21
votes
Let's Talk: What are your guiding rules in life?
I often run long distance as part of my workouts and lately I've been composing various axioms for how I should live. These are three axioms I find integral to my character which I try and place at the bedrock of my decision making.
0th - The thought which you cannot think is that which guides you.
1st - The world can be boiled down to two types of people: those who act and those who are acted upon. Be one who acts.
2nd - Defy social conformities via normative methods.
I always find myself coming back to the Golden Rule — "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you."
It's such a simple concept, but if everyone followed it the world would be a far better place. Of course it only works when everyone follows it, and the world is full of shitty people. All I can do is try and lead by example, follow the rule myself, no matter how many times it bites me in the ass.
Are there ways in which you're failing to adhere to it? It is a strikingly simple yet powerful edict, and actually calls for a radicalism that nearly everyone is very uncomfortable with when investigated seriously.
The only people I can think of now that actually live up to the rule are William McAskill and Peter Singer.
Not really, no. I mostly stop adhering to it when the other person has made it clear they have no empathy themselves, they're using me or taking advantage of me, etc.
The main problem for me with the golden rule is that society doesn't know what to do with it. If someone is acting selfless, it's pretty much an invitation to walk all over them. Adhering to the golden rule gets you painted as naive or an idealist at best. People say "the real world doesn't work that way" or "the real world will tear you to pieces" etc. There's a lot of shitty people out there who'll take everything you can give and give nothing in return. The principal drawback in adhering to the golden rule is having to know when to apply it and when to retract it.
I try and always assume good faith at first, but watch closely for people who will never reciprocate.
There’s a cool game theory finding that says you should start with friendly (golden-rule in this case) and then mimic the other party.
It doesn’t really apply neatly to real life though.
I worked in a behavioral economics lab, whose purpose was to identify where human psychology differs from the “rational consumer” Adam Smith theorized. The takeaway is that people are selfish animals that need incentive structures to actually do good (i.e. humans are not universally good people).
That was a transformative understanding of the human condition (there are very repeatable economic experiments where humans choose greed over collective benefit) wherein I had to operate on the understanding that humans regularly disappoint on moral grounds due to easily-gamed externalities.
That being said, in continuous execution of the game theory of the prisoner’s dilemma, the optimal strategy is to be “tit-for-tat“ (i.e. I’ll play nice until you screw me over, then I’ll fight fire with fire). I think this is what @thundergolfer is referencing, but the key to the strategy is that if the opposing party changes heart and starts positively affecting you, then you should, too.
IRL, though, I think people carry scorched-earth policies despite the negative consequences that affect everything that surrounds the policy. I’m hopeful individuals won’t shoot themselves in the foot, but I think the diffusion of responsibility will make no one feel responsible for society shooting itself in our collective feet.
I have a whole project dedicated to exposing these. It's called Mythos – as in, a set of stories and beliefs about something; myself, in this case. Were it written down, it would be rather expansive: I've been engaging in philosophy of my existence ever since I can remember.
Most of my outlook centers around the idea of authenticity and its counterpart, bullshit. In broad terms, I follow the idea of "Do what is true. Prune what is not". There are more specific, granular rules for parts of life that deserve it: for example, "Make more concise" (that is, as short as you can while maintaining the ability to convey meaning reliably) for writing code, or "Be truthful" (as in, express your thoughts sincerely and as close to the truth as you know it as you can) for talking to others.
Rather than following specific rules, I orient myself on the notion of avoiding bullshit and/or getting towards the truth. How it crystallizes is irrelevant unless I mean to convey it to someone else – like right now. It's an intuitive notion, and I trust in my intuition. One could argue that intuition is the most reliable sense a person could have.
Some, however, I've picked up in a worded form, from others. One of the most recent ones is "Do not take criticism from someone you wouldn't go to for advice". It's the kind of an idea that you already have in you, deep somewhere, and when someone expresses it as precisely as this, you take to it eagerly, because it speaks to your core. Few things do.
Part of the reason for creating Mythos is my desire to collect and arrange a sort of a guide to life: a systemic understanding of how to best navigate through life. Collecting and verbalizing this sort of understanding – composed as wisdom and sage advice – has been a passion of mine for the longest time. "A guide to wisdom" is an apt description of what I'm trying to achieve, even though it reeks of pithy marketing bullshit that permeates today's self-help book market.
Is not truth merely a subjective view of reality though? Won't you be blinded by invisible biases which prevent growth?
I too trust in my intuition, but I would not argue it to be the most reliable. As human beings we are notorious for attributing unrelated events with one another eg astrological signs.
Probably. Even more so now that I'm growing more resistant to outside opinions.
My mental apparatus has guided me towards a cleaner solution so far. I trust it to do its job – not that I have much choice in the matter.
