"Church" and "State"

I believe it is a priority to designate the responsibilities of both government and religion in regard to public interest. As far as I can say, the purpose of government is to keep a population as satisfied as possible (maximized mutils, to be specific). Now, the interests of the people - with regards to an increase in their satisfaction, evolve over time. They require an adaptation in policy-based governing. With this taken into account, the question of an incorporation of religious ideals into religion is entirely a governmental one.

If we consider the general values that it seems we currently attempt to uphold to be "religious" in nature, then it would appear that a total separation of government and things that are "religious" in nature would seem to be rather contradictory in regards to the purpose of government. However, these values have essentially matriculated into society, and aren't typically considered in the "separation" debate. Instead, focus is shifted toward deliberations over the apparent will of god. This focus, I believe, has two implications on political theory.

The first is that the will of god has a direct influence over the values of the religious. Government must take this into account in order to decide for the favorable majority. The second, and more troublesome, is that the qualification - "acting under the will of god" - becomes a verifiable condition of government that further adds or detracts from the satisfaction of what is commonly labeled as the religious population. This becomes difficult because it seems that empirical, physical observations tend to result in more progressive and therefore satisfactory decision-making. If government is to be concerned with the satisfaction of the people, it seems most productive to base the totality of its working order on a fundamentally scientific basis. So, because “acting under the will of god” indicates a withdrawal from what is predictably the best measure of success, it results in a contradictory course of action. That is, the need to appeal to the desires of the people, and often the religious, in a matter of logical conclusion determined by the basis of politics. As soon as we act in such a way, as to appease the will of an unverifiable entity, we pull away from what appears to be the best method. This, it seems, is the current course of action of the US government – in which case, there is what I would consider separation of “church” and state.

Metaphors

A metaphor is "useful" insofar as it creates satisfaction. I speculate that any satisfaction caused by a metaphor is created by a new understanding of  predictable applications of  events brought about by similar attributes in a sensory comparison. Is this the most common conception of art?


That "understanding" - that is, a higher ability to predict the affects of different events - is more likely to be caused by a direct analysis of the event, as far as I'm concerned. By "direct" I mean a metaphor (symbolic representation) involving as few variables as possible. (aka - "The stove feels 'cold'" or- not what is commonly called a metaphor).

Contradictions & the existence of God

As a philosopher, I've been asked to argue for and against several persuasive angles concerning the existence of god. They have all ended in the same scenario. We can essentially say that we "know" only two things that are related to the topic (according to the semantics of their applied definitions and our goal of progressive knowledge). In fact, the concept of infinity really only confirms that we are incapable of understanding the process. William Craig agrees:

"There are temporal phenomena in the world." (The Kalam Cosmological Argument)

We must conclude this to be true. All of our progressive knowledge (knowledge that is based on an increase in satisfaction) is based on the observable and predictable conclusions of different events. The higher the predictable rate of something, the more we "know" it. Any further questioning of what it is to "know" something would seem to digress from the current goal of acquiring satisfaction.

"[temporal phenomena] are caused by other temporal phenomena."(The Kalam Cosmological Argument)

So, there we have it. Things happen because other things cause them to happen. Of course, this presents the problem of infinity. There has to be a beginning, which in itself needs a beginning. Because this is a contradiction, and because we need and observe the first two principles in "truth" - there is a lack of understanding. No matter how you spin it, both of those conditions cannot exist simultaneously. If anything, it makes me wonder why we assume it's possible for us to understand and comprehend everything, because of how straight-forward the contradiction seems to be. Everyone who attempts to explain it runs into the same problem. Even Paley's concept of the "Designer" is so blatantly flawed. Why isn't the designer a design as well? We simply can't touch it. Still, the contradictions continue: an omnipotent god that must act to attain desires? Omnipotence is contradictory to desire, which implies a lack of something. As such, some people may very well accept that they can't understand, yet still attempt to take comfort in this. They subscribe to the lack of understanding and call it "God". Many are even reluctant to avoid the contradictory topics because of the many comforts. In Night, Elie Weisel says he "did not deny God's existence, but I doubted His absolute justice." (Weisel 42) in the most doubting of times. I have no problem with this. I simply don't think that philosophers who proclaim to be searching for the truth can still say that the knowledge implied outside of the contradictions can be considered progressive knowledge.

