Practical Reason

Lessons

1. Create Your Own Belief System
2. Choose Your Core Value

Lesson 2: Choose Your Core Value

Introduction

In the previous lesson, I explained how to develop your own belief system. In writing this chapter, my aim is to help you figure out your core value. I will also explain the relationship between a belief system and a core value, so that you can reflect upon your belief system from the first lesson.

Section 1: Definitions

Core values are subjective, making them personal preferences. That said, you can only choose one core value at a time. Here is a sensible list to choose from:

• Trustworthiness (emet): trustworthiness to meet expectations. Broadly speaking, this manifests into active pursuit of long-lasting traditions on the outskirts.
• Excellence (arete): pursuit of excellence. This can be achieved with a talented and hard-working population.
• Love (agape): altruistic desire. More on that later.
• Truth: correspondence. The correspondence theory of truth says that a proposition is true--IF and only IF--it corresponds to (agrees with) some fact or state of affairs in reality.
• Desire: the philosopher Jon Stuart Mill (JSM) distinguishes between intellectual pleasures and swinelike pleasures. In my taxonomy, desire is swinelike.
• Degeneracy: active pursuit of destruction. A degenerate is somebody who would bring about the collapse of society if the herd became like him or her.
• Nihilism: the refusal to choose a core value. It is unclear whether nihilism itself constitutes a core value.

Section 2: Applications

What you should know is that a core value is not strictly part of your belief system. That said, it is possible to have an axiom in your belief system that logically blocks out certain options of core values. For example, an axiom like "The Pope is the infallible authority" restricts you from assigning something like desire to be your core value if you want to be logically consistent. But maybe you don't want to be logically consistent?

Personally, I choose emet. My Simple Pragmatist belief system (see lesson 1) does not logically force me to choose this value, but they work together hand in hand.

Interestingly, humility can be derived both from emet and from agape.

Section 3: Examples

Orthodoxy: acknowledges the Old Testament and the New Testament under the interpretation of Apolistic succession. In my opinion, Orthodox Christians should assign truth to be their core value if they want to be logically consistent. I say this because Orthodoxy is rooted in Neo-Platonism, and Plato was an ideological rationalist which is equivalent to a pursuer of correspondence truth.

Pre-Vatican Catholicism: acknowledges the Old Testament and the New Testament under the interpretation of the Magisterium, while rejecting Papal authority. I guess that Catholicism is rooted in Neo-Aristotelianism. Since Aristotle (and consequently, the Magisterium) valued fluorishing in the form of noble friendships and sociopolitical orientation, Pre-Vatican Catholics should assign agape to be their core value if they want to be logically consistent.

Vatican Catholicism: acknowledges Papal authority. Accordingly, Vatican Catholics should assign agape to be their core value if they want to be logically consistent.

Marcionism: an archaic branch of Christianity that acknowledges the New Testament but rejects the Old Testament. Around 200 AD, Marcion of Sinope curated the New Testament (e.g., Luke's Gospel and Paul's Letters) to forcefully divorce the Old Testament. I guess that Marcions should assign agape to be their core value for logical consistency?

Protestantism: acknowledges the Old Testament and the New Testament without an external interpreter. As a result, Protestantism is extremely schismatic and thus needs its own sub-categories of Protestant denominations:

1. Neo-Ockhamism: boasts Lutherans, Calvinists, and Brethrens (more commonly known as Anabaptists, which have their own schismatic branches such as the Hutterites, Old Order Mennonites, Amish, Conservative Mennonites, Liberal Mennonites, Quakers, and Puritans). In my opinion, Neo-Ockhamists can choose emet or agape and still be logically consistent.


2. Evangelicalism: rooted in the Reformation Doctrine. It boasts Presbytarians, Anglicans, Baptists, Pentecostals, and Non-Denominational Christians. I guess that Evangelicals tend to choose truth for their core value.

Non-Christian Examples

Mikraite: acknowledges a Christened-translation of the Old Testament without external scripture or interpretation. For example, Mik'raites reject (or lack affirmation of) the Talmud, the New Testament, and the oral teachings of the Torah itself. Mik'raites seem to have a choice between emet or arete for logical consistency?

Karaite: similar to Mikraite, but acknowledges a Hebrew-translation of the Old Testament instead. In other words, the Torah. Karaites should almost certainly choose emet if they want to be logically consistent?

Orthodox Judaism: acknowledges the Torah, the oral teachings of the Torah, and the Talmud. In my opinion, Orthodox Jews should choose emet if they want to be logically consistent.

Classical Islam: acknowledges the Quran without rationalist doctrines (e.g., Suf'ism, Wahabism, Mu'tazila, Ash'arism). There is much consequential overlap between Mikraite and Classical Islam. Indeed, Ancient Islamists should probably choose emet or arete for their core value.

Sunni Islam: acknowledges the Quran, Hadiths from the Caliphate, Suf'ism, Wahabism, Ash'arism, and purports the word of Allah to be uncreated. Although, a small minority of Sunnis who affirm Mu'tazila might believe that the word of Allah is created.

Shia Islam: acknowledges the Quran, Hadiths from the Imamate, Suf'ism, rejects Wahabism, and can choose to believe that the word of Allah is created or uncreated as a result.

Nation of Islam: holds that Yakub the Big Head Scientist created the Hyperborean/White/Aryan race both by selectively breeding brown-skinned people to have lighter skin, and by grafting those people with plants to create a new hybrid species of Aryan people, after which point the Aryans enslaved the Berbers and the Arabs for over 5000 years.

Nazism: a racially eugenic attempt to reconcile traditionalism with scientific accelerationism. Nazism is surprisingly schismatic:

1. Hitlerian Nazism or Mussolini-Style Fascism: a naturalistic and empiricist branch of Nazism. I think Hitlerians see themselves as pursuing excellence.


2. Darwinian Nazism: a naturalistic and rationalist branch of Nazism. I think Darwinian Nazis see themselves as pursuing truth or excellence.


3. Satanic Nazism: a theistic and empiricist branch of Nazism. I think Satanic Nazis see themselves as pursuing degeneracy (destruction).


4. Himmlerian Nazism: a theistic and rationalist branch, boasting Esotericists, Mysticists (e.g., Quisling), and Idealistic Nazis (e.g., Heidegger). I think Himmlerians see themselves as pursuing truth.

Secular Humanism: also known as New-Age Atheism, which is surprisingly not schismatic despite of their conviction to conquer superstition. Some good exemplars include the Four Horsemen of New Atheism: Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris. Additionally, one can include the skeptic community boasting Matt Dillahunty, Aron Ra, pre-conspiracy Armored Skeptic, CosmicSkeptic, GodlessGirl, etc. I think they all see themselves as pursuers of truth.

Section 4: Practice

Recall your axiom(s) from your belief system. Then, consider which values are compatible with your axioms. Finally, choose your core value based on personal preference.