Re: virus: what is a valid philosophy?

Sodom (
Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:19:02 -0400

Nathaniel Hall wrote:
> Richard Brodie wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 9, 1997 12:22 PM, Nathaniel Hall
> > [] wrote:
> > > If one makes it a point to examine one's
> > > beliefs and to acquire a reasonable philosophy then your emotions can
> > give
> > > you a short cut answer to having to think something through. But if you
> > have
> > > an invalid belief (Zeus is one of the many gods controlling my fate for
> > > example) then your emotions will give you improper responses to reality.
> > You
> > > will never seem to get anything right and fear will be your constant
> > > companion.
> >
> > You are dead on right except that you have collapsed two important
> > concepts. What is "valid" is not necessarily what is in your self-interest.
> We are all the final judge of what reality is to ourselves. If not, then who
> should we delegate this task too?
> > This is of course the major flaw with Rand's philosophy, and ironically the
> > same thing that makes her simplistic worldview so palatable: she claims
> > that the more you know objective reality, the better equipped you are to
> > achieve your goals in life. This is false for two reasons. First, there are
> > an infinity of maps of objective reality, all equally valid.
> If one manages to find one's way onto the map. However for any particular
> objective map one can find a multitude of subjective maps to match up with it.
> One must have a way of obtaining an objective map ! Also if one finds basic
> unifying concepts such as "the world is made of atoms" or "Momentum is always
> conserved" then your particular map is much more powerful than "the four
> elements are earth air fire and water". In a way the last one has some truth to
> it but not nearly so much as the other two.
> > Second, the
> > memetic programming that equips you for maximum
> > enjoyment/fulfillment/success (by your own definition) in life in not 100%
> > aligned with the Truth (if there were such a thing).
> An interesting claim. If it is not 100% true than it must be partially false.
> What particular falsehoods do you find beneficial? One does not have
> omnipotence. One merely strives to get it right to the extent that one can.
> That way one can be as happy with life as it is possible to be.
> > We have discussed both
> > of these problems at length on this list, but they are eternally slippery
> > for the human (Level-2) mind to grasp.
> >
> >
> > Richard Brodie
> > Author, VIRUS OF THE MIND: The New Science of the Meme
> >
> > Visit Meme Central:
> From what I've been told a level 3 mind is a fancy way of saying one has a
> good grasp of philosophy. Am I wrong? What is the standard definition" ?
> The Nateman

just to add, if it is not 100% true then it must be partially false
falls into the Aristotle trap of yes/no true/false. It could just be 90%
true and 10% incomplete.