When it comes to culture I always consider that if I don't like something is because I don't understand it well enough or that I'm closed off somehow ; there's always something to love if you look at things the right way.
This is something I've been encountering in my own mental space. There's a certain negative drag when it comes to some things for me; an "errrgghh" feeling when looking at it, as if to express discontent at an almost animal level.
With things like that, I find myself more appreciative of them once I decide to engage and see what the things are about. At worst, I find myself disinterested, because it no longer provokes a reaction.
I don't think there's something to love in everything, though. I can't find in me any love for things that lead to more suffering under the guise of a good goal when, in reality, the goal is meaningless, and the whole thing is just an exercise is self-indulgence for those who perpetuate it. The pro-ana culture is a good example: ostensibly a safe environment for people with anorexia – who are regularly subject to immense societal pressure – it often devolves into an others-hostile environment where anorexia is asserted as a positive. I can find no love for that; in fact, I find myself dismayed and perturbed.
Some things are fair to dislike or oppose, although we oppose many simply because we feel excluded from them.
Absolutely! There's all sorts of subconscious rules to society which we naturally know to follow; I like to make the comparison to that of a dance. Social conventions from individuals and systems subliminally dictate our course of action whether it be for queuing up in line or flirting with the stranger. The idea is you cast aside listening to social convention and create your own narrative which people will naturally follow.
That ones on me for poor phrasing. Apologies about that, it's still an idea I'm working through in my head.
What I'm trying to say is appear normal in how you violate social conformity. For example, one of my friends is underage to drink but still can frequent a local brewery because he began by walking in with a growler.
By acting normal he created a public impression that he was of age and legal so bartenders don't card him.
I guess it has to be. The only way to define a new set of conventions is by impressing yours upon others, is it not?
What about the social conventions like "don't be a dick to kids" and "pet the damn dog" and shit that makes life tolerable?
Empathy aside there is logistically no reason to violate these social conventions. Being a dick is ultimately detrimental for social cohesion between myself and others so I have no motivation to violate similar conventions.
I also enjoy a tolerable life so I wouldn't violate those conventions, so the only times I would violate conventions is if it furthers myself. I don't exactly know all the ways I can do that yet, but it's more about the process
Some principles for online discussion (somewhat applicable offline too):
I have a pretty complex personal philosophy framework that I've assembled from many things I've encountered in my life. It is eclectic, eccentric, and most critically syncretic. The philosophies I find inspiration from range from utilitarianism (both act and rule) to stoicism to more eastern beliefs, especially the yogic moral philosophy of the yamas and the niyamas. I derive the latter from the yoga sūtras of Patañjali, and more generally find a lot of eastern philosophy to be in line with how I view the world. There's a good bit of relativism, as well; how else could I reconcile such a complex blending of philosophies? I also incorporate secular humanism.
I should point out that I am also a physicalist atheist and a tantrika as part of my yoga practice (and I incorporate the concomitant monism, specifically existence monism in my case). This last is probably the most controversial / eyebrow-raising for western audiences, because who hasn't heard of the term tantric sex? I won't deny the history, but I will say that it's sensationalized in the western perspective. Tantra is an experientialist philosophy, and sex is part of the human experience, so it embraces it as much as it does everything else. Tantra is a householder practice, a set of practices and philosophies aimed at democratizing ancient practices, moving beyond the inherent dualism of its predecessors, aimed at helping people live their everyday lives. Not quite a religion, but more a different perspective on existing religions and philosophies.
Back on the topic of monism, though, I like to draw inspiration from Carl Sagan: we are made of star-stuff and we are a way for the universe to know itself. Given that we are literally made of stars, treating others well is treating the universe well, and therefore it stands to reason that I should do the best I can to treat the universe as well as I can, since indeed it reflects upon me in a very real, measurable sense.
I make no indication here that this path will work for everyone, or even that it will work for anyone. It is merely the set of philosophies and rules that I have assembled which work for me.
Your first reaction it what you have been conditioned to think. It isn't always the best thought.
You criticize most in others what you cannot confront in yourself.
Rules of the Earth seem to promote the idea of intense self-respect that inevitably leaks out onto others. Feels like the Golden Rule made modern.
Being honest with yourself is incredibly important. I feel like I'm at a weird Cross roads in life where I've always been honest but all I see around me is the success of dishonest people.
Some days I'm disheartened but other days it actually gives some hope because it demonstrates that ultimately good will prevail.
Never say, write or do anything I don't want someone else to find out.
I pull most of my life guidance from (approximately in order of importance)
There's a lot more overlap there, than one might expect at first glance.
