Home About Contact # Philosophical Ideas **_by Joachim de Fourestier_** <small> _Disclaimer_: Most of these are works-in-progress and my little notes that I write mostly for myself. Hopefully with time, I can grow these ideas, improve and rectify them. These are mostly written in the sense of a "pastime" and should not be considered as my current view or state of things. Ideas evolve and need to change, be revised, be reviewed, be criticized... </small> -------------------------------- ###Random Quote #1 "Tout est absolument relatif." / "Everything is absolutely relative." ###Random Quote #2 "The absolute is just relativity wearing its tuxedo." ###The Sign of Ignorance It is in my belief that one must be open-minded in order to think [*clearly*], to be authentic and to be able to progress [*in all*]. Nothing is *simply* "correct", nor is anything *simply* "wrong". On the expression of one's perception/belief (on a subject), the *automatic* reaction of rejection or denial without consent of the **full** expression is a sign of *ignorance*. In other words, I am open to all opinions. I welcome you to express yourself **fully** when necessary. ###Random Quote #3 "Une idée authentique, peu importe si elle est vraie ou fausse, implique une _certaine_ (quantité) véritée." ###L'Imposition des Valeurs d'Autrui (IVA) / The Imposition of Values from Others (IVO) **[WIP]** Notes: - Forced cause. Imposed to react and respond to a moral call that is/was placed in amorally/selfishly/objectively? Or immorally. Etc. - Ex1: “Split the costs”: two must buy the same, but the price is different for the two. One has a cheaper price but splits the cost with the other who has a more expensive price. P1: ethical/moral in Ethics of Responsibility (H. Jonas) sense. P2: would not be right to impose it. - Ex2: The saying of "when I'm alone, I **have to** need to share." or "sharing is caring.", there is this innate moral conformity to respect. - Ex3: Asking for help: it is isn't wrong to accept, or is it? Is wrong to ask for help? Is it wrong to refuse to help? Is the goal out of your hands or not? - Ex4: “Hesitant outings”: you ask a friend to go out and see a movie. The theatre is relatively far. Possibly, you ask to leave together. You friend finally says that he or she will not available. You eventually manage your to the theatre. Your friend then says that he or she finally decided to come. However, you've arrived and are about to start the movie. P1 ….. [WIP] - Ex5: There's a holiday coming up. A friend asks you to visit them. However, you know that this holiday is rather important to your elders/parents. Nothing is set “in stone”, but leaving or staying has implications on both parties. - Ex6: Your good friend from Montreal is visiting for a short time (say it is a rare occasion and he lives relatively far) but your other friend had already planned an event about 2 weeks ago. You notify him or even possibly both. right or wrong? Which is which? - Ex7: Old friend invites you over, however your girlfriend is sleeping over. Your friend has not met her yet. He is currently watching TV with his dad. It would be akward"". Gf feels bad for being in between. Either way theres no wrong doing, or is there? ###Random Quote #4 "If an _insult_ [or something] is false, then one may express anger because it was probably meant to harm one. But, when an insult is true, then anger should not be expressed, for it may have been used as a reminder to one." ###Random Quote #5 I used to think that one should never be angry. With time, I realized that is not the case. I do believe that one should avoid anger, but there is a time for anger. One may be angry if it is in the purpose to get attention when all else fails. The matter is in reality that one should not "give in" to anger, to simply let it fall on others. ###Random Quote #6 "Life is like a tree, you don't define it." ###Random Quote #7 "So, you want to do it the _moral_ way or the _logical_ way?" ###Reason is biased Is rationality right? Is reason itself the "correct" path? It seems to be an assumption that one makes almost inevitably. "Rationalizing" this idea is in itself a biased way at attempting to resolve this problem, because we then fall into the trap of our own default assumption that reason is _the_ correct path. What if reason is not something we should follow, to rely on? But then... "It makes no sense!" ... Correct. That's the point. This question may seem childish, but is truly quite interesting since it tackles directly our minds' only(?) means of _intellectual_ defense. ###Why do we live? Is life's priority health, happiness, kindness? What is joy? I used to think that it was simply for happiness as Descartes might have thought. If we are unhealthy, it does not make us happy but most likely makes us unhappy. That is why we tend to avoid sickness. Kindness can make us happy, but there seems to be something more. It is after studying Pascal, that I realized the _more_ precise answer to this question. We live for _pleasure_. In the sense, that we do as we please, and we avoid what displeases us. Does eating make you happy? Not necessarily, rather it pleases you not to be hungry. It is in the sense to avoid displeasure **and** to