A LIBERAL DECALOGUE

By Bertrand Russell


Perhaps the essence of the Liberal outlook could be summed up in a new decalogue, not intended to replace the old one but only to supplement it. The Ten Commandments that, as a teacher, I should wish to promulgate, might be set forth as follows:


1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.

2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.

3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.

4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.

5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.

6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.

7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent that in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.

9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.

10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness."



*****************************


What do you think?
Are these the commandemtns a philospher, or anyone for that matter, should hold on to?

If yes, why so?
If no, why so?

Comment, discuss.


Here's the link: http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/decalog.html

Rosa,

This is interesting. I haven't come across this before. Thank you for sharing it. I'll go through the list and comment on each one:

1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.

Even about this commandment. ;) Or this list for that matter.

While this might be a "relative" truth, we are human and we must hold certain beliefs at times. We must be able to judge one thing as more likely, more preferable, more certain than another thing. In this process, emotions play a key role. Logic can only carry you so far. There are times when one option equals another in logic and without an emotional preference we might get "stuck". Unable to choose. Or maybe even vacillate between one choice and another.

So, while it is certainly something to keep in mind that we can never be absolutely certain that a thing is "true" or "correct", we can still hold a "belief" in our mind as a relative certainty". However, we should be prepared to be convinced that we are wrong. To hold a belief so dear to the heart that there is no chance of admitting error is the sin that this commandment is cautioning against. IMO.

2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.

This makes sense. If you have evidence that speaks against the theory or belief that you are arguing for or speaking of and you don't at least mention that certain doubts exist, then you are guilty of a form of deception. However, in certain instances, it might not be in your best interests to do your "opponents" job for them. But, the spirit of this commandment is in the interest of approaching a purer form of truth rather than a promoting of self-interest.

Judgement is required to know when to follow this commandment and when not to. As is true of all the other commandments and the whole list for that matter. See commandment 1 for the reason why.

3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.

Sometimes we don't even need to discourage thinking for it to occur. Sometimes to encourage is to discourage. To draw attention is to raise guilt and/or shame.

And, sometimes to discourage is to encourage. Some flourish in the face of opposition. Some wither and die. Once more, judgement is required.

4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.

The appeal to authority. Of course it's wrong to use it, but at times one must simply be stern. At times there is not time to convince and one must merely command. Again. Judgement.

And in certain circumstances, an illusory victory is good enough. Remember, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then there's a pretty damn good chance that it's a duck. And even if it's not a ducK? Maybe it'll do for a duck in a pinch.

5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.

That's an easy one. I have problems with authority to begin with.

This goes back to the previous commandment. There are times when you must simply act and do not have time to stop and debate the merits of a particular course of action. In such cases, one must lead and others must follow. So, again, use judgement.

6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.

Don't use power? Even power of reason?

This one seems to go back to the last two on cautioning against authority. I think he ran out of commandments and wanted to get an even 10.

7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Goes without saying. But, one might also be cautioned against being eccentric for the sake of eccentricity.

8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent that in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.

Absolutely right. ;)

Is there a difference between passive agreement and aggressive agreement? I suppose aggressive agreement provides justification as to why there is agreement while passive agreement is just a yes-man?

This command is one of the truer ones in the list. We cannot be absolutely certain of our idea and therefore any intelligent dissent will either push us closer to truth with our thought or show it to be overtly false.

Odd that it mentions pleasure though. It seems the rest of the list seem to deal more with advancement of truth and reason. Now it appeals to a sense of pleasure and self-gratification. Hmmm.

9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.

I agree with this. But, to be truthful with others, one must first be truthful to oneself. And this is the truly difficult hurdle to overcome.

Also, there will be instances when you are dealing with "foes" that are proficient in lying and in turning your willingness to tell truth against you. Once again, judgement.

10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness."

And another that appeals to happiness. Although this one is more about envy of the happiness of fools (i.e. those who don't abide by this list. ;)) It seems to say that by living this way one may not be seem to be the frivolity of fools, but happiness is in the eye of the beholder. Find "happiness" where you will.



I imagine there might be a shitstorm over the use of "Liberal". Implying that only liberals are capable of achieving a state resembling truth. Only time will tell.


What do you think?

Most interesting.

Are these the commandemtns a philospher, or anyone for that matter, should hold on to?

Possibly. At times. Just remember commandment #1. It might be the most important of the whole list.

Yes, I think these are generally good rules to abide by.

To summarize: The pursuit of truth (even if it is relative) via skepticism is a worthy and valuable undertaking.

