Mr. Civility wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 1:21 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 9:36 am
1. What does the word 'civility' mean and/or refer to, to you, exactly? Or, in other words what is 'civility', exactly, according to your own formulation?
2. What is 'philosophy' to you, exactly, which a lot of is included in your own formulation of 'civility'?
Good direct questions. Here are direct answers.
1. Civility, according to my formulation, means building and maintaining peace in society (civilization) by acting in a stable way.
Stable actions are based on
a) treating everyone, including yourself, as an individual.
b) treating everyone based on factual needs not arbitrary wants.
c) treating everyone with honesty by revealing relevant information (e.g personal matters might be irrelevant)
Well every individual human being is an individual human being, right?
Every, and all, individual human beings need the exact same things, which is about only four things, right?
What is 'relevant', or not, is relative to the individual observer, or the individual human being, right?
Mr. Civility wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 1:21 pm
Putting this formulation to practical use is the tricky part. I'll share some examples in Walker's thread.
2. Philosophy, according to a common formulation, means the love of knowledge. For me it comes down to seeking more knowledge and understanding in particular. It is impossible to act in a stable way without researching the facts and understanding enough about other individuals and their needs.
But, each individual human being has the exact same needs. This knowledge was already been arrived at, after obtaining the facts.
Mr. Civility wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2024 1:21 pm
That's the short of it. What do you think about these two concepts
What I think is that they are your individual concepts, which;
1. Why is a 'stable way' necessary for building and maintaining peace, in a society?
2. Why is treating every one, as an individual, so-called 'acting in a stable way', exactly? For example, why would treating groups of human beings like, for example, children, and, adults differently, or just treating all human beings as 'human beings' the same, not be a so-called 'stable way'?
3. One could only treat every one based on factual, or actual, needs, and not just on wants, collectively nor arbitrarily, only once one has learned and knows the actual difference between human wants, and, human needs, right? Do you yet know what human beings actually 'need', and thus can also distinguish between human beings' 'needs', from what are just 'wants'?
4. Revealing 'relevant' information, honestly, is way too 'relative' to be of any actual success or of any real usefulness here. For example, I might rape and murder a child, for example, but then find or decide that revealing 'that information' is not 'relevant' here. But, which some other individual, like "yourself", might consider revealing 'that information' would be 'relevant'. (But, without any direct guidance nor correlation to what the 'relevant' word is, literally, relevant to, each and every individual human being could be on their own, here.)
Also, and by the way, I found that by just treating absolutely every one with Trust, Respect, Understanding, Empathy, with Loyalty (Honesty), Openness, Voluntary, Enthusiasm, with and for absolutely every individual one, then this is what causes, creates, and keeps what you call 'civility', in place. Or, what I just call, 'Every one just living in peace and harmony together, as One'.