seek what pleases us. ###Random Quote #8 "Do not waste the essence of thought, unless one wants writer's block." ###The "How it starts" phenomenon At first, it is unthought of. Then, it is treated as privilege. Then as habit, then it becomes a "naturality" of a routine. And lastly, it morphs into a requirement, desired as right. _Note: See also [Tragedy of the commons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) ... A similar or rather "analogous" concept is that of to "set a precedent"._ _Note (2025/02/19): This is essentially [Creeping Normality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creeping_normality)._ ###Random Quote #9 "-What is it? -[incentive of fool/stupidity] -**Knowledge** does not define intelligence. -Knowledge is power. (from Francis Bacon) -Ahh, but Knowledge is nothing without the intelligence to comprehend it." ###Stress It is inevitable. It affects us greatly. Yet, we choose whether to react to it or not. ###L'argent et le Bonheur [Citation] « [...] [L'argent] représente notre confiance. Il faut retenir que le bonheur ne *provient* [(origine: La question c'est "Est-ce que le bonheur peu exister sans l'argent?")] pas de l'argent, alors l'argent ne fait pas le bonheur. Le bonheur *provient* du soi, de nos émotions. En somme, l'argent ne peut pas "faire" le bonheur, mais plutôt elle peut influencer nos émotions, nos idées. [...] En sachant cela, il est complètement inutile de dire que l'argent peut nous conduire au bonheur parce que pratiquement tout influence nos émotions (à l'exception des psychopathes). » ###Abuse [excess] of Rights Absurd. If one can abuse their own rights, then they are known as privileges, not rights. That is the clear difference between the two. ###Random Quote #10 **[Non-New]** One must take pride in what [or everything] they do in order to achieve [near absolute] success. ###Majority is impulsively better "-Well, the **majority** is right! -Is the majority smart? -No..." Here, we see that the second made the first insult oneself, because of negligence and impulsivity. ###Random Quote #11 I've come to realize that **fear** is not useless nor unimportant. It is not "stupid". What is actually "stupid", is how we choose to react to it just like what we have with stress. ###Modern Democracy is a utilitarian mesure The term democracy devrives from the term _dêmos_[¹][1] and _kratía_[²][2] from Ancient Greek signifying 'the people' and 'rule'. More modernly, the prefix "demo-", here, is used to specify the 'majority of people'[³][3]. In such a policy as _Democracy_, we aknowledge the fact of an absolute approval from all decision-making individuals is a (near impossible and ideal) utopian case. In contrast, a republic (a true one, in the sense from Ancient Rome) allows the right of _veto_. Its purpose is to restrict or moderate the power of high officials, allowing it's holder to protect the _status quo_. Explicitely, it means that absolutely all decision-making members must reach a consensus or mutual agreement. Otherwise, the status quo remains. Utilitarianism is an ethic, where its ways can be justified by its means: "the consequences of any action are the only standard of right and wrong"[⁴][4]. This is infact its strong point, because it can always achieve an answer, even in very diffcult situations. Unfortunately, this means **highly immoral** actions (_ways_) can be let by, and are as such, justified (by its means). This ethic also aims the greater quantity and quality. Thus, it can justify ignoring the cause of everything else. This is infact the clause of "**The greater good**", or in some cases "The lesser evil". Where as in Kantian ethics, it is more of an _aut omnia aut nihil_ ("all or nothing") ethic, meaning that only one _wrong_ action or consequence considers the whole action to be immoral. This philosophy declines all that is (a "little or extremely") immoral: thus it is sometimes considered to be too unforgiving. As languages evolve, so do perceptions. "Democracy" now has a positive connotation, while as "Dictatorship" has a negative connotation. That said, dictatorship in itself is not necessarily bad or wrong, but it is very often (or even automatically) assumed to be something negative. eg. Caesar was hardly the greatest man who ever ruled, but his dictatorship proved to be a promising effort in improving the life and way of its people. (Ancient Greek) Democracy aims to represent the "most opinions from all people", but what Modern Democracy infact does is representing only the opinion of the majority (of people). In other words, it is possible for a minority to rule over the entirety of the population. For example: Group A is 40% of the population, Group B is 35% and Group C is 25%. Logically, Group A wins the vote. However, the sum of Group B and Group C is 60% of the population. Thus, the minority Group A, representing only 40% of the population, has all authority over the entire population. To clarify, this is a form of "Mob Rule" or more formalily, Ochlocracy[⁵][5]: where a smaller crowd rules over the entire society. The main cause of this injustice, is an inappropriate voting system. A true democracy has the entire people involved in the decsion-making process (on **every** single decision). In other words, everyone has their "say" on everything. On the other hand, the modern version of it has its people voting for a much smaller group of individuals to then, decide what is best for all (sometimes or mostly, for themselves). Thus, not everyone has their "say". Of course, this newer voting system was put into place precisely because democracy is unfit for excessively large societies (compared to ancient times). A possible or better solution is Single-Transferable Vote (STV), since it completely abolishes the need of "startegic voting". ("strategic voting" being _somewhat_ undemocratic.) [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/demos [2]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-cracy [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy ###Random Quote #12 I've learned to always be proud of who you are. Never be afraid or ashamed of who you are. If you can't, you probably have some serious work to do... ###Random Quote #13 What's dangerous, is not too many people agreeing with each other. It is rather when these people agree too much with each other (idealists to the extreme: _extremists_), also known as fanatics. Hence the saying; "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups". ###Tax is not the true problem What is a problem? A problem is something that we want to get rid of, no matter what. People always oppose tax because they don't realize the true importance of it. Tax is a necessity in a society. In some sense, with tax, you do not work for the government. The government works for you. You are paying their salary. That said, they offer services and you decide whether it is worth the asked price or not. The fact that there is tax itself is not the problem, it is taxes that may or may not be a problem. If we decided to pay absolutely zero taxes, we would not have a government, a country, nor even a small society. We would have anarchy. Truth is, we simply don't feel like paying if we don't have to, but primarily it is because we don't feel it to be doing us any good, or good _enough_. Taxes are a problem when it is used in a non equitable manner: when we tax too little or too much. More precisely, it is when we use a flat tax system instead of a proportionate tax system. It might seem obscure. However, the true debate here is whether we go for *equality* or *equity*. > Equity. Equality. [...] They both come from the same Latin root word “aequus” meaning “equal”. So, what's the difference? > At their core, both equity and equality still involve the concept of “equal”. In equity, the outcome is equal. In equality, the means used is equal. >Source: [Erica Mills, 14/02/2014, Claxon Marketing - Language Lesson: Equity vs. Equality](http://www.claxonmarketing.com/2014/02/04/equity-vs-equality/) _Addendum_: At the time of writing this, the assumption is that there is some form of distribution (and not necessarily _redistribution_) of weatlh. ###Random Quote #14 "Act upon nothing, and chaos shall arise." ###Random Quote #15 "If you're always chasing after XX (Alcohol) and XXX (Sex), then all you're going to get are Xs (Ex-partner)." ###The Political Guide [WIP] A complex issue naturally... Main question(s) ? - "Do you mind having a little less money so that another (less fortunate) does not have to struggle for their life?" --> It is about the Deserved money for the Work or is it about sharing or more over... A more equitable distribution of weatlh, of the essentials of comfortable living? For a society, naturally depending on the subject matter in some cases, it is morality vs rationality. Reworded, it is Ethics vs Economy. Which is right and which one is wrong (relatively)? Fondamental things leading to Socialism vs Liberalism vs Conservatism. All of these have their strengths, values and vices. Note: Democracy and Republicanism are not to be viewed as Political ideologies like the three mentionned before even though these two are also "political ideologies". I personally see them in separate categories. ###The Third Party Effect/Phenomenon (TPE or TPP) [WIP] Abstract: Usually people will trust or rather be more _convinced_ by their parents than anyone (ie. strangers, classmates, friends) in specific situations. Definitions: - Let the **first** party be those you grew up and lived together with: those who will priority in trust and life threatening situations. Let this party be the most trustworthy party of all. Examples can include say, parents, sisters, brothers, husband, wife, etc. - Let the **second** party be more of a transition party: can include great and close friends to old classmates. Can also include people with high reputation. Hold this party as sorts that biology uses the protists[¹][6] group for. Let this party be the trustworthy party that can hold a small but respectful amount of doubt. - Let the **third** party be the group containing strangers, those that you may have heard of but have never met and those that have _set_ "trust status". Let this party be the "zero-based" trust worthy party. - "Zero-based" trust: let this be the "amount" of trust that one gives/associates(?) to an unknown group or individual. (Ie. "Zero" history or background knowledge of an entity). In