Contradiction & Honesty

Lately I've been thinking about contradiction and why it is an implication of what we consider a "lie." First, I think it's important to clarify exactly what a "lie" can be considered. I think that the common conception of a "lie" is a false conditional statement. That is, a statement that is used to qualify a certain impression of sense data designated in language that actually does not exist. For instance -

(pointing at grass) "This is red."

This would be considered a lie because the impression of sense data designated in language as "red" is not the common conception of the color of grass.

This is really, really simple. I'm essentially just making it dense in language just in case I need to get really specific about certain ideas later on. 

Another simple idea is that a contradiction is essentially two qualifying statements that don't allow each other to exist regarding the same condition. However, it is less simple when we consider a person who has said two things over time regarding something that can potentially change. For example, if I say "I love you" and it is currently satisfying the conception of what it means for that to be true - and later, I say that I don't - what essentially needs to happen for this not to be a contradiction, and therefore a lie, is new information (and therefore time). Without any new information, you cannot qualify any further conditions, and therefore, you have contradicted yourself. 

Now, this gets pretty vague. It could be said that "information" is something that we are constantly gaining as we perceive. Still, the idea that new information is necessary for a contradiction to be potentially legitimate can be important, because it is sometimes necessary to pinpoint where the information lapse occurred in order to realize a legitimate contradiction. It is especially helpful when you realize someone is having trouble pinpointing 

the new information - it implies that either the person is less apt to finding new information that they have received ( and is likely less intelligent, but haven't worked that out yet ) or that there is no new information concerning the subject specifically (that the person is aware of). The awareness might be important, as it could be said that a subconscious deliberation can lead to a contradiction, but this is only legitimate in statements of mentality rather than physical observations. 

Inherent "goodness" and subconscious empathizing

Part I
-------------------------------
Points necessary for agreement:

1 -"Reality" as we know it is a complex set of predictions based on sense perception.

2 - Degree of  "goodness" can be considered the degree of any action that increases the chance of any randomly chosen person to feel satisfied. (Psychological egoism, see 3rd paragraph -> RCP)

3 - Brain activity that affects or alters your thoughts, perceptions, or emotions that you are not aware of can be considered "subconscious" activity.

4 - "Empathy" is any process of self-deliberation that aims to emulate certain feelings and emotions based on the events and interactions that involve other relate-able humans, resulted by observable patterns, or predictions.

Why do we watch and enjoy movies that a) aren't real events or b) don't involve us at all? 

Why do we flinch when we see another person in pain or bleeding?

 It's been perceived by me that the answers lie in the realm of "subconscious" activity." I say this because though we are consciously aware of the idea that we are not being affected by these events, something is still affecting our emotions that we aren't deliberating upon. (see 3)

We can consider "subconscious" activity that is spurned by interactions of other humans that affects our emotions to be "subconscious empathy." (both empathy and subconscious activity) (see 3 & 4)

So, our subconscious contributes to our "reality" in the way that it creates and emulates predictable sequences of feelings based on observed interactions of others. 

Does this matter? (Can this add to my satisfaction in a prescribed way rather than immediate perceptive tangents?) (My best [and most hopeful] prediction as to what would matter to most readers.)

It could matter if support of the idea of "inherent goodness" is something that makes you feel assured and therefore satisfied. It could also matter in resolving personal conflicts that involve a lack of altruism and long term dissatisfaction, though a rewarding outcome was originally perceived. I'll explain:

Two questions: Is subconscious empathy inherent? & - Does subconscious empathy encourage "goodness?"

