An Objective View (religion, morality, humans, life)

[JHuber]

Unlike theism which is imaginary and atheism which is nothing the worldview presented here actually exists in the field. It is based on subjects and relations which have the highest conceptual scope of all words. It conforms with evolution theory, includes the definitions for right, wrong, happiness and love, and it has a moral code.

This is an issue that goes back to the middle ages:

Medieval Theories of Relations (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Ockham on Relations

The failure of the medieval philosophers to solve this problem is the reason why I believe we are at war.

Relations can be composed of units, objects or subjects. Objects do not have emotional ramifications but subjects can. The relations of units is mathematics. The relations of objects is engineering. The relations of subjects is a worldview.



Some of these items are not in the diagram, not everything can be drawn.

Subject - a cross-utilized unit of a relation
Relation - more than one subject combined together
Extrinsic Subject - subject given to a relation
Intrinsic Subject - subject contained in a relation
Right - if a subject is within an extrinsic subject
Wrong - if a subject is not within an extrinsic subject
Possession - if an intrinsic subject is within a subject
Good - what increases a relation
Bad - what hinders or decreases a relation
Horror - excessive Bad
Serious - being within an extrinsic subject, also known as relevant
Silly - happiness that is not within an extrinsic subject
Crazy - if an extrinsic subject is ambiguous
Confusion - if the choice of an extrinsic subject is ambiguous
Value - direction of a relation
Like - to share Values


Happiness - occurs if subjects combine and form a relation. There are five different types of happiness. In order to include non-social relations in these definitions, the generic term combination is used symbolized with the letter 'C'.

1stC (primary combination) - occurs when subjects combine and a relation is formed. Here the extrinsic subject is created. The terms 'more' and 'less' do not apply with 1stC. It is very important to clarify that with 1stC one does not say, "Happiness is the combination of subjects," but, "Happiness occurs if subjects combine and form a relation."

2ndC (secondary combination) - occurs when subjects are combined to an existing relation. With 2ndC the extrinsic subject already exists. The terms 'more' and 'less' apply with 2ndC. Leverage and contentment (see below) exist because of 2ndC.

3rdC - occurs as the back and forth dynamics between relations. Here more than one extrinsic subject is involved.

Leverage - resembles a lever, the relative lowering of a subject in a relation causes the relative increase of the other related subjects. This also is known as antipathetic happiness. Subjects on opposite sides of the lever are antipathetic to each other. An examples of this is kidding.

Contentment - is a relative position a subject has in a relationship. This position is what we mean when we say we are "happy". Another term that applies here is "fashion". Fashion is the active form of contentment. This type of happiness is personal and can be stronger than 1stC. Some sub-emotions of contentment are:


Enjoyment - having what you want (having what gives you contentment) *
Grief - not having what you want *
Frustration - not getting what you want
Anger - extreme Frustration
Distress - having what you don't want*
Relief - not having what you don't want*

Unhappiness is, of course, the converse but with separation instead of combination.

Sorry - empathetic Unhappiness
Regret - the action toward Sorry
Gratitude - the action toward antipathetic Happiness
Forgive - declaring Unhappiness to be irrelevant
Blame - declaring Unhappiness to be relevant
Nervous - anticipation of a combination
Shy - extreme Nervousness
Worry - anticipation of a separation
Concern - mild Worry
Fear - extreme Worry
Terror - extreme Fear
Anxiety - general term for Nervous, Shy, Worry, Concern, Fear or Terror

Pride - above Contentment
Shame - below Contentment
Dignity - empathetic Pride
Arrogance, Conceit - extreme Dignity
Honor - the action toward Dignity
Jealousy - antipathetic Pride
Envy - the action toward Jealousy
Respect - antipathetic Pride related to Fashion
Admiration - the action toward Respect
Modesty - empathetic Shame
Humility - the action toward Modesty
Pity - antipathetic Shame
Contempt - extreme Pity
Disgust - the action toward Pity

Expectation - future Contentment
Hope - the action toward Expectation (to want a future Contentment)
Standard - past Contentment
Surprise - empathetically or antipathetically above Standard or Expectation
Embarrassment - empathetically below Standard or Expectation
Disappointment - antipathetically below Standard or Expectation
Ecstatic - extreme Surprise
Sadness - extreme Disappointment or Embarrassment
Hate - extreme antipathy
Love - extreme empathy
Miss - absent empathy

Axiom: Extrinsic subjects can never be related intrinsic subjects. Such an event would instantly cause a new extrinsic subject to exist. This is called "The League Rule" or "The Authority Rule."

Axiom: Related subjects do not combine for the same reason that unrelated subjects do not separate. This is called "The Base Rule". It is a significant factor in physical morality.


