Truth-An Idea

I talk about truth a lot. Yet, I am not sure what it means. However, a couple of days ago, I was debating with someone about politics. They came from a basically conservative point of view and were arguing on the basis of "absolute truths". I came up with the following towards the end of my argument:

Do I believe in complete moral relativism? No. Absolute truths necessarily
exist: the very statement "There is no absolute truth" is itself asserting an
absolute truth. What I DO believe is that these absolute truths are understood
relative to our viewpoints and ideas. For an admittedly bad analogy, consider a
screwdriver. The "screwdriver" in and of itself is imagined to be an "absolute
truth". However, depending on one's needs and cultural background, it is
something for driving screws, something to pry things with, a shovel, a symbol
or industry, maybe even something of sacred value (ala the Coke bottle in "The
Gods Must be Crazy!"), or a number of other things. (I know that's a horrible
analogy, and I use it because I have not yet worked out the problem of truth in
a satisfactory way.)

I'm not entirely sure where the screwdriver analogy came from, and I'm not terribly impressed by it in its current form, but it stuck with me and I continued to mull it over, with that sensation one gets occasionally when they know their on to something.
And this feeling didn't even come from the original purpose of the analogy. It came from my arbitrary choice of comparing truth to a screwdriver.
While truth is fundamentally undefinable, I think it's possible to make the analogy of truth as a tool. Truth is the tool by which one understands and manipulates ideas. The truth in and of itself is absolute, however how it is used depends on our needs and background, and it is useless if it cannot be adapted to suit varying needs. If a screwdriver was capable only of driving screws and nothing else, it would be useless if there was nothing to be screwed (...you with the dirty minds), yet its capability to perform other tasks makes it almost univerally useful. Or if a person with no concept of drving screws came across a screwdriver, they might decide that it is a toy.
So does anyone think I'm onto something?

Freedom of thought and speech

Just expanding on the "Rights" post...
My reason for believing in the absolute right to pursue one's vision of truth and meaning and to advocate that vision stems from three premises:

1. It is uncertain if there is such a thing as truth and meaning, but I believe it is likely that there is.

2. If there is, it is more important than anything else.

3. It is highly unlikely, in fact I believe impossible, for any person or group of people to know all there is to know about truth and meaning.

The first two premises lead me to a sort of "Pascal's Wager" in regards to truth and meaning: the importance of finding it if it does exist far outweigh the benfits (such as comfort) of restricting people in their search for it whether it exists or not.

There exists, however, the possibility that someone who believes they have found total truth and meaning to then insist that everyone else agree with them: religious authoritarianism and dogmatism is an example. This is where the third premise comes in. (Which I must admit is not a premise that has any logical justification other than some arguments from consequence and my own personal feelings. I.e., there is no way to know whether or not someone who claims to have found total truth and meaning is wrong.)

Both of these arguments are essentially saying the same thing: in restricting the pursuit of truth and meaning to serve what is believed to be "truth and meaning" (whether this be religion, comfort, well-being, etc.), humanity and individuals are prevented from finding what may be even greater truth and meaning.

Freedom of advocate one's vision of truth and meaning and to have free and open access to all ideas are also essential, no matter how much they may inconvenience us and make us uncomfortable, since, as stated before, a right to freely pursue truth and meaning is pointless without access to different ideas.

Past, Present, and Future

Another random idea and off-the-cuff post...
There seems to be divide in human thought between past, present, and future. By past, present, and future, I mean not only their meaning in time but also ideas associated with each of them. For instance

Past: experience, ideals, tradition, security

Present: sensation, pragmatism, pleasure

Future: imagination, ideals, innovation, revolution

(Present is probably the category with the most diversity: pragmatism and pleasure, for instance, might very well be opposed to eachother)

Here's how I would categorize some philosophies, mind-sets, and types of people according to the past/present/future distinction:

Past: conservatism, fundamentalism, respect for elders/ancestors, Confucionism, literalism, "conservative" intellectuals, reactionaries, Guardians

Present: some elements of conservatism, libertarianism, hedonism, empiricism, Zen, artists, hippies, thrill seekers, "down-to-earth", "do what needs to be done", Artisans

Future: liberalism, "the children are our future", Western Thought in general, some elements of Randian philosophy, inventors, artists, philosophers, radicals, Idealists, Rationals

(it should be obvious that, just because two things are in the same category, doesn't mean they are compatible: "down to earth" people and hippies probably would not get along very well, for instance. They are however both focused on the present.)

