part of the evolution of social knowledge.

BTW, slavery was not abolished because of moral issues, but because machines provide a better basis for mass production. So it fits in my schema of long term egoism.

Slavery is still used in underdeveloped countries like china (this is what they do with political oponents), and we buy their products.

You can say that you are more likely to be right than the romans, because you (generally speaking) will have thought about the issue, decided that you would not like to be a slave, and choose not to enslave others. Your typical roman wasn't even aware that there was an issue, let alone where he stood on the issue. I am not saying that you can't make a good case for slavery in certain curcumstances (you can), nor am I saying that you are wrong (I happen to agree in disliking slavery which includes things like "having to go to work"), but I do think that as someone who has a considered judgement on the issue, you are more likely to be right than someone who has never thought about it.

So what your are saying is:

If you think, you are more likely to be right.


I love that one.

Not quite. Simplistically speaking, I am saying that if you don't think, you are more likely to be wrong. This does not mean that two people who have both thought about something and come to different opinions are likely to both be right, or to both be wrong. They may both have used different parts of the surrounding conceptual space in looking at the problem, and thus had differing assumptions involved in the final answer. Of course, with the really clever person, there is no final answer, only the current best answer!

Which brings us to a very interesting point: is there a way to find out which answer is more right?

Nature just tries out and the surviving answer is a good one.

So does mankind, but it takes a long time.

We could do computer simulations, and already have. Brings you faster to an answer, but is limited to simple questions. BTW, do you know tit for tat? I think I'll do an entry on this.

Or can we improve or thinking process, maybe in trying to be as none-involved as computers while using our ability to cross connect problems and to associate? I try this one, but my fellow humas drive me crazy just by keeping to be unpredicable, chaotic and short term egoistic.

"Once I felt that I was a buddha moving in a land filled with madmen. Then I was enlightened, and felt that I was an I-know-not-what moving in a land filled with absolute, solid to the core, buddhas."
Wim paused for thought.
"Most of whom are thoroughly disguised as madmen."
-- Luke Rhinehart: 'Adventures of Wim'

Why should the unpredictability and chaos associatted with humans effect you any more than the unpredictability and chaos of the weather?

We do indeed have a mothod for improving the quality of thought. it is called general semantics, and attempts to apply the methods of science to everyday (and very unusual) situations, taking into account the motivations and values of every individual and group involved. This includes things like spotting when someone is trying to use emotional methods to get their own point of view accross. once you start looking for things like "n****r" and "pro-life" and "b*****d" and replace them in the discusion with emotionally neutral terms like "dark coloured person", "anti-abortion" & "pro-abortion", and "child of unmarried perents", most of the people watching can soon see that these emotionally charged terms are usually put together in a way that when you replace those terms with emotionally neutral terms the sentences that you are left with don't actually say much. there is a word for saying sentences that are filled with emotional rather than rational appeals, it is "propoganda", and the fact that someone is trying to use it as an alternative to sensible discussion should always ring alarm bells in your mind.

When the wheather is bad, I can use an umbrella or something. When my fellows are crazy, I can only shoot myself.
No no, with very much effort I manage to solve the situations. But it drains so much energy.

Propaganda, or, as I call it, beeing polemic, reflects the way people think. They let their association machine (brain) run free, no logic connected, just associations and primitive emotions. That's what religions and newspapers use as their basis.

I would like to see one more human right:

The right to be spoken and written to in a non-propaganda way.

that's the spirit