Circumstantial Context of Honesty

(in regards to Utilitarianism)

There are three matters to keep in mind when discussing honesty & Utilitarianism:


1: The potential discovery of a lie leads to dissatisfaction -
2: Many of us feel "inherently" bad when we choose to lie -
3: The result of lying can sometimes end in an overall more satisfying outcome.


I believe I may have found a way to bridge the last two matters into a more progressive platform. That is, if we can agree that the goal of honesty is to give the other person the most accurate conception of reality.

There are many implications that one statement can have on the perception of other issues, and if honesty will result in an overall more distorted view of other circumstances, then you have essentially caused the other person to believe untrue things (essentially lying). Basically, I'm equating degree of "honesty" with the other person's degree of accuracy when considering all things. I'll use a classic example -

"Does this make me look fat?"

Let's assume that the "liar" in this instance does correlate the idea of what it means to be fat with a positive or "yes" answer in this situation. I believe that saying "no" could still be considered the most honest answer, depending on the analysis of the asker's reaction.  It's important to note that when they are asking "am I fat?" they are essentially asking "am I fat, and if so, are all of my associated assumptions and necessary reactions knowing you think I'm fat true?". Essentially, there are implications like this for every question asked. Let's assume that the analysis of the asker's reaction goes something like this -


answer - "yes"
reaction -
"they are less attracted to me"
"I am ugly"
"I am fat"
"they have a greater chance of leaving me due to my body"
"they are not satisfied"

Now, if the majority of the presumed reactions are farther from the truth than if the answer was "no," then saying yes resulted in a more accurate conception of overall circumstances, and in this case, "no" is the most honest answer.  It would also be very important to use a high level of discretion, because it is not easy to accurately interpret someone's innermost thoughts, and if they found out that you lied, there is a greater chance of mistrust - as impulse likely tells all of us that our conception of reality is the true one.

Navigation

Overview

Identity

Guilt

Priority Voting & the RCP

Explicit vs Implicit Desires

Acting

Choas Theory

Freedom

Predictability

Measuring utils

-

 Utilitarianism is often criticized on the grounds that "utils" are immeasurable and are judged entirely subjectively, making it basically useless as a practical tool when making conclusions about decisions. I decided some time ago that utils could be effective if we found a common ground to make utils relative. I believe the key to this is to compare the util value of an individual year of life when compared to the perceived average util level. In other words.. If I asked, "How many utils would you decrease from your average util level in order to live for one more year?" The answer wouldn't matter. What would matter, is that no matter the amount of utils, we would consider it equivalent to 1 "mutil" (measured util). That way, everyone could relate the ratio of average satisfaction in life to the added satisfaction of its continued presence, resulting in a much more accurate comparison of perceived satisfaction. So, 5 "mutils" would be the equivalent of the amount of average perceived satisfaction you would give up in order to live for an extra 5 years. (Presumably, not very much). It works like this:

Isaac is somewhat upset that his parents are getting a divorce. On a particular day, he tells his friend that he is feeling a decrease of 30 mutils. This is to say that he would need to live an extra 30 years at his average perceived satisfaction level (before the decrease) in order to endure the sadness every day until then. I know it isn't perfect, but it is closer to achieving an understandable way to perceive utils from a second party.

Note on Maturity

 I'm starting to feel that maturity is synonymous with the idea that you spend little mental energy in predicting the outcome of numerous events. The repetition of the way different variables interact allows us to expand our ideas elsewhere. I'm not sure I believe this definition of maturity entirely, but I feel it does resemble this sometimes.

