one problem with doing too much philosophy is you can fall thru the cracks into doing finer points, without proper emphasis on the basics that really matter: like dithering on about exceptions to being against war, when i should for the public good be loudly emphasizing the basics: i am anti-war, anti-violence, & even was a vegan for 10 years, until i was given some unrelated health troubles.

so – i’ve been thinking about getting back to basics, emphasizing the main ideas we need to live by, rather than the finer points, leaving the main idea unnurtured.

People are my 1st choice for a fundamental value. valuing People over Things for example – over Money (re Mammon), valuing a person as a whole, not their use for you; being human-centric, like in Philosophy, putting away “Cosmology”/Nature/Science/Things for Ethics, Life Philosophy, the human experience.

Love would be my 2nd choice, which used to be the first but – another finer point – i’d rather have People than Love, since Love is ‘just’ a thing… but, Love is no ordinary thing.

Love is The Greatest Thing, i can assuringly say, & we are most wise to live in Love: to do with Love: think with Love, speak/express with Love, & act with Love. i can assure you, it is like instant wisdom to learn to value Love properly, which is almost infinite. (i’ll pass on making any finer points here =))

lastly, what helped me rewrite this post even, when it got deleted: Positivity. if Love is the best moral guideline, then i would say Positivity is the best ethical guideline, which stands for persevering, being resilient, finding opportunity, finding happiness, & nurturing others. ”’Positivity is the language humans speak.”’ i would say – i would say the same about the other two as well — you will be listened to, received, & affect better, if you are supremely Positive.

that wraps this up. just felt i was getting a little too much into finer points, been wanting to hammer the basics for a few weeks now.

Thanks For Listening!
Joe

i just wanted to clear up something that it would be easy to misread from me.

i am not convinced we SHOULD negotiate with terrorists kidnappers, when they say & have used large past ransoms for killing more lives than are taken hostage – that is, in their case, more lives will be saved if we don’t send them 60 million dollars to fund their rocket launchers, guns, bombs, & their terrorist operations as a whole.

my understanding of hostage policy, which i used metaphorically, was something like you give them what they want, but then as soon as you get the hostages back you f– i mean, you capture them, etc. bring them to justice. that may not always be feasible, come to think of it now, tho. that may be a little more movie hostage policy than real life. i would entrust those in charge to determine the optimal general strategy & case-by-case solution — it seems right to me to not fund 300 deaths for to save 1 life, etc.

that is all =)

take care, & my apologies as well as congratulations to the Foleys — my apologies for their loss, but my congratulations on having a great & brave son who risked & ultimately gave his life to better civilization. kudos.

Joe