The Fundamental Rights

Since in some earlier posts I've talked about individual rights, let me specify what I believe the fundamental rights to be.
Obviously, presence in the Bill of Rights does NOT make something a fundamental right. The right to marriage, the right to bare arms, the right to raise one's children as one sees fit, etc., although they may or may not be rights, cannot be FUNDAMENTAL rights either, since they are dependant on other rights and circumstances.
(On a side note, "States' Rights" and any other sort of collective right, in my opinion, only exist as long they do not violate individual rights, as collectives are wont to do. This is why I believe one of the functions of federal government should be to make sure that state governments do not violate individual rights, and likewise state governments should make sure county governments and city governments respect individual rights, etc.)

So here's my attempt to define some fundamental rights:

1. The right to freely pursue truth and meaning--and to advocate one's vision of it--and to be given the greatest opportunity to do so. This right is absolute.

2. "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. (John Stuart Mill)" Offense is not a valid form of harm. This right requires more than some qualification.

3. The right to be judged and treated based on individual merits and faults.

(The first two rights are really one right, individual sovereignty, but I divided it into two because while the right to freedom of thought is absolute, the right to freedom of action [without harm to others] becomes necessarily restricted.)

Notes:
The first right's meaning is obvious, although the "opportunity to do so..." part requires some explanation: a right to pursue truth and meaning is useless if one's access to ideas is restricted. Therefore, as part of a right to pursue truth and meaning, we also must include the right to access to ideas and a right to education, both of which are implied by the "opportunity to do so...".
(Getting into murkier territory, it is also my opinion that this right extends to children, since beliefs formed during childhood are very hard to shake off, which is a barrier to a pursuit of truth and meaning. But this also ends up requiring much qualification.)
Also, it should be noted that this right implies all of the rights enumerated in the First Amendment of the Constitution, as well as the right to the "Pursuit of Happiness" (if happiness is the individuals idea of meaning). The right to not be killed is also implied, since it's hard to pursue anything if you're dead ;-)

The second right will require a discussion of it's own.

If the third right seems a little confusing, just add "instead of being judged and treated based on race, gender, nationality, class, sexuality, etc."