There is! I see a lot of overlap especially between stoicism and eastern philosophies. There's a common theme of nonattachment and nonreactivity that I was very surprised to learn about. Reading Aurelius' Meditations it could almost have been written by someone in the far east.
not rules for life but rules for reading news:
I often ask myself three questions before proceeding reading any news on the interweb or on paper:
I had gotten in the habit of exposing myself to news sources I wouldn’t have originally seeked out.
Part of it was to avoid censorship, but the main reason was to understand cultures not of my own.
I liken the news story of the day to an object in a dark room. Every news source claims to shine light on this subject, but they only provide shadows to be read on the walls. Each publication shines their own light on the subject, and with enough inquisitive contributors they can claim they are fully transparent.
However, you can only read the shadows on the wall. Each shadow is a projection that you have to extrapolate back to the original figure. Differing angles of the light can shine different truths that may overlap/conflict with existing shadows. Some sides may never be seen, like the dark side of the moon, and while their existence is acknowledged, it’s never acted upon.
The end result is an object illuminated by all angles, but empirically it ends up being only known by the shadiest part it’s associated with.
Sorry for getting carried away, but the intention of my post was to address your three points, and to assume that a given viewpoint can be valid from a certain perspective.
The key to understanding a position is to inform yourself of all viewpoints, positive and negative, and let your own experience dictate what you choose to believe.
I personally have exposure to Al Jazeera, Russia Today, and China Daily; not because I trust these publications, but because they provide a new angle to shine light.
The old saying is that there’s three sides to every story: his story, her story, and the truth. Apply this to modern media and you quickly realize the truth is left for you to determine.
Those are excellent rules
As a framework for generating philosophies, I follow the law of liberty:
I think about this whenever something breaks, when I am about to buy things, or whenever I am feeling materialistic. Just a reminder of the nature of change.
It's too easy to get swept up in the maelstrom of emotions online. Especially when more and more of the internet is becoming a bubble built upon personal recommendations and advertisements. Disengage and look around.
This is pretty much the same thing as the first one as it relates the nature of change. I think the concept of impermanence is important to recognize in our day to day because you can attribute a good amount of personal suffering to the desire for things to stay the same.
I love how your list is zero index :) Out of curiosity, how often do you reference your axioms? How do you internalise them and bring them to mind when needed?
A few of my own...
I have them written down and I simply try and think about them each day.
One general principle that I very frequently use to tell whether a certain claim is good is this:
And every counter argument must come with at least as much evidence as the thing it is meant to disprove.
(tell that to the anti science crowd...)
Slow is smooth and smooth is fast
Do what makes you happy but not at the expense of others' unhappiness.
Hmm, that's an interesting one. What would you consider the expense of another's unhappiness?
I just replied to @Lawrencium265 above.
But I'm not sure how to answer the question objectively. Also the general take away from my one-liner would be rather "to minimize" the unhappiness you cause around you because I'm not really sure it can be something you can avoid completely.
I find unhappiness to be a pretty strong sentiment that requires either a short exposure to a very negative action, or a long exposure to a low negativity action.
An example of the first, is something like being a dick directly to someone, when you're actively exposing them to your negativity. Even if said someone doesn't have any personal connection to you, the negativity will affect them to a degree - thus making them less happy.
The later is when you're doing something mostly benign, like biting your nails in front of your parents. And gradualy they get annoyed by it. It's not a big deal. They can probably get over every isolated instance of it happening, but put together it adds up and they might be less happy about you.
I'm not sure this is making a lot of sense outside of my particular mind framework, and most probably this kind of estimation of "degree" of negativity/unhappiness that one action can have is something that I do subconsciously and is not really quantifiable in an generic way that can be applied to other people's experience. Shrug. :(
I disagree with this. There is always going to be someone out there who doesn't like something that you do. Should you not eat meat because someone else objects to it? You should consider the people who matter to you, but hardly those who you don't know.
Well, what do you expect from a one liner "guiding rule for life"?
But I'll keep my position because I feel like there's a big difference between somebody objecting to what makes me happy and someone actually "being unhappy" about it. The former implies a degree of investment in my person that would make me at least reconsider my position. There are very few things in my life that are non-negotiable when it comes to principles. You know, the "strong opinions, weakly held" kind of philosophy.
Of course there are people that can have complete opposite positions towards what makes me happy but I generally tend to avoid them before actually making them unhappy. :)
And in the end it's impossible to go through life without making other people unhappy. Failed relationships, arguments, obliviousness they all happen sooner or later. The idea is to minimize the unhappiness you generate as much as possible. :)
I hope this clarifies a bit what I meant.
PS. I feel like the concept of "guiding rule for life" is something that you have to be very young or very fortunate to be able to take seriously. Sooner or later most people are faced with their principles and forced to bend them if not outright break them.