As an aside, I picked up an old book last week by russell called philosophy published in the 20's. It is tattered and discolored, but I am looking forward to cracking it open....

“ 1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything. ”

Even about this commandment. Or this list for that matter.

This list then sabotages itself! What's the point of making a self-sabotaging commandment? It stops being a commandment. A commandment is something that should be followed come what may, and with your implication, Russell's list just doesn't live up to being a commandment.


While this might be a "relative" truth, we are human and we must hold certain beliefs at times. We must be able to judge one thing as more likely, more preferable, more certain than another thing. In this process, emotions play a key role. Logic can only carry you so far. There are times when one option equals another in logic and without an emotional preference we might get "stuck". Unable to choose. Or maybe even vacillate between one choice and another.

So, while it is certainly something to keep in mind that we can never be absolutely certain that a thing is "true" or "correct", we can still hold a "belief" in our mind as a relative certainty". However, we should be prepared to be convinced that we are wrong. To hold a belief so dear to the heart that there is no chance of admitting error is the sin that this commandment is cautioning against. IMO.

What is the point of not being certain of anything?
Isn't such a relativistic stance dangerous?

Here's a metaphor:

Imagine you go to a big big wood to pick mushrooms for a soup for lunch. You have one basket with you.
You could try to search the whole wood, and only after you have done that, decide which mushrooms to pick, and go back to pick them. Such a complete search would certainly give you the best results possible. However, such a search would take you many days. But you have to be back till lunch time, with some mushrooms. This means that at some point, you have to stop looking, and start picking the mushrooms -- without searching through the whole wood. And then return home and make the soup.

This can be used as a metaphor for the choices in life: We cannot just keep on looking and exploring. Sure, forever looking and exploring is nice and interesting, but it leaves us without the lunch that we actually set off for!
What is sad is that nowadays it seems that the value of that metaphorical lunch has been completely diminished, so that the neverending search could go on and and on, seemingly justified.

Russell suggests to just keep on looking for the mushrooms, and forget about the lunch.


Judgement is required to know when to follow this commandment and when not to.

Once more, also going for all other times you said that judgement is required: If "judgement" is required whether to follow a commandment or not, then we're not talking about a commandment, but about some relative guideline at best.

Next: Judgement based on what? What are the criteria guiding this judgement? When we judge, we apply some standards, some commandments, and you are suggesting they be different from what this list says. So what are the ones you have in mind?


This goes back to the previous commandment. There are times when you must simply act and do not have time to stop and debate the merits of a particular course of action. In such cases, one must lead and others must follow.

Meaning: You are acting on some absolute that is not mentioned in these commandments.


“ 8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent that in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter. ”

Absolutely right.

But then I ask: Why do we philosophically discuss things? Do we do philosophy for philosophy's sake? Are we to think that philosophy for philosophy's sake is a good thing?!


This command is one of the truer ones in the list. We cannot be absolutely certain of our idea and therefore any intelligent dissent will either push us closer to truth with our thought or show it to be overtly false.

When fighting for survival, it is advisable to not turn the other cheek.

Why indulge ourselves in relativism? A relativism that breeds out into cheap humanism and cheap multiculturalism?! Oh yes, we're all good and nice, so let's not fight and dissent intelligently, so that we can hate eachother's and our own sorry asses in peace.


“ 9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it. ”

I agree with this. But, to be truthful with others, one must first be truthful to oneself. And this is the truly difficult hurdle to overcome.

Also, there will be instances when you are dealing with "foes" that are proficient in lying and in turning your willingness to tell truth against you. Once again, judgement.

Screw "judgement"! One either is "scrupulously" truthful, or one isn't, ther's not middle way.


“ 10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness." ”

And another that appeals to happiness. Although this one is more about envy of the happiness of fools (i.e. those who don't abide by this list. )

You think that they are fools who don't abide by the list? If you use your precious "judgement", as much as you suggest, you pretty much end up not abiding by the list -- and end up being a fool.


I imagine there might be a shitstorm over the use of "Liberal". Implying that only liberals are capable of achieving a state resembling truth. Only time will tell.

Here I ask: What is this list of commandments good for? Is it there to find truth? What does a "liberal thinker" set off for on his "liberal journey"? Truth? Intelligent dissent?


“ Are these the commandemtns a philospher, or anyone for that matter, should hold on to? ”

Possibly. At times. Just remember commandment #1. It might be the most important of the whole list.

Such a list is worth jack squat if you cannot use it come what may!

