Live, Love, Learn, Create
When you are a parent, defining the set of values to which your children will adhere is your greatest responsibility beyond keeping them safe.
It is something that I take very seriously and not something I have chosen to “outsource” to some existing religious or ethical system.
I have studied and/or practiced most of the major religions and ethical systems.
I find them mostly wanting for my children (and myself).
Above all things, I want my child to understand that they are the “value creator”.
If anyone has the power or authority to create what is “good” and “evil” it is them.
If you hear Nietzsche, you are more than correct.
I have yet to meet someone or a system with a monopoly on the truth, much less systems formed before the advent of the science (not that science is without flaws).
Most of my personal struggles have been brought about by me trying to break out of chains (of truth, no less) imposed by other men and society.
As Blake says: “I must Create a System, or be enslav’d by another Man’s”.
I still continue this struggle daily and my greatest desire is that my children do not repeat my struggles and failures (I will fail).
The challenge is how to create a meta-system that forms a mutable foundation in which they can develop their own “value creation” muscles.
I have given them a set of “starter” axioms that form a motto that we repeat from time to time: Live, Love, Learn, Create.
You may think that this is close to the philosophia perennis (”perennial philosophy”) and therefore influenced by most of the systems that I disparage.
I can offer no other, for we are all creatures of our context.
That said, the key value is creation, particularly the creation of the unexpected, born of both Apollo and Dionysus, transforming what is old into the new.
Your children are very lucky to have a father as caring and insightful as yourself!
Cheers,
Graham
Graham Glass
13 Jun 10 at 23:54
This seems like an incomplete thought to me. Did you personally design your children’s car seats or did you outsource their safety to some existing manufacturer?
Nepotis
14 Jun 10 at 18:47
no, but i am responsible for selecting it, installing it, making sure they use it, etc.
that said, this seems like an incomplete comment to me.
children seat design is the realm of mathematics and physics.
of everything we know, these _appear_ to be objective (this raises a large epistemology question, btw).
the realm of “values”, the realm of supposed teleology, is a realm that is far more subjective.
lastly, based on my research, i can design a better “car seat” (set of meta-values) that what i see on the market today.
douglasp
15 Jun 10 at 01:03
What are your values?
ME
15 Jun 10 at 02:36
Beyond me writing my own tome (which I may bore you with some day), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Good_and_Evil and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antichrist_(book) are likely the closest to encoding my _current_ thinking on values.
douglasp
15 Jun 10 at 05:18
I’m sorry it still seems incomplete.
I agree that science _appears_ more objective than a “value” system. But what does that mean when you say you’ve done research? If values really are subjective like opinions do you also think it extremely important to pass your opinions on to your children? Do you teach them the importance of Coke over Pepsi (or vice versa)?
If values really are completely subjective what is the cause of indignation? Is it then true the only difference between you and the worst of mankind (read: Hitler, Dahmer, Bundy) is a matter of personal taste?
There IS a reason Nietzsche went mad after all and if you can have an open mind, I think I can save you some time.
Nepotis
15 Jun 10 at 14:08
what causes indignation has changed over the course of history and it will change again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Genealogy_of_Morality
are the values of the ancient Romans or Greeks more or less true than your values?
douglasp
15 Jun 10 at 14:55
I believe both systems capture pieces of the truth and neither captures the whole truth. If it were possible to honestly hold the value system of the ancients, today, that question would be significantly harder to answer.
Morals have been and will continue to be refined but not really changed. We may have changed where actions fall in the categories but cultures have always prized the concepts of courage over cowardice, loyalty over betrayal, love over hatred, temperance over greed, etc.
Nepotis
15 Jun 10 at 16:13
Cultures have not always prized what you outline, particularly when it comes to their relationship with other cultures.
Reading Nietzsche’s treatment of morality was a great eye opener for me — and still continues to be.
Even if I took your statement at face value, do you think that the Nazi SS “prized the concepts of courage over cowardice, loyalty over betrayal, love over hatred, temperance over greed, etc.”?
douglasp
16 Jun 10 at 03:10
Interesting… You think we can make up our own value system, yet, you think Germany’s value system during WWII is worse than yours? If there is no standard to judge them by how can you compare those two systems? If you say Coke and Germany says Pepsi how can we determine who is more right? We would have to have an objective system (i.e. caloric content) to compare to, wouldn’t we?
Do you really think WWII was such a grueling and bloody war because our enemy was a group of backstabbing cowards who hated their country and their leader and only worked for their own personal good?
Nepotis
16 Jun 10 at 14:15
I never claimed my value system is better. You did (raising Hilter as an example as the worst of mankind and then claiming that all cultures valued the same thing). I was simply pointing out that you are both sides of the issue with the SS example).