Predictability

So much is based on predictability. Our personal depiction of reality is based on predictability of different individual events. Science is entirely prediction based. Our actions are based on predicted outcomes. But, it's not just foresight. Well, it is, but that word makes it seem as if it's avoidable in any situation. It is entirely unavoidable. In fact, any action is based on a predicted outcome, even if it is just the fact that an outcome will happen. Yep, while those belonging to the philosophical group labeled "skeptics" may be somewhat practical in questioning whether it's possible to "know" anything, I think it is invariably important to realize that when we say "reality" what we really mean is that all observations of cause and effect have lead us to believe in a set of predictable outcomes that we've labeled "reality". I've also recognized a connection between empathetic reasoning and predictability, outside of immediate effect on the other party, but I'd like to further the thought before I set it down. Now, is it important to recognize the impact of what I've been calling "predictability" on our possible illusion of "reality"? I mean, event-specifically useful, not general use of the skills and habitual use of such kind of thinking and action taking.

"Free" cells

Today, I had a debate with an adversary. He claimed that free will is possible based on the following:

Picture a cell. This cell could move based on nothing. This cell does not need a cause to move. A reaction is not necessary. Therefore, the cells of the mind could work without causes, leaving them free.

My initial reaction was to say that physics do not allow this happen. As far as all observation is concerned, this is impossible.

He then went on to recall how I have said numerous times that it is as absurd to believe in "god" as it is to say that "god" definitely does not exist. His point was that you can't rule it out as an incomprehensible possibility.

I decided to avoid the practicality argument and attack his point directly. After all, I've dealt with people who bring up newer theories like chaos theory in order to consider the free will, which are similar. So, I decided to assume, hypothetically, that the cells of the mind did not need causes to move.

If this were true, the cells would be moving without any kind of conscious deliberation. In what way would un-"motivated" movements by cells give us the power of "choice"? You see, the idea of a free will still insists on the ability to make a free decision. But, if cells are moving without any kind of motivating process, there is no choice in this. You see, the commonly held ideas of choice, of free will, are very flawed. Free choice is an oxymoron, and cannot exist in nature.

Freedom

Freedom is to be understood as the deliberation that leads to a desire quenching action. The deliberation is to be understood as a series of causal relationships (reactions). Ultimately, the desire is the result of the brain's inbred attractions to reproduction and survival. However, as there are many actions taken that are dependent on the consciousness' interpretation of the addicting chemicals prevalent in acquiring both reproduction and survival, the desire is essentially created by the limiting factors of "freedom". The factors include -

-Genetic disposition

Anything that consists of an addiction that was not caused by an outside event.  Genetic disposition does not include natural reactions that take place on account of an outside event. They can be very specific, or very general.

-"Labels"

What I call "labels" is second only to genetic disposition as far as apparent influence. A "label" is to be understood as anything that represents a thought. Every word is a label, but not every label is a word. A label can also be a painting, an action, or any kind of motivated representation. Every society is essentially representatively within the bounds of the established label group. While two independent societies may both have the label group association for the color "blue", the way each society connects the idea will always be different. It's difficult to communicate the idea of label understanding outside the scope of pre-understood labels because you're using them to communicate the idea. While language has a large part in determining label groups, there are many other cultural contexts that play a part in doing so. While all of the Latin based languages may share similar label groups because they've conformed to pre-existing connections between different ideas, other cultural events throughout history will lead to each individual society to understand things differently. While this idea can apply from governed state to governed state, it's much more prevalent and apparent amongst groups with different languages. The understanding of how this affects your desire creation is very necessary in determining some of the causes of subconscious yearning. I'd like to make my next post on the wide variety of "labels" and how they can affect people in order to possibly make some new connections. Also, labels can consist of sentences and statements. Anything that may attach to a pre-conceived notion (so almost anything, including pre-conceived notions)

- Natural disposition

This is to be understood as the natural favorings of your biological mechanism based purely on outside, physical events that have happened. Not entirely separate from labels, but labels essentially govern the experience of your natural disposition. Something entirely caused by an outside, or presumed to be physical change of the environment surrounding you.



As I can discern more influences, whether or not they are of higher importance, I will continue this list.

Acting

I have the ability to quench desires to emulate actual instances PHYSICALLY.
I am only able to quench these desires MENTALLY so much as I can create an entirely new event on the basis of an older memory.