Do not appeal to authority -- yadda! If people have different values and preferences, there is no other way but to appeal to authority; no argument -- other than that of power -- prevails in such a situation. And there are many such situations in everyday life.

This list expresses the desire that philosophical thought should be there for its own sake, without the desire to investigate into something in particular, and without the motive to be intended for something or someone.


Russell was a closet bluestocking.

I have to agree with RosaMagika, Bert's decalogue is decadent right from the get-go. However, if I'm going to criticize this piece (even with once sentence), I felt I should at least offer something of my own. And so, in the past little while since reading his decalogue supplement, I have written my own. Hehe, I have a feeling mine will be as subject to error as his.

1. Understand and be certain about what you believe, and honor its due meaning.

2. Do not take life too lightly, nor too seriously. Give proper attention to all that is deserving.

3. Take time regularly to examine life, your beliefs, and your choices, so that you may know how to proceed into the future.

4. Give the ruling authority its deserved due, no less, no more. Without auhtority, in whatever form, uncertainty rules.

5. Honor life in all its forms, and avoid destruction at all costs.

6. Love is a sacred reality, on all levels. Do not desecrate it.

7. Be selfless. This life is short and nothing you own will remain yours.

8. Do not ignore truth, conceal truth nor turn what is false into truth. If you do, you will forget what truth is.

9. Be content with the loves that you have.

10. Be content with the gifts you have received.

Rosa,

This list then sabotages itself! What's the point of making a self-sabotaging commandment? It stops being a commandment. A commandment is something that should be followed come what may, and with your implication, Russell's list just doesn't live up to being a commandment.

Yes. Did you really expect a list of 'liberal commandments' to do anything less?

Basically, it all boils down to 'command thyself'.

What's the point? You can basically look at it as a sort of a role model. Not something to be taken literal and unflinching truth (there is no such thing) but rather something to look at and to think about.

In fact, maybe his whole point behind making the list was to foster situations like this. Discussions on the pros and cons of his list of 'commandments'. And in the discussion one finds out what criteria one has within oneself to judge life with.

What is the point of not being certain of anything?
Isn't such a relativistic stance dangerous?

It can be if taken too far. This is the point of judgement. Judgement removes relativism. You choose and make solid the fluctuating relativity in which we dwell. Those who are unable to choose are the dangerous ones. Because not choosing is also a choice. And it is a choice that can be capitalized on by those who do choose. They'll choose for you.

This leads into the "Respect no authority" commandment. Authority chooses for you. This is the meaning of respect only your own authority. Make your own choice. Even if that choice is to respect a certain authoritarian figure. At least it's on your authority that you do so. Most would not choose and fall under another's authority by default.

This can be used as a metaphor for the choices in life: We cannot just keep on looking and exploring. Sure, forever looking and exploring is nice and interesting, but it leaves us without the lunch that we actually set off for!
What is sad is that nowadays it seems that the value of that metaphorical lunch has been completely diminished, so that the neverending search could go on and and on, seemingly justified.

Russell suggests to just keep on looking for the mushrooms, and forget about the lunch.

Some were made to explore. Some were made to bring home dinner.

One can go about looking for mushrooms (I like the ones with the seperable gelatinous pellicles) and sample this and that on the way and have his dinner in this way. In the same way, one can go through life without ever settling into a single course of study or limiting of choices and panoramas and be satisfied in the end of his life. Satisfied that he has tasted so many wonderful fruits of the world. This and that. That and this. And there is a good chance that some of the varied explorations and discoveries that one has collected over a lifetime of such rambling might connect in the most marvelous ways.

Did you know that the largest organism in the world (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/fungus1.html) is a fungus living in eastern Oregon? It covers 2200 acres and is estimated to be at least 2400 years old. Imagine going out and picking this mushroom and picking that mushroom and then going home and never knowing that all these mushrooms were the same organism.

Anyway, one can ramble about in such a fashion if one's intent is not to bring dinner home.

But, if one wants to bring dinner home then one must eventually stop looking and start bringing home. Right? At what point does this occur? At what point do you have enough 'mushrooms' to make the trip a worthwhile endeavour? Ha! Once more this requires judgement. To stop and to write. To combine and to espouse. To bring home dinner.

Those who ramble until they die without ever bringing anything home are either inherently selfish or unable to choose. Or both.

Next: Judgement based on what? What are the criteria guiding this judgement? When we judge, we apply some standards, some commandments, and you are suggesting they be different from what this list says. So what are the ones you have in mind?