Materialism, Spiritualism, and Humanism

(inspired by reading Douglas Hofstadter)
Why should spiritualism and materialism be incompatible? Or spiritualism and humanism?
Consider: materialistically, the human brain is a lump of matter not much bigger than two fists, the thoughts that one perceives nothing than chemical reactions and the firing of neurons. Yet this utterly insignificant lump of chemistry is capable of modeling an entire house, many times bigger than itself. It is capable of perceiving the expansiveness of a mountain range. It is capable of enveloping within it's processes the workings of the universe. And, if this brain is the brain of a fiction writer, of creating and managing universes of its own, such as the worlds of Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, which contain within them characters with thought processes seemingly of their own. Is there not something profoundly spiritual in that?
There is room for souls in a materialistic universe, as long as one is willing to expand their notion of a soul, not as some immaterial ghost that inhabits our minds, but as a natural creation of the processes of our brains. This makes it no less real! To say the soul doesn't exist because it's "no more" than chemical reactions...well, one might as well argue that happiness, sadness, love, war, the law do not exist either. These are all ideas, and ideas are "nothing more" than chemical processes, yet they exert an obvious influence on the world, they interact with each other, and they operate in ways of their own (look up emergence theory). Or one could argue that this computer, my chair, cars, blocks of wood, and any other of the many things which to us humans have obvious existence are nothing more than the interaction of subatomic particles. In fact, at a certain level, it IS meaningless to talk about the distinction between objects, because at a small enough level there really isn't any such distinction: you cannot say "that atom belongs to the computer and that atom next to it belongs to the desk". So if one is going to argue that the soul does not exist because it's "nothing more" than a collection of chemical processes one must also be willing to argue that computers, chairs, cars, and block of wood don't exist either. It all becomes very Zen-like, which isn't a problem, but involves operating at an entirely different level. Indeed, it's all a question of levels: you get to the subatomic level and the distinction between objects and the concept of a soul have dissappeared, you get to a galactic level and object and souls are so insignicant that distinctions between them disappear, but somewhere in between, at our level, both exist. These arguments also have obvious implications for God and Religion.
And sepaking of God and Religion, I'd like to address and issue of particular importance to Unitarian-Universalists, but really of importance to everybody: the conflict between Secular Humanism and Spiritualism. I do consider myself unabashedly a Secular Humanist, and the definition fits me to a t, yet I'm embarassed by the allergic reactions many Secular Humanists seem to have to mentions of God or anything spiritual. I think embracing the full meaning of "Humanism" REQUIRES an acceptance and respect of spiritualism, for this too is part of the human experience. Indeed, it is one of the greatest accomplishments of the human creativity which Humanists so admire. I'm not asking for us to give up our commitment to secularism, but instead broaden our concept of it to embrace a definition similar to tah expounded by the Dalai Lama: "I call these secular ethics, secular beliefs. There’s no relationship with any particular religion. Even without religion, even as nonbelievers, we have the capacity to promote these things." Secularism, and particular Secular Humanism, should not be exclusionary, but inclusionary.

Metaphysics

This is something my brain started throwing at me while I was walking, I haven't taken the time to go over it thoroughly, so it's probably a bit sketchy, but interesting nonetheless.
We have a problem with metaphysics. The problem is that the only language we have to talk about it is a language that is ill-equipped to talk about it. Our language is terribly imprecise, filled with hidden assumptions, limited, parochial, inherently worldly, and a host of other things. When you try to translate from one language to another, as we do if we try to discuss, say, Greek philosophy, or Biblical doctrine, there is meaning that is lost: how, indeed, can we be sure that the meaning we give the translation is anything like the meaning the ancient Greeks had in mind?
We then try to take this unwieldy language and use it to talk about things that are entirely out of it's league: is there a self? Is there a soul? What is a soul? Is there free will? Is there a god? Do things really exist? What does it mean to "exist"? What does "meaning" mean? It just gets worse and worse!
Not only that, but these aren't pointless questions: some of them are of vital importance! What then do we do?
For ideas, let's consider a way of describing the world that's a little more down-to-earth: regular Physics. Now, when you think about it, physics is also impossible to describe with language. Sure, you can say that "gravity makes objects attract each other, etc.", but you'd be missing a whole bunch of meaning and nuance, and once you described gravity this way, you'd be stuck: no new discoveries could be made. Your description would also be terribly imprecise and would run into problems of translation to other languages.
That's not the hardest physics to describe with language, though. What about Quantum Physics: "well it's sort of a wave and sort of a particle but really it isn't either but sometimes it's both except when it interacts with something..." ugh! Or four dimensions, which are entirely impossible to characterize using human language except through analogy.
There is, however, a language which describes physics. And it is precise, with assumptions that are, for the most part, clearly defined, universal, and has no need to be translated from one language to another, since except perhaps for some differences in symbols, it is the same for everybody. Mathematics. And in mathematics, things like Quantum Physics, which are so impossible to describe in human language, are clearly defined, and four dimensions even more so.
So it seems to me what we need is language that is to Metaphysics what mathematics is to Physics. What it could be I don't know.
Regardless, I am going to continue to discuss metaphysics in regular, human language :)

