Systemism

I am now officially coining the term "Systemism".

Sure, during a Google search I've seen it used a few times before but it has in no way become a popularized term. I'd like to do that now, and by my definition of it.

The First Tenant of Systemism is:

Every conscious entity with the ability to feel both happiness and non-happiness logically has from thence a direct, intrinsic and unalienable purpose to pursue the former.

The Second Tenant of Systemism is:

The way in which happiness can be most logically obtained is through an integrated system on an individual's environment which applies the desired outcome of the first tenant universally. That is, a system which causes the most happiness for every individual contained within it.

The Basic Statement of Systemism:

Happiness is purpose and knowing how to best obtain it is morality.

At 3/7/2010 11:09:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The Second Tenant of Systemism is:

The way in which happiness can be most logically obtained is through an integrated system on an individual's environment which applies the desired outcome of the first tenant universally. That is, a system which causes the most happiness for every individual contained within it.

What if System 1 would make A feel really happy and B feel only rather happy and System 2 would make A feel only rather happy and B really happy?

This looks a lot like Objectivism.

Ensure comfortable living, not happiness. As Reasoning pointed out, it wouldn't work otherwise. People will always have ideological differences, but all can agree on comfortable living.

At 3/7/2010 11:27:10 PM, Reasoning wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:09:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The Second Tenant of Systemism is:

The way in which happiness can be most logically obtained is through an integrated system on an individual's environment which applies the desired outcome of the first tenant universally. That is, a system which causes the most happiness for every individual contained within it.

What if System 1 would make A feel really happy and B feel only rather happy and System 2 would make A feel only rather happy and B really happy?

Whichever makes each individual more happy. It isn't a majority thing. It would imply a minimal standard of living for all. That may sound Socialist but it's not, it simply means smaller groups of people shouldn't be abused just because it makes the majority happier.

At 3/7/2010 11:44:31 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
This looks a lot like Objectivism.

It's very similar.

At 3/7/2010 11:51:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:44:31 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
This looks a lot like Objectivism.

It's very similar.

...how is it different?

At 3/7/2010 11:47:42 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Ensure comfortable living, not happiness. As Reasoning pointed out, it wouldn't work otherwise. People will always have ideological differences, but all can agree on comfortable living.

Comfortable living doesn't bring happiness?

I think your mistaking this for a purely political philosophy. It's meant to be applied to all social situations.

At 3/7/2010 11:59:35 PM, PoeJoe wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:51:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:44:31 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
This looks a lot like Objectivism.

It's very similar.

...how is it different?

He makes it intrinsic. :P

At 3/7/2010 11:59:35 PM, PoeJoe wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:51:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:44:31 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
This looks a lot like Objectivism.

It's very similar.

...how is it different?

Objectivism is very specific.

Systemists don't necessarily have to be Atheist or Minarchist.

In fact, if anything in terms of politics, it may imply economic moderation. A Systemist should be looking for a system which provides the best average of both the highest maximum standard of living(Capitalism) and the highest minimum standard of living(Socialism).

Also, more utilitarian than not.

At 3/8/2010 12:04:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:59:35 PM, PoeJoe wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:51:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:44:31 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
This looks a lot like Objectivism.

It's very similar.

...how is it different?

Objectivism is very specific.

Systemists don't necessarily have to be Atheist or Minarchist.

In fact, if anything in terms of politics, it may imply economic moderation. A Systemist should be looking for a system which provides the best average of both the highest maximum standard of living(Capitalism) and the highest minimum standard of living(Socialism).

If your goal is to maximise happiness how does equal moderation when you confirm it's less than to another alternative?

At 3/8/2010 12:04:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:59:35 PM, PoeJoe wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:51:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:44:31 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
This looks a lot like Objectivism.

It's very similar.

...how is it different?

Objectivism is very specific.

Systemists don't necessarily have to be Atheist or Minarchist.

In fact, if anything in terms of politics, it may imply economic moderation. A Systemist should be looking for a system which provides the best average of both the highest maximum standard of living(Capitalism) and the highest minimum standard of living(Socialism).

Well, I'd disagree with your definitions of Capitalism and Socialism, but...

So, "Systemism" is just Democracy spun around to sound cool?

At 3/8/2010 12:06:03 AM, Puck wrote:
Also, more utilitarian than not.

Your probably right. It's like a middle ground between Egoism and Utilitarianism.

At 3/8/2010 12:07:55 AM, PoeJoe wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:04:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:59:35 PM, PoeJoe wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:51:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:44:31 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
This looks a lot like Objectivism.

It's very similar.

...how is it different?

Objectivism is very specific.

Systemists don't necessarily have to be Atheist or Minarchist.

In fact, if anything in terms of politics, it may imply economic moderation. A Systemist should be looking for a system which provides the best average of both the highest maximum standard of living(Capitalism) and the highest minimum standard of living(Socialism).

Well, I'd disagree with your definitions of Capitalism and Socialism, but...

So, "Systemism" is just Democracy spun around to sound cool?

No no no. Like I said to Reasoning, "Whichever makes each individual more happy. It isn't a majority thing. It would imply a minimal standard of living for all. That may sound Socialist but it's not, it simply means smaller groups of people shouldn't be abused just because it makes the majority happier."