Well, this depends on the situation, doesn't it?

For instance, when one is choosing mushrooms, doesn't one have a list of properties in mind to ensure that one finds the proper sort of mushroom. First, what is the proper sort? Are you looking for mushrooms for dinner? For poison? For hallucinations? For flavor? For appearance? Choose. And then what are the properties of the individual types.

There are always choices, choices, and choices. And all criteria dependant upon circumstance. This is why commandments are foolish. No two choices are ever the same.

Meaning: You are acting on some absolute that is not mentioned in these commandments.

Absolute? No. Just on judgement.

The only absolute might be the circumstances. Say a forest fire, for example. A fire is a fire. It is a catastrophe of the greatest sort. There is no time to discuss and to ponder and to debate. Someone must choose for all. Someone must lead so that the group can act as one.

But, is the fire absolute? It destroys and yet it also provides room for growth. It provides nutrients for growth. Fire is good and bad. Absolute? Only if it's threatening to destroy you. And then it's only absolute because you've chosen it to be so.

But then I ask: Why do we philosophically discuss things? Do we do philosophy for philosophy's sake? Are we to think that philosophy for philosophy's sake is a good thing?!

Philosophy for philosophy's sake? I will say that it is dangerous to remove oneself from what it is that one is philosophizing about in such a way, but if one keeps it in mind and doesn't let it become to abstract and removed, then...yes.

I enjoy philosophy. I enjoy talking about philosophy. If I didn't then I wouldn't. This is the way things work.

I wonder. Were there any philosophers that really hated to think about philosophy? To talk about it? I mean really hated it. I'm sure that many have gone on and on about how they hate the philosophy of others but there they are yakking away. Were there any that really felt pain from philosophy? That only did it because of some 'higher' principle than pleasure in the doing?
I doubt it.

But, the point of the 'commandment' is to beware of yes-men.

When fighting for survival, it is advisable to not turn the other cheek.

Why indulge ourselves in relativism? A relativism that breeds out into cheap humanism and cheap multiculturalism?! Oh yes, we're all good and nice, so let's not fight and dissent intelligently, so that we can hate eachother's and our own sorry asses in peace.

I'm afraid you've lost me here. What does turning the other cheek have to do with intelligent dissent? Intelligent dissent allows us to rebut it and to either disprove it or be disproven. Either to strengthen or weaken our original proposition. In the quest for 'truth' this can only be a good thing.

It is a touch on the selfless side though. It's hard to admit defeat, isn't it? We've seen this often enough in these forums. So many stubborn people gnawing on each other.

Ah. Wait. I see what you're saying: so let's not fight and dissent intelligently.

Intelligent dissent doesn't have to be civil. It just has to be intelligent.

Screw "judgement"! One either is "scrupulously" truthful, or one isn't, ther's not middle way.

So, you would be commanded then? And how do you choose which commandment to follow? You do choose, you know. Look at how many laws of the bible are not followed. It is a choice to ignore the commandments about eating pork. About stoning your not-so-virgin daughters, etc... Judgement is our inheritence as man. We learned it long ago on the Savannah. And even before that.

As to scrupulously truthful. I suppose you're right. You're either always truthful or not always truthful. But, here you go thinking in commandments again. I say screw "commandments"!

By the way, what does scrupulously mean exactly? Conscientiously? Doesn't this imply some sort of judgement? Judgement with ones scruples as the criteria?

You think that they are fools who don't abide by the list?

No. I was more interpreting what I felt that Russel meant by fools in this instance.

Side note: The fool in the Tarot is not stupid. He's just the traveler at the beginning of his travels. He is an unwritten page. So much is in store for this foolish sojourner of the mortal coil. The high deck is the story of the fool's progression through various stages of understanding. Roles, if you will. Each one put on and then shucked off when the next level of awareness is reached. Each sure that they are the end all and be all. Even the fool. None is happier than the fool though. The fool doesn't know what dangers lie in wait. Nipping at his heels.

If you use your precious "judgement", as much as you suggest, you pretty much end up not abiding by the list -- and end up being a fool.

No. The fool judges not. The fool does not choose. The fool has his choices made him for. As in 'commandments'.

Here I ask: What is this list of commandments good for? Is it there to find truth? What does a "liberal thinker" set off for on his "liberal journey"? Truth? Intelligent dissent?

It's just something to think about and to reflect on. It's a mushroom to be picked and sampled. Taste it and see what you think. It's a mushroom with 10 heads. Taste each and see what you think. And each of the heads are composed of more ideas of which they are composed. Taste each and see what you think.