Separate note: Should credibility exist for authors of ethical issues or applications? Can one become better at describing/analyzing ethics? Or does one simply become better at describing and analyzing?

Ethics

Is personal utility (satisfaction, pleasure) not the ultimate guiding factor when deciding to apply any ethical theory?

In other words, if I presented the question, "why is the divine command theory the best method of applying morals to an ethical view?" Wouldn't the answer unequivocally be, regardless of the previous theory questioned, that it will predictably increase the chance of any random chosen person's satisfaction more than another theory?

It would seem that utilitarianism, as addressed on page 17 of Houlgate's "Morals, Marriage, and Parenthood" comes close to supporting that idea. However, there are two major criticisms I can find in Mill's writings that leave holes in utilitarian application. To clarify how utilitarianism relates to a sense of personal utility, though, I'd like to first challenge Ross' criticism. Ross contends that even if a "utility score" is equal in helping two people - a stranger, and a family member - we "ought to" help the family member. First of all, this is hardly supported by any kind of reasoning, so I can still ask "why?" Also, I can contend that it is typical that helping someone with whom you have a close relationship will raise your satisfaction more than helping a stranger (for a few reasons), which would still be the utilitarian decision. 

This brings me to a discrepancy, however. Utilitarianism is still only the most viable ethical theory IF it increases the chance of any random person's satisfaction level being higher (and therefore the chance of mine being higher raises as well.) The second criticism then, is that rather than being a moral "obligation" - it is more a personal decision to try and increase the overall satisfaction of one's life - the inherent sense of personal utility.

"Explicit" vs "Implicit" desires

After a recent debate, I realized something. In any conversation of "moral" action - one which includes the ability to make decisions - there needs to be a point where "should" and "should not" can be directly applied as far as potential for action. I'll include a sample conversation to further the idea -

A - "Do not talk about cooking as the action "talking about cooking" bothers me, and you are willingly doing so."

B - "My motivation towards "talking about cooking" is able to be influenced, it now has, and I will no longer do so, even though I like to talk about cooking - because if I maximize your satisfaction I will also naturally feel better in that you will likely care to maximize mine."

A - "On second thought, it also bothers me that you like to talk about cooking, whether or not you actually partake in it. My satisfaction will increase if you stop."

B - " I cannot stop as I do not decide my preferences."

A - "However, you can stop talking about it, though it wasn't a real "decision" to talk about it in the first place? What is the difference?"


In order to explain this discrepancy, let's single out the most conflicting factors.

In order of appearance:              "spark"  Interest     |      Desire          |         Action
                                                                 -no motivation-        -motivated by-

----------

Before I go any further with this idea, I want to clarify something essentially unrelated so that I do not forget.

Reality as we agree upon is built on a number of conditional statements. I'd like to take the idea "reality as we agree upon" and conform it to mean "reality". The knowledge of all that isn't can only be progressive in that it reveals what we agree "is". But, we have to agree, for my satisfaction hinges on the idea that others can utilize the information and apply it as well. In this way, my desires are flawed in that they are not solely independent (in which case I also have faith in my own ability to directly increase my own satisfaction more so than dependence.) Everything should be clear and concise. This is the route to agreement, and with the same information, we should all agree, dependent on the original conditional statements I referred to. It would be interesting to lay them out, but I won't, for some reasons. Just keep in mind that I would use quotes over every word if it didn't inhibit the impact of quotes over words that are especially context dependent. (also tiring)

--------

So, back to the idea from before the interruption. Basically, what I'm trying to clarify is that a preference, belief, or thought, is not in itself quenching a motivated desire to have itself. Because it is not desire based, there is no action presented that creates it, it is solely considered a reaction.

An action is what we'll consider something that is quenching a desire. There is a motivation.                      

