Self-Honesty

[Dglgmut]

Well, I think we will both agree that self-dishonesty starts when mentally one transforms from being a whole to a part of a whole.

Once one determines that the collective will be the source of one's happiness, the dishonesty begins (but should this be called self-dishonesty or just dishonesty?).

Edit: Okay, I think this is it... To correct an intellectual contradiction you must be the authority on both beliefs. However, if you allow others to authorize your beliefs based on the premise that they are a more reliable source of information than your own experience and judgment, then you cannot challenge that belief yourself.

You can form beliefs based on information acquired from others, while still maintaining authority of these beliefs, if it makes sense to you. If something doesn't make sense, and you accept it as true... well, that sets you up to deny things that actually do make sense.

Why do we make such assumptions? It is self-doubt... which I've already made a thread about... damn...

I guess the reason I think this issue is important to understand is because it is necessary for communication on a deeper level with people who have contradictory beliefs.

For stand-up comedy this information would be very useful... you know, understanding the obstacles.

[Peregrine777]

Many people have no need to pursue some rarified notion of "truth". They have simple needs...they want to be fed and comfortable, and believe things about themselves and others which make them feel good. What incentive could you offer such people to abandon their way of life in pursuit of some objective "truth" which might very well reveal their ineptitude and lowly station in life, such that they become demoralized? Let me guess, you'd give them some trite Rebublican boilerplate about "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps"?

[anthony]

Ah, I think I'm getting your drift. "Many people" as distinct from that small elite who have the superior intelligence and time - to "pursue...truth". Would it surprise you to know that truth = reality? All one needs are eyes and ears to apprehend reality, yes? At bottom, even this superior being you posit has not one iota more 'eptitude' than "many people" - and must face the choice to pull himself up by his own bootstraps, too - mentally and materially.

Me, I'm one of those "many people".

[Dglgmut]

Many people have no need to pursue some rarified notion of "truth". They have simple needs...they want to be fed and comfortable, and believe things about themselves and others which make them feel good. What incentive could you offer such people to abandon their way of life in pursuit of some objective "truth" which might very well reveal their ineptitude and lowly station in life, such that they become demoralized? Let me guess, you'd give them some trite Rebublican boilerplate about "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps"?

Well, if someone is choosing to believe what he/she wants based on how it makes them feel, I wouldn't need to moralize them, would I? They could just choose whatever the hell they wanted to believe.

It is only by searching for truth that one would even consider looking into philosophy, no? Any "advice" would have to be sought as well as given. With that established, there is no incentive that needs to be offered, if people are looking into philosophy on any level, they are looking for truth.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's an interesting question.

What is the difference between self-deception and a cognitive bias--and what is the overlap?

I would answer this myself, but I'm in the doghouse with me for lying to me.

Michael

[caroljane]

Here's an interesting question.

What is the difference between self-deception and a cognitive bias--and what is the overlap?

I would answer this myself, but I'm in the doghouse with me for lying to me.

Michael

Here's an interesting question.

What is the difference between self-deception and a cognitive bias--and what is the overlap?

I would answer this myself, but I'm in the doghouse with me for lying to me.

Michael

O Michael, you do know all about story.

"We all believe in fairy-tales, and live in them."

-GK Chesterton

[Brant Gaede]

Many people have no need to pursue some rarified notion of "truth". They have simple needs...they want to be fed and comfortable, and believe things about themselves and others which make them feel good. What incentive could you offer such people to abandon their way of life in pursuit of some objective "truth" which might very well reveal their ineptitude and lowly station in life, such that they become demoralized? Let me guess, you'd give them some trite Rebublican boilerplate about "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps"?

Rand called these people "social ballast." But some people are so into their work they don't have the time or inclination for philosophic investigation and discourse, especially if they lack a proper liberal arts education. I'm thinking of one young man, for instance, who left college after three years without graduating to go to medical school. He became a radiologist. A Jewish doctor in charge of admissions to one school advised him to finish college and spend that last year taking the liberal arts courses he had eschewed to that point. He simply went to a different medical school. For him it would have been sheer torture at that point; he was so fixated on his goal.

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

Just had a thought: I think the biggest lie people tell themselves is that they are not selfish.

We are naturally selfish, and that is what is perhaps missing from NB's essay Isn't Everybody Selfish?

He elucidated his argument well with this passage:

"But to equate “motivated behavior” with “selfish behavior” is to blank out the distinction between an elementary fact of human psychology and the phenomenon of ethical choice. It is to evade the central problem of ethics, namely: by what is man to be motivated?"

Here he shows very well that selfishness does not motivate all human action, but that does not put the question to rest, "Isn't Everybody Selfish?" Selfishness is not only a cause of action, but a way of perceiving the world.

The question is quite ironic, because people who use it (as I have, myself) do so as an attempt to delegitimize the basis for an egoistic morality. But wouldn't calling everyone selfish only strengthen egoism's appeal?

Claiming that everyone is selfish no matter what they do is an attempt to justify altruism on an personal level--redirecting one's self-interest.

I don't think anybody actually believes they are being selfish while being altruistic. Sacrificing as part of a systemic obligation can be rationalized as in one's best interest, as society can provide more for a person than nature alone. However, that only accounts for ostensible acts of altruism where that rationalized source of motivation is known and understood while performing the action. We cannot attribute motivation to an action, after the fact, which contradicts what we felt in the moment.

The real motivation for altruistic behavior is self-dishonesty. We do our duty to prove to ourselves that we are not selfish, because of the stigma attached to the concept.

So that's what I just thought; that rather than choosing to be selfish based on the rational arguments supporting egoism, people just need to accept (or stop covering up) the fact that they are inherently selfish.

Edit: Following this logic, it seems to me that self-dishonesty consists of manipulating one's behavior in hopes of achieving reverse causation. A fear or hatred of human nature can lead to people behaving against their nature as a means of eliminating it. It doesn't work that way, obviously, but it's not consciously understood exactly why they are behaving in such unnatural ways (according to their personal nature).

[Dglgmut]

One more thought: I think the effort to help people at the expense of others is fueled by a projection of guilt. For example, a liberal may scorn businessmen, but in reality be getting themselves off the hook by passing the blame onto someone they consider worse than themselves... or at least hope.

[Xray]

Just had a thought: I think the biggest lie people tell themselves is that they are not selfish.

We are naturally selfish, and that is what is perhaps missing from NB's essay Isn't Everybody Selfish?

He elucidated his argument well with this passage:

"But to equate “motivated behavior” with “selfish behavior” is to blank out the distinction between an elementary fact of human psychology and the phenomenon of ethical choice.

What is this elementary fact of human psychology? The fact that nobody acts with the intention of having a disadvantage from the act?

In other words: individuals act, without exception, because they want to gain (seen from their perspective) from the act.

The ethical discourse is about what they want to gain.