The list is about choice. The list is about understanding. The list is about wisdom.

Such a list is worth jack squat if you cannot use it come what may!

Well, if come what may comes then you should have a backup list that will work in come what may situations. But, you have to choose which list to place in such a situation. Either that or have it chosen for you.

Do not appeal to authority -- yadda! If people have different values and preferences, there is no other way but to appeal to authority; no argument -- other than that of power -- prevails in such a situation. And there are many such situations in everyday life.

I hope I've explained my feelings about authority above to your satisfaction. You can choose to place yourself under another's authority. But, do it by your own authority. Choose.

This list expresses the desire that philosophical thought should be there for its own sake, without the desire to investigate into something in particular, and without the motive to be intended for something or someone.

Yes. In many ways it does, because motives, meanings, reasons are all things that should be personally applied by an individual not commanded by some dead philosopher.

Russell was a closet bluestocking.

Wonder what else he was doing in the closet?


BeyondTimeAndSpace,

I have to agree with RosaMagika, Bert's decalogue is decadent right from the get-go.

Do you understand what objections Rosa has with the list? Your list seems to echo many of the very same sentiments that Rosa objects to.

And, what exactly is decadent about the list?

Rosa,
"This list then sabotages itself! What's the point of making a self-sabotaging commandment? It stops being a commandment. A commandment is something that should be followed come what may, and with your implication, Russell's list just doesn't live up to being a commandment."
Why must a commandment be certain? Are you sure that isn't your simplistic definition of what this list should represent?

"What is the point of not being certain of anything?
Isn't such a relativistic stance dangerous?"
The point of not being certain is intellectual honesty. Dangerous? Is the truth itself not sometimes dangerous? Is it not worth it to tread dangerous grounds in search of truth?

"This list expresses the desire that philosophical thought should be there for its own sake, without the desire to investigate into something in particular, and without the motive to be intended for something or someone."
How so?

Beyondtime&space,
I dont like yours as much. :)

FadingCaptain,

Why must a commandment be certain?

Because it's a commandment. And I'm sure that Russel was fully aware of this when he made his list. There is a message implied by this use of commandment. It says that the real commandment is choice.

"Because it's a commandment. And I'm sure that Russel was fully aware of this when he made his list. There is a message implied by this use of commandment. It says that the real commandment is choice. "

Possibly, I am not sure that Russell meant these "commandments" as certain.

But anyway, there is an implication in the first point that there is a certainty - the certainty that you can not be certain about anything. This notion is implied and inherent.

But anyway, there is an implication in the first point that there is a certainty - the certainty that you can not be certain about anything. This notion is implied and inherent.

Yeah, but this is a paradoxical statement. You can only be certain that you can't be certain.
Therefore you can't be certain of being uncertain therefore you must be certain.
Therefore you can be certain of being uncertain.
Ad infinitum.
When you see such things this should be a clue.
Either the man who wrote this is a fool.
Or he's saying something else.
Namely it requires judgement on when to be certain and when not to be certain.
Choice.

invert_nexus,

Yes, I do understand RosaMajika's objections, they are to relativism (at least this is what she seems to have a problem with). That is the decadency of the presented decalogue, that it is grounded in relativism, which destroys itself right from the start, because then even those commandments don't hold absolutely. "Don't be certain of anything?" Then why should I be certain of the rightness of uncertainty? Why should I be certain of the commandments presented? "Don't respect the authority of others?" Alrighty then, I won't respect the authority of these commandments. Ergo, I will respect the authority of others, and in following this commandment, I actually contradict myself. If this is the liberal standpoint, then it simply makes no sense.

I really don't see how my decalogue holds to this relativistic outlook.

invert,
Yes I am well aware of the paradox.
"You can only be certain that you can't be certain.
Therefore you can't be certain of being uncertain therefore you must be certain."

Actually I think he is implying that you can be certain of being uncertain. That is my point: there is a certainty implied. You can be uncertain of everything except being uncertain. Ah enough of this...

But I agree in the end : "Choice." is what he is really getting at. And honesty.

1. Understand and be certain about what you believe, and honor its due meaning.

You are calling upon absolutism.


2. Do not take life too lightly, nor too seriously. Give proper attention to all that is deserving.

That's awfully relativistic. I think "Choose your battles!" is simpler, and better, and it doesn't get lost in relativism.


6. Love is a sacred reality, on all levels. Do not desecrate it.

Yes.


7. Be selfless. This life is short and nothing you own will remain yours.

Do "be selfless" and "This life is short and nothing you own will remain yours." really go along?