*The definitions for Enjoyment, Grief, Distress and Relief are from I. Roseman 1984. Cognitive determinants of emotion: a structured theory. In P. Shaver (ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 5: Emotions, relationships, and health). Beverly-Hills: Sage, 11-36.

This is a system that is common to us all. It is not only about the mind but it is about the body as well. We are all subjects and we all have family members that we call relatives. In conversation, topics are called subjects and the components of a subject are called relevant. This system can easily be proved to be true in the same way that the many is composed of ones. All that needs to be done is to include it in academic philosophy. This is the only solution for world peace. War is founded on worldviews but our enemies are in this system too.

[pamelaBeurman]

Thank you for reminding me why I quit college to become a farmer!

[catman]

Really. And atheism isn't "nothing".

[TRANSPONDER]

When I first saw 'J. Huber', I thought 'We're not worthy'...'Yes, fellow posters, the inventor of the classic atheist parable. After all this time, he comes to visit us.' but after the post, I have to wonder, is it the same person?

While I don't claim that I can assess schematic worldviews based on mathematics or not, I don't see how that diagram works or how we are supposed to interpret it. If you are the real J Huber and not just a false prophet, please reveal your wisdom as a prophet of the atheist -religion that we goddless bastards not be confounded.

[Stavemaster]

hahaha what

This is like a less insulting version of timecube or something.

[WhipperSnapper 88]

No such thing when it comes to religion

[JHuber]

Certainly you all have relationships and you all have relatives. Shouldn't that be what you believe in? Shouldn't you believe what you do?

If I chose a different word besides "subjects" as what composed relations then it would be a subjective view, not an objective one. Academic philosophy believes there is no such thing as an objective view because all data collection is directed by temporary models. What I'm trying to do here is to disprove that. If anyone disagrees then please give us an example of how this system is subjectively biased.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by JHuber

Certainly you all have relationships and you all have relatives. Shouldn't that be what you believe in? Shouldn't you believe what you do?

If I chose a different word besides "subjects" as what composed relations then it would be a subjective view, not an objective one. Academic philosophy believes there is no such thing as an objective view because all data collection is directed by temporary models. What I'm trying to do here is to disprove that. If anyone disagrees then please give us an example of how this system is subjectively biased.

I see. That model is an attempt to show that human relations are objective rather than subjective. I think that is a worthwhile subject, but cannot be shown philosophically. There needs to be some scientifically demonstrated genetic evolved reason for how we conduct our relations.

There certainly do seem to be basic social modes of conduct amongst humans but then immediately we fall foul of the 'Naturalism' fallacy. What is evolved instinctive mode of behaviour is not necessarily the best for thinking civilized humans. Succinctly, we can do better and we should and must.

That said, I still can't see what the diagram is supposed to demonstrate. a logical progression of social emotions? I have to have doubts about that.

P.s "When I first saw 'J. Huber', I thought 'We're not worthy'." My error. I was thinking of J Huger.

[JHuber]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I see. That model is an attempt to show that human relations are objective rather than subjective. I think that is a worthwhile subject, but cannot be shown philosophically. There needs to be some scientifically demonstrated genetic evolved reason for how we conduct our relations.

This is not only about human relations. I only chose that example as it is common to all of us. This is also about communication. The components of a subject are called relevant. Irrelevant components are inadmissible in court, for example, and are thrown out. I'm not sure why you believe this cannot be shown philosophically. It is common practice.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

There certainly do seem to be basic social modes of conduct amongst humans but then immediately we fall foul of the 'Naturalism' fallacy. What is evolved instinctive mode of behaviour is not necessarily the best for thinking civilized humans. Succinctly, we can do better and we should and must.

That's true, I agree. There are two axioms in this system that I believe counter the 'Naturalism' fallacy. One states that extrinsic subjects can never be related to intrinsic subjects and the other states that related subjects cannot combine for the same reason that unrelated subjects cannot separate.
These are rationally true statements for any subject or relation.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

That said, I still can't see what the diagram is supposed to demonstrate. a logical progression of social emotions? I have to have doubts about that.

The diagram shows how the different emotions are related together (if you consider emotions as subjects). However, not every component in this system is an emotion. The left side are the non-emotions, in the center are the anxiety emotions and the right are the relative emotions. Originally, I never intended to get into emotion theory but as one goes through life it happened to grow.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes, I see. The doubt I have is whether this is a neat diagram showing a sort of flowchart relation between emotions or thoughts, but the implication is that one thinks along those lines to get to (what must be) a conclusion. My experience is that emotions pop up in isolation related to a particular event or idea and may change as the event or idea changes. the 'Flowchart' idea doesn't seem to fit with how we actually act.

What dye' think?