Priority Voting in reference to a Utilitarian Government

Some years ago, I was considering ways in which a government could be more personally utilitarian. What I concluded is that the idea of a majority vote is very flawed. It does not take satisfaction or priority into account. In other words, if 51% of people would be only slightly satisfied that something is being passed, compared to the 49% who would have a much larger decrease in satisfaction, then, this is very limiting. However, there is a solution that will leave the randomly chosen person (RCP) with a higher chance of being satisfied at any given -moment. I call it "priority voting" -

This method would allow voters to assign numbers (-2,-1,0,1,2) to policies or issues, with respect to predicted satisfaction, each one on a limited basis. This forces the voter to prioritize their wants, resulting in a greater chance for satisfaction for all.

As I mentioned, the RCP plays a large role in the idea of Randomly Chosen Person utilitarianism. This encompasses a moral or ethical view of the world. Because satisfaction is the main driving factor of all actions, it should  be readily acceptable that the best world is one in which you as an individual are satisfied. Even if everyone else is dissatisfied, yet you feel satisfied, then you are feeling good about life. This isn't to say that you are a good or bad person, only that you are in a favorable situation. So, as a personal utilitarian, your chance of being satisfied is increased so long as the chance for the RCP to be satisfied at any given moment is higher. This results in all kinds of conclusions. For instance, it provides that you should help other people achieve satisfaction (or what would typically be referred to as a "good" person) - because it would result in a higher RCP satisfaction rate.

This also supports the idea of priority voting.

Quick note on argument

The other day I was debating with a friend about the importance of semantics (word use & definition) regarding any argument. This lead me to the following conclusion:

The only legitimate discrepancy in any argument is solely a lack of evidence for the likelihood of a specific event, at its smallest level.

More on this later -

Guilt & Society

In the previous post, I attempted to establish the idea that choice is essentially an oxymoron and that we are forced into every specific action based entirely on what our brain conceives is the most satisfying one.

Because I realize that the maximization of satisfaction is the ultimate goal for all people, the idea that philosophy should be "practical" and immediately applicable is favorable to me. (More like Spinoza, less like Nietzsche) So I will now demonstrate a way that we can benefit from the acceptance of our absence of choice.


Part of achieving the goal of maximized satisfaction includes avoiding (or isolating) all "feelings" that reduce your satisfaction. I would say that "guilt" is generally one of these feelings. However, "guilt" and "regret" are flawed as concepts because of the illusion of choice. I'll explain:

At the time of choice, we have no real decision to make, other than to follow our unavoidable immediate desire quenching. Because there is no real decision, the person has actually done nothing to choose this action or outcome, and therefore can not be "blamed". This gets tricky - because you are still physically responsible as a cause of the responding events. However, it is not your "choice" to have maximized satisfaction in the particular action, so it is really not you that has caused this to happen, it is a number of external factors that caused you to find maximized satisfaction in a particular outlet. Take a murderer for instance:

The murderer feels most satisfied when he kills someone. If he doesn't kill someone, he doesn't feel as satisfied. He never decided what satisfies him the most, throughout his entire life, external factors shaped his desire complexes. In essence, it is not his fault that he kills people, it is the fault of everything ever that lead him to find most satisfaction in killing. HOWEVER, this is not to say that he should not be punished - which leads me to my next point.

The best situation for any society is maximized satisfaction for all peoples in the society. While "GUILT" and "BLAME" don't exist as far as personal responsibility, "PUNISHMENT" must still exist in order to come closer to achieving this ultimate goal. Let's say the murderer is caught and found to be physically responsible for what we consider to be a "crime". This is what I would essentially be saying to them:

"I understand that it is not your fault that you find most satisfaction in killing. In fact, you are simply a vessel acting to quench desires and experience the resulting emotions. Unfortunately for you, our society also understands that allowance of these events and the knowledge that your free existence hinders a specified amount of potential satisfaction, it is in our best interest that you (insert supportive punishment here)."