8. Do not ignore truth, conceal truth nor turn what is false into truth. If you do, you will forget what truth is.

You cannot really turn what is false into truth. You can do with a lie as if it were a truth though.


9. Be content with the loves that you have.

Are you saying "Love the one you're with"?


10. Be content with the gifts you have received.

And if you receive a portion of poison?


***

In fact, maybe his whole point behind making the list was to foster situations like this. Discussions on the pros and cons of his list of 'commandments'. And in the discussion one finds out what criteria one has within oneself to judge life with.

Okay, kudos to him if this is what he wanted.


It can be if taken too far. This is the point of judgement. Judgement removes relativism. You choose and make solid the fluctuating relativity in which we dwell. Those who are unable to choose are the dangerous ones. Because not choosing is also a choice. And it is a choice that can be capitalized on by those who do choose. They'll choose for you.

This leads into the "Respect no authority" commandment. Authority chooses for you. This is the meaning of respect only your own authority. Make your own choice. Even if that choice is to respect a certain authoritarian figure. At least it's on your authority that you do so. Most would not choose and fall under another's authority by default.

Oh this bloody judgement!
These "you choose" and "judgement" stand there only as manifestations of your free will. The issue of the internal standard, however, that commandment underlying those "you choose" and "judgement" still remains to be addressed.

You can't just judge or choose -- you must have some criteria, some standards, some commandments by which these choice and judgement happen.


Some were made to explore. Some were made to bring home dinner.

One can go about looking for mushrooms (I like the ones with the seperable gelatinous pellicles) and sample this and that on the way and have his dinner in this way. In the same way, one can go through life without ever settling into a single course of study or limiting of choices and panoramas and be satisfied in the end of his life. Satisfied that he has tasted so many wonderful fruits of the world. This and that. That and this. And there is a good chance that some of the varied explorations and discoveries that one has collected over a lifetime of such rambling might connect in the most marvelous ways.

Of course one CAN do many things! But this doesn't mean that this whatever he can do will be beneficient for him, neither does it mean that he should do something just because he can do it!


Did you know that the largest organism in the world is a fungus living in eastern Oregon? It covers 2200 acres and is estimated to be at least 2400 years old.

Yes, I know about this. I've had my share of the X-files.


Imagine going out and picking this mushroom and picking that mushroom and then going home and never knowing that all these mushrooms were the same organism.

Talking about a metaphor taken too far.


Anyway, one can ramble about in such a fashion if one's intent is not to bring dinner home.

But one went into the wood with the intent to bring mushrooms for dinner! Or, did one simply set off for a tease, a flirt, a deliberate waste of time?!


But, if one wants to bring dinner home then one must eventually stop looking and start bringing home. Right? At what point does this occur? At what point do you have enough 'mushrooms' to make the trip a worthwhile endeavour? Ha! Once more this requires judgement. To stop and to write. To combine and to espouse. To bring home dinner.

I think this point can be determined only ex post; but what is there ex ante is the *intent* to bring home food.


There are always choices, choices, and choices. And all criteria dependant upon circumstance. This is why commandments are foolish. No two choices are ever the same.

Do you think that there are criteria that are INdepenedent upon circumstance? Criteria that hold come what may?


“ Meaning: You are acting on some absolute that is not mentioned in these commandments. ”
Absolute? No. Just on judgement.

But this judgement doesn't appear just out of the blue, does it?


The only absolute might be the circumstances.

No, circumstances are what you perceive as circumstances.


Philosophy for philosophy's sake? I will say that it is dangerous to remove oneself from what it is that one is philosophizing about in such a way, but if one keeps it in mind and doesn't let it become to abstract and removed, then...yes.

I enjoy philosophy. I enjoy talking about philosophy. If I didn't then I wouldn't. This is the way things work.

Why do you enjoy it? I understand this is a somewhat odd question -- but do tell about the pleasant things about philosophy that make you enjoy philosophy.


But, the point of the 'commandment' is to beware of yes-men.

No, you must stick to "Yes, madam".


“ When fighting for survival, it is advisable to not turn the other cheek.

Why indulge ourselves in relativism? A relativism that breeds out into cheap humanism and cheap multiculturalism?! Oh yes, we're all good and nice, so let's not fight and dissent intelligently, so that we can hate eachother's and our own sorry asses in peace. ”

I'm afraid you've lost me here. What does turning the other cheek have to do with intelligent dissent? Intelligent dissent allows us to rebut it and to either disprove it or be disproven. Either to strengthen or weaken our original proposition. In the quest for 'truth' this can only be a good thing.