Utilitarianism

It is my belief that human beings do things for one of two reasons: pleasure or impulse/habit. Let me specify: by "pleasure" I mean only what they BELIEVE will cause them more pleasure than pain (however human beings are often quite horrid at making such judgements), and it is also the case that even though they may rationally believe that something will more pain than pleasure in the long term--such as drug use--nevertheless for psychological reasons the short-term net pleasure outweighs the long-term net pain. Indeed, all such pleasure/pain decisions are ultimately made in regards to how they make us feel right now, in the immediate future.
(And though it's irrelevant to this argument, by "impulse/habit" I mean those actions that come from no decision, such as reflex actions.)
Many would argue at this point that many times people resist doing what they believe will cause them the most pleasure because it is "wrong". But it seems to me that in cases like this the decision is made on the basis of net pleasure: when we avoid doing something we really want to do because it's "wrong", we are responding to something within us that we believe would cause us to experience pain in response to the "wrongness", and we find that this pain outweighs any potential pleasure. The inverse is true when we do something we would rather not because it's "right": we decide that the pain that would result from NOT doing what's right is greater than the pleasure. (By the way, "right" depends on one's value system, so for instant rationalists behave rationally because to not do so would violate their value system, causing pain.)
Some people get very upset at this point and say "does that mean that the only reason we are altruistic is because it makes us feel better?" to which I say: yes. However, there's an assumption here which I do not understand: the idea that there's something wrong with us performing altruistic actions because they make us feel good. What's in the least bit wrong with the fact that doing good things for other people makes us ourselves feel good? It seems to me that this is a great confirmation of the goodness of human nature!
(By the way, in regards to self-destructive behavior, once again my contention is that the pain is outweighed by the psycholgocial pleasure, or is outweighed by the pain that would be caused by not giving in to compulsion.)
That is my explanation of individual motivation. Now onto it's implications for ethics, which is utilitarianism. "What is good is what will ultimately cause the greatest amount of net pleasure for the greatest number of entities." (I use "entities" so that this definition can include pleasure beyond hat of human beings.) I am humbly following John Stuart Mill here, but adding a lot of my own touches.
First let me defend my assertion that pleasure=good. My observation is that this is, in fact, what human beings already believe, although perhaps not consciously. Consider: can you think of a single thing that is considered "good" that is not expected to cause pleasure? If we give medicine to people it's because we expect that it will cause them long-term pleasure (and this belief causes us pleasure). If we save someone's life it's because we believe that living is somehow more pleasurable than dying (and once again, when with this belief in mind we save someone's life, it makes us feel good). If someone is a selfish psychopath and considers killing people "good" it is only because, being incapable of taking others' pain into account, they derive pleasure from it. If people believe abortions are OK it is because they believe the potential pain of the mother is more important to avoid than the potential pain of the fetus (which may not even exist); if they are against abortion it's because they believe the opposite (this is a massive oversimplification of the issue, by the way). If someone tries to get people to turn to Christ it is because they believe that this will cause those people more long term pleasure when they are saved.
(Religion, in fact, depends on a certain hedonism, since all religions I know of offer some sort of ultimate reward and/or punishment to support their claims that you should do this and not that. Even religious people who are not concerned with this ultimate reward still behave in the way proscribed by their faith because to do otherwise would cause net pain.)
"The greatest pleasure for the greatest number of entities." The "greatest number of entities" part is a bit harder to justify, except that I once again believe it is a natural belief of humanity, and also I believe it is a logical consequence of hedonism if one recognizes the fuzziness of "self" (to be discussed in some future post).
Finally, I am not sure I believe Utilitarianism to be the ultimate form of morality, but I do believe it is an important part. I also think that it is of ultimate importance to qualify utilitarianism with a fundamental respect of individual rights, since otherwise it is very easy for forms of society such as dictatorships, fascist, communist, etc., to be justified. Of primary concern is the right to freedom of thought and speech, for reasons enumerated in my "Old FaceBook Note: My thoughts on the UU principles (for my fellow UUs)- Part 2", and also for more epistomolgical reasons which I will discuss later.