There is ample historical evidence that values are mutable and are product of their culture and context.
douglasp
16 Jun 10 at 15:25
I apologize for neglecting to openly answer that question and only implied the answer. I think that if the SS didn’t prize courage, loyalty, etc the war would’ve been easy and so I do believe they shared our same moral law (they just applied it selectively).
If there is this evidence what is it? You have made statements and the only support you offer are books written by a mad man.
My position was best expressed by one far greater than I.
“We often hear it said ‘What is right in one age is wrong in another.’ This is quite reasonable, if it means that there is a fixed aim, and that certain methods attain at certain times and not at other times. If women, say, desire to be elegant, it may be that they are improved at one time by growing fatter and at another time by growing thinner. But you cannot say that they are improved by ceasing to wish to be elegant and beginning to wish to be oblong. If the standard changes, how can there be improvement, which implies a standard? Nietzsche started a nonsensical idea that men had once sought as good what we now call evil; if it were so, we could not talk of surpassing or even falling short of them. How can you overtake Jones if you walk in the other direction? You cannot discuss whether one people has succeeded more in being miserable than another succeeded in being happy. It would be like discussing whether Milton was more puritanical than a pig is fat.”
Gilbert Keith Chesterton
Nepotis
16 Jun 10 at 16:08
Applied selectively? Sounds like a different value system to me, particularly if you believe in Kant’s imperative.
Calling Nietzsche a mad man does not diminish his work nor the importance of it in modern philosophical thoughts.
If you are not willing to actually read the whole of any of his works, I recommend reading at least “A Thousand and One Goals” (http://www.douglaspurdy.com/2009/01/02/the-thousand-and-one-goals/)
I also recommend that you reread Leviticus, if you want the most obvious “proof” that values change by time and culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestly_Code & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiness_Code)
In fact, in your Chesterton (who I have a emotional fondness for) quote mentions the notion of surpassing/improvement, etc. which implies change.
The net is that I think you are confusing “good” with some teleological notion.
douglasp
17 Jun 10 at 08:36
Saying that selectively applying values is a change to the value system is ridiculous. Is selective application of mathematics a change to math too? If I misuse math does that mean the rules have changed? If not, then do they change if I can get other people to agree with my miscalculation? Did zero really not exist in Rome or were they just ignorant of the concept?
Morals are like mathematics and the rules don’t change what does change are the variables in the equations.
The circle is complete. You are not defining a system for your children; you are only teaching them the equation you like most. You are only teaching them 2 + 2 = 4 and leaving the impression that it is the whole of math.
I’m not calling him a mad man, he was a mad man. It is a fact not something I concocted to discredit him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#Mental_breakdown_and_death_.281889.E2.80.931900.29).
The real net is that the guilt that you have is so deep and pervasive that you will do anything to make it go away, even if it’s only temporary. It is part of the human condition and there is a way out but you can’t find it in Nietzsche.
Four books that you may want to read
Mere Christianity – C.S. Lewis
The Language of God – Francis Collins
Orthodoxy – G.K. Chesterton
The Everlasting Man – G.K. Chesterton
Nepotis
17 Jun 10 at 14:49
Morals are nothing like mathematics.
I have read Chesterson and Lewis.
I appreciate your diagnosis of my condition.
Thank you.
douglasp
17 Jun 10 at 17:26
You are very welcome.
I must thank you for the wonderful and enlightening conversation; you are a very well read person and I feel priviledged to have graced your blog with my comments.
I look forward to future conversations (I have followed your blog for a while).
Nepotis
17 Jun 10 at 19:04
Methinks you forgot something you do best:
Live, Love, Learn, Create, Discard
Together with Don Box you abandoned MGrammar and now that you are involved with oData, it is a sure dead-end unless people like you don’t work in the project. We are already happy that there are no Boxes in oData.
Please watch your (and Box’) MGrammar videos again.
I am keen on oData provided giver-uppers are not assigned to it by upper management.
Ceyhun Ciper
25 Jun 10 at 23:51
Ceyhun Ciper:
No one has given up on M. Don and a host of folks are working on it. I decided to move out of Redmond, so it was hard for me to keep running the M team, so I am focused on OData.
OData support is shipping in a number of different platforms and products. M is still under development, so it is very hard to comp them in any case.
Judge OData on it technical merits and the products it ships in, not if someone talking about it happened to talk about some other tech that you think is dead (which isn’t).
BTW: that is a very high bar. Most people I know have talked about tech that never shipped or is no longer relevant. Does that discount what they say now? My guess is that they are more likely to speak with the wisdom of those failures.
douglasp
26 Jun 10 at 00:09