It is a touch on the selfless side though. It's hard to admit defeat, isn't it? We've seen this often enough in these forums. So many stubborn people gnawing on each other.

Ah. Wait. I see what you're saying: so let's not fight and dissent intelligently.

Intelligent dissent doesn't have to be civil. It just has to be intelligent.

Well, yes, in a way.
But I find it stupid to think that people don't have the desire to fight, with fists. We do, and we get pissed off in these discussions, and the only reason why we don't get into a fist fight is because we can't do that online. I swear, if we'd have such discussions face to face, there would be some blood and broken bones.

"Intelligent dissent" is a just safety measure, whereby what this safety measure is there for is still there. The desire to fight with fists does not magically disappear once one tries to be "intelligent".


“ Screw "judgement"! One either is "scrupulously" truthful, or one isn't, ther's not middle way. ”
So, you would be commanded then? And how do you choose which commandment to follow?

Following a commandment isn't a choice one would make each time anew, from scratch. If it would be about choice in each individual situation, it wouldn't be a commandment.


You do choose, you know. Look at how many laws of the bible are not followed. It is a choice to ignore the commandments about eating pork. About stoning your not-so-virgin daughters, etc... Judgement is our inheritence as man. We learned it long ago on the Savannah. And even before that.

Those commandments were ignored because they seemed too hard to be kept. Because people like to be lazy (I am guilty of this as well). And few have the guts to admit that they ignored a commandment because they were too lazy to keep it, and that as such, there is nothing wrong with the commandment.


As to scrupulously truthful. I suppose you're right. You're either always truthful or not always truthful. But, here you go thinking in commandments again. I say screw "commandments"!

And I say, screw relativism!


By the way, what does scrupulously mean exactly? Conscientiously? Doesn't this imply some sort of judgement? Judgement with ones scruples as the criteria?

See dictionary.com.


“ If you use your precious "judgement", as much as you suggest, you pretty much end up not abiding by the list -- and end up being a fool. ”

No. The fool judges not. The fool does not choose. The fool has his choices made him for. As in 'commandments'.

What I see in your comment here is just an advocation to free will: A fool is someone who does as if he had no free will.


The list is about choice. The list is about understanding. The list is about wisdom.

Okay. So Russell has one toe out of the closet. But he is still wearing a blue stocking.


“ Such a list is worth jack squat if you cannot use it come what may! ”
Well, if come what may comes then you should have a backup list that will work in come what may situations. But, you have to choose which list to place in such a situation. Either that or have it chosen for you.

And what is this backup list?! TELL ME.


You can choose to place yourself under another's authority. But, do it by your own authority. Choose.

No. Some things are pre-choice. You can't choose the country you were born in, you can't choose your parents and so on.


Yes. In many ways it does, because motives, meanings, reasons are all things that should be personally applied by an individual not commanded by some dead philosopher.

But can't you see the issue of the general here? A something general should be conceptualized in a manner that it is applicable in individual cases, no matter what.
A list of commandments that everyone, you, me, and everyone else *could* abide to, because this list would be so good and adequate. I think such a list is possible, at least theoretically.


“ Russell was a closet bluestocking. ”
Wonder what else he was doing in the closet?

Eating the jelly he had stolen.


And, what exactly is decadent about the list?

It is decadent because it advocates relativism.


***

Why must a commandment be certain? Are you sure that isn't your simplistic definition of what this list should represent?

A commandment should be "certain", or it isn't a commandment.


The point of not being certain is intellectual honesty.

"Intellect" is highly overrated.


Dangerous? Is the truth itself not sometimes dangerous?

The truth may indeed be something dangerous, but this shouldn't stop us from compliyng with it.


Is it not worth it to tread dangerous grounds in search of truth?

The question is: "If the truth is dangerous, do you have the guts to speak it?"


"This list expresses the desire that philosophical thought should be there for its own sake, without the desire to investigate into something in particular, and without the motive to be intended for something or someone."
How so?

How so? Well, how can you solve a practical real life problem if you adhere to "Do not feel absolutely certain of anything."?! If you and your family are going out, and you can only go to one place, and you want to go to the restaurant, your wife wants to go to the cinema, and your children to the mall -- how can you ever decide and actually go some place if you apply "4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory."? You will get NOWHERE, unless you act upon some authority.