This is just one applicable consequence of the realization of a lack of a choice. Eventually I'll likely clarify what it means to be a "personal utilitarian", what I consider to be the simplest and most honest world view, that also  is a very key idea in almost any moral consideration.

Introduction

There are two principles that apply not only to the majority of my conclusions but to what I have realized to be every action of both humans and society.

I. The popular concept of "choice" doesn't exist. We are essentially continuously satisfying desires that are beyond our control. Bottom line: We can't to decide to decide something. More on this:

Every action we take - every step, every word we say, every slight movement of our right hand, is the exact and only action that your brain is convinced to be the most satisfying action. If we believed anything else to be a more satisfying action, we would take that action instead. Also, we don't decide that this is the most satisfying action for our brain. Even if you worked out that somehow you "decided" that it was the most satisfying action, you can't decide to decide that. It just "happens" to you. The trail of motivation starts somewhere without our control. So, we don't have what is considered to be a "say" in any of our actions. We're essentially robots following our own inbred commands - which were mainly created by a large group of experiences and how our genetics have interacted with them.

I have found that this principle, along with the next, can lead to some very useful and applicable conclusions which I will go over later.

II. What I call "satisfaction" is the ultimate motivating factor in all humans and societies. It is essentially the quenching of any desire. It's existence implies the lack of desire for change - essentially, it is the embodiment of attraction.

While this may seem simple to some, it is widely overlooked and hardly ever applied in a way that leads to practical inferences (in my experiences). I don't like to use the term "happiness" because I believe people sometimes find satisfaction in experiencing other emotions as well. Still, in general, it is very comparable to the idea of happiness.

Here is an example of a conclusion reached from the combination of these two ideas:

We are all entirely "selfish"


I've had success opening up people to this concept of selfishness by making the following claim: Mother Teresa is 100% selfish.

I can say this because if Mother Teresa wouldn't have helped others, she wouldn't have been as satisfied. She was working purely to satisfy her "desire complex". We are all constantly taking every action specifically to satisfy ourselves. Even if you think you are sacrificing your own happiness to make someone else feel good, you are only doing it because you feel most satisfied taking that action, otherwise you would have done something else. So remember, we don't choose what desires guide us. We are essentially selfish robots.
 Don't let the negative preconceived notions you likely have influence your understanding of this. There is nothing inherently wrong with it, and it is impossible to overcome, simply an observation. In fact, I am obeying it now with every word I type. I just can't avoid it.

For many people, these concepts are simple, or they may have already came to these conclusions. In this case, further observations should tend to be very agreeable. However, I have met plenty of criticisms. I assure you that this is a sound idea, but will be open to further deliberation in the future.

Subjective Objectivity in regards to Identity

In eliminating all self and external biases, one can come closer to achieving what I consider an "objective" state of mind. To make any further implications, first we must classify the term "bias" in this context. For this, we shall consider a "bias" any natural "favorings" of a person, in which one finds satisfaction. The act of "favoring" can be closely tied in with things like "tastes" and opinions.

In this case, "biases" are more than likely what a person would consider to create their personality: the things they gravitate toward, skewing their reactions and actions as well.

This can clarify that on the path to enabling as many objective thoughts as possible, one must be able to ignore the things that make up what is being considered "personality" at the time of thought.

In this sense, a person who acts (successfully) generally "objective" also acts generally without what is being considered "personality".  

If we assume that a loss of personality is undesirable (which will eventually be explained), and also conclude that it is implicit that acting objective is motivated by its ability to increase satisfaction, then we can then answer this question: At what point should one stop attempting to rid themselves of biases? The answer:

Rid yourself of biases in order to enable objective reasoning until the amount of satisfaction gained by the reasoning itself or by solely quenching the desire to act objective does not exceed the satisfaction lost in the loss of personality.

The purpose of this post was to clarify one discrepancy I have with the above idea: Can objective reasoning be favored? Or can you say that the original bias is favoring the truth, in which objective reasoning serves as a vessel for that bias?