other words, it is the _base_ amount of trust. Elaboration/development: That said, in some cases, the third party will have a greater effect than more "trustworthy" individuals or parties. However, TPP does not necessarily rely on trust; the third party might have greater on the studied individual due to other values: meaning TPP's **basis** can vary from situation to person to history of the subject/person. In other words, it is the same values or habits that we use as basis for someone to be deemed _more_ convincing: these are mainly trust and care(?), courtesy(?), authority(?), but can also include other values such as... (?) Examples: - Ex1: Say there are two ways to reach a certain point or place. Your first party contact (say your spouse) says the way of the left is shorter however you are still not convinced and believe that the way on the right might be shorter. A third party contact (could be an accompanying friend) comes into play and agrees with your first party contact, says the way on the left is shorter. Finally, you decide to go with the left. In this example, the third party contact can be seen as a statistical correlation(?appui?); when point from more distant and independent samples, the final statistical inference seems to be more reliable and therefore more _convincing_. - Ex2 ... [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protist ###Random Quote #16 "People tend to agree that correlation is a valid argument." ###Random Quote #17 "To abort at the first sign of failure, is the equivalent of the largest probable failure itself." ###Random Quote #18 "Experience is for the lack of thought. Is it for those who lack thinking? Or those who are forgetful? Or rather, is there a different sense: there is no truer experience than when one has an empty mind, free of all worries, losses and sorrows..." "You only truly experience something when you stop thinking about every single little detail." - A more abstract view/version of "practice makes perfect"? - The more experience a person has, the less thought they need to put into their actions to achieve similar respectable results as one inexperienced would; a compliment statement to "experience is the garden of thought". _Addendum_: Essentially, this could say the more you're an expert at something, the less neural activity is needed to accomplish the same task. A "superset" version is what learning is, as to be able to do more by using less. _Addendum_ #2: After further reading, I've found that this makes an interesting parallel with a quote from the rationalist Gottfried Leibniz saying "God understands through everything eternal truth, since he does not need experience" (taken from page 81, 2018, The Little Book of Philosophy). ###Software QA (Quality Assurance) Idiom Just thought I'd share and record this here... This came up in a software meeting I had. We were discussing that implementing a given feature would be rather straight-forward, but testing it would require more time because there are so many possible permutations. To summarize this, in general - perhaps not every time, I said "There's only one way to fix, but many ways to break it". Makes me think of the comedic idiom "Works a 100% of the time, 60% of the time" or something of the sort. ###Unfair System [WIP] "An unfair system breeds unfair behaviour." For example, a poor society might encourage theft to satisfy one's living needs or corruption at the high level. Or if a state or rule is too strict, too punishing, or intolerant, it encourages bad behaviour or simply individuals might see no value in respecting said rules. For example, if the punishment for a crime no matter how big or small is death, then there would be reason to respect any rules if you already committed even the smallest crime. A balance is needed, a moderate, or a level of a case by case approach is needed. Extremism in any system in any form or kind, and any amount is nearly always a potential danger. Extremism breeds extremism. We have to be careful to not polarize oneself when attempting to stop the polarization of another. _Addendum_: The punishment _has_ to fit the crime. If the sanction is disproportionate, then the rule/law is questioned, or possibly even worth disrespecting. If a penatly is too great, then there's likely no reason to further respect a given rule after the first offense. If a penalty is too little, then there's likely no reason to respect a given rule in the first place. In other words, the penalty needs to be just enough "annoying" to be undesired. _Addendum_ #2: A possibility for redemption needs to be realistic and available, otherwise there is no reason, amorally speaking, to cease said "bad" behaviour. ###Random Quote #19 "If you're going to complain, make sure it's with good intentions." ###Random Quote / Thought #20 "Chemistry is applied physics which is applied math which is applied philosophy." ###Random Quote / Thought #21 "Rules are for people with no common sense." ###Random Quote / Thought #22 "It is unfortunate that we often punish the good many because of the evil few." ###Random Quote / Thought #23 "Violence is inevitable when society fails us." ###Random Quote / Thought #24 "Hate speech is not free speech."