***

Yeah, but this is a paradoxical statement. You can only be certain that you can't be certain.
Therefore you can't be certain of being uncertain therefore you must be certain.
Therefore you can be certain of being uncertain.
Ad infinitum.

But thereby you have said NOTHING! NOTHING. NADA. ZILCH.

This:

"You can only be certain that you can't be certain.
Therefore you can't be certain of being uncertain therefore you must be certain.
Therefore you can be certain of being uncertain."

is circular logic based on the absolutistic premise: "I am uncertain of everything, except of that I am certain of being uncertain." (A version of: "I doubt, therefore I think. I think, therefore I am. Whereby the only thing that I don't doubt is that I doubt.")
It is only after you postulate such an absolutistic premise that the reasoning you have presented above works. In my opinion, such a postulate is worth nothing as it carries no relevant content, it entails no purpose -- it is there for its own sake, just the little twitch of logic needed to make your relativism seem complete.


When you see such things this should be a clue.
Either the man who wrote this is a fool.
Or he's saying something else.
Namely it requires judgement on when to be certain and when not to be certain.
Choice.

In order to choose, one needs values and preferences, some commandments. Or are you trying to say that one is a thing, floating in the lukewarm mud of relativism anyway?


***

Yes, I do understand RosaMajika's objections, they are to relativism (at least this is what she seems to have a problem with).

I don't have a *problem* with relativism -- I think it is corrupt!


I really don't see how my decalogue holds to this relativistic outlook.

I think yours is not absolutistic enough.


***

But I agree in the end : "Choice." is what he is really getting at. And honesty.

If I'd be *honest*, then this screen would be ... And the same goes for everyone else.

Maybe I'm being too simplistic? But people here have been too ready to jump on these so-called "commandments" as being self-contradictory because they're commandments. Like all philosophy should be, they are guidelines on how to live the fully realised intellectual life.

1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.I think MacM's UniKEF theory is wrong. But I mustn't close my mind to the possibility that it may turn out to be correct.

2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light. He could be talking about evidence for the errancy of the Bible, concealed (or ignored) by Fundamentalists, or evidence for the falsity of a beloved scientific theory (such as the blackened thumbs of midwife toads, which proved a biological theory - until it was discovered that the thumbs had been blackened by ink.

3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed. An exaggeration. You are not sure to succeed, but you will succeed with some. All knowlege and wisdom comes from thinking, and if you are told something, think it through for yourself. This also connects with the next one.

4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory. How many times have we seen right here on sciforums, "Prove the existence of God" or some equivalent, and to get the answer, "The Bible says...."? Authority without backup that can be reasoned through and understood is worth nothing. BTW, is Russell speaking directly to women only, here?

5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found. Viz the Bible, The Qu'ran, the Bhagavad Gita....

6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you. Don't use power? Even power of reason?NO, not the power of reason! Power in and of itself. Do not abuse your power to suppress free thought. This is directed at totalitarian states, at religious authorities, and at scientific elder statesmen who would destroy careers to preserve the status quo of their beloved but incorrect concepts. Vis, Georg Cantor's suffering at the hands of Kronecker, the leading mathematical authority of his day.

7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric. See my quote about MacM. But I believe this to be over the top, and out of date. Nowadays people promote any eccentricity of opinion "because nobody believed Einstein when he first had his ideas." Expressing an eccentric opinion is not enough - you have to demonstrate your total mastery of the current status quo in order to be able to question it and bring it into doubt. Einstein overthrew conventional physics because he knew conventional physics.

8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent that in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter. Indeed, and that is what I hope to find at these forums. But the disgareement must be intelligent. I've not seen a lot of intelligent arguing here from the theistical point of view, but I have definitely seen a lot of unintelligent arguing from the scientific/rational point of view.

9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it. A restatement of point 2, really. This is the one which is the padding to get to ten, I think!

10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.People who live in unquestioned faith do not see the beauty and poetry in human exploration and rational understanding. In your metaphor, Rosa, you disregard two things - one is just standing in the woods and looking around you and listening and smelling the air - something of the spiritual joy of sheer exploration which is an added bonus to getting your lunch. And the other thing is that this exploration has frequently come up with quicker and easier ways to get ones lunch that would not have been discovered if we had been as singleminded as you suggest we ought to be. Many many lunches have been discovered and eaten in our quest for the ultimate mushroom.

PS. Oh, and by "liberal" Russell was not referring to any kind of political dogma. The word Liberal means and implies "free" and "freedom". And liberal philosophy was free thinking, free of dogma, free of authority. It has nothing to do with left wing or right wing.