At 3/8/2010 12:07:56 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:06:03 AM, Puck wrote:
Also, more utilitarian than not.

Your probably right. It's like a middle ground between Egoism and Utilitarianism.

What's not util about it? You want to maximise happiness - and propose the best economic system is that which achieves it.

At 3/8/2010 12:07:50 AM, Puck wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:04:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:59:35 PM, PoeJoe wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:51:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:44:31 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
This looks a lot like Objectivism.

It's very similar.

...how is it different?

Objectivism is very specific.

Systemists don't necessarily have to be Atheist or Minarchist.

In fact, if anything in terms of politics, it may imply economic moderation. A Systemist should be looking for a system which provides the best average of both the highest maximum standard of living(Capitalism) and the highest minimum standard of living(Socialism).

If your goal is to maximise happiness how does equal moderation when you confirm it's less than to another alternative?

I'm not sure what your asking.

At 3/8/2010 12:09:44 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:07:55 AM, PoeJoe wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:04:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:59:35 PM, PoeJoe wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:51:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:44:31 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
This looks a lot like Objectivism.

It's very similar.

...how is it different?

Objectivism is very specific.

Systemists don't necessarily have to be Atheist or Minarchist.

In fact, if anything in terms of politics, it may imply economic moderation. A Systemist should be looking for a system which provides the best average of both the highest maximum standard of living(Capitalism) and the highest minimum standard of living(Socialism).

Well, I'd disagree with your definitions of Capitalism and Socialism, but...

So, "Systemism" is just Democracy spun around to sound cool?

No no no. Like I said to Reasoning, "Whichever makes each individual more happy. It isn't a majority thing. It would imply a minimal standard of living for all. That may sound Socialist but it's not, it simply means smaller groups of people shouldn't be abused just because it makes the majority happier."

Well if it makes them happier to do so.. Problem is your standard is relativistic.

At 3/8/2010 12:10:34 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:07:50 AM, Puck wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:04:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:59:35 PM, PoeJoe wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:51:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:44:31 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
This looks a lot like Objectivism.

It's very similar.

...how is it different?

Objectivism is very specific.

Systemists don't necessarily have to be Atheist or Minarchist.

In fact, if anything in terms of politics, it may imply economic moderation. A Systemist should be looking for a system which provides the best average of both the highest maximum standard of living(Capitalism) and the highest minimum standard of living(Socialism).

If your goal is to maximise happiness how does equal moderation when you confirm it's less than to another alternative?

I'm not sure what your asking.

Maximising a position by advocating mediocrity in some degree is not compatible.

At 3/8/2010 12:10:03 AM, Puck wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:07:56 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:06:03 AM, Puck wrote:
Also, more utilitarian than not.

Your probably right. It's like a middle ground between Egoism and Utilitarianism.

What's not util about it? You want to maximise happiness - and propose the best economic system is that which achieves it.

I would think it implies a little more selfishness. It's base is actually selfishness, instead of claiming to do what is best for all for it's own sake.

At 3/8/2010 12:11:37 AM, Puck wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:09:44 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:07:55 AM, PoeJoe wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:04:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:59:35 PM, PoeJoe wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:51:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:44:31 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
This looks a lot like Objectivism.

It's very similar.

...how is it different?

Objectivism is very specific.

Systemists don't necessarily have to be Atheist or Minarchist.

In fact, if anything in terms of politics, it may imply economic moderation. A Systemist should be looking for a system which provides the best average of both the highest maximum standard of living(Capitalism) and the highest minimum standard of living(Socialism).

Well, I'd disagree with your definitions of Capitalism and Socialism, but...

So, "Systemism" is just Democracy spun around to sound cool?

No no no. Like I said to Reasoning, "Whichever makes each individual more happy. It isn't a majority thing. It would imply a minimal standard of living for all. That may sound Socialist but it's not, it simply means smaller groups of people shouldn't be abused just because it makes the majority happier."

Well if it makes them happier to do so.. Problem is your standard is relativistic.

True. I would try to subject each system to as much scientific scrutiny as possible.

At 3/8/2010 12:13:04 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:10:03 AM, Puck wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:07:56 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:06:03 AM, Puck wrote:
Also, more utilitarian than not.

Your probably right. It's like a middle ground between Egoism and Utilitarianism.

What's not util about it? You want to maximise happiness - and propose the best economic system is that which achieves it.

I would think it implies a little more selfishness. It's base is actually selfishness, instead of claiming to do what is best for all for it's own sake.

The two are not incompatible - under your system presumably to maximise individual achievement would require compromise to negate conflict. Utilitarianism just under another name. :P

At 3/8/2010 12:14:20 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:11:37 AM, Puck wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:09:44 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:07:55 AM, PoeJoe wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:04:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:59:35 PM, PoeJoe wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:51:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:44:31 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
This looks a lot like Objectivism.

It's very similar.

...how is it different?

Objectivism is very specific.

Systemists don't necessarily have to be Atheist or Minarchist.

In fact, if anything in terms of politics, it may imply economic moderation. A Systemist should be looking for a system which provides the best average of both the highest maximum standard of living(Capitalism) and the highest minimum standard of living(Socialism).

Well, I'd disagree with your definitions of Capitalism and Socialism, but...

So, "Systemism" is just Democracy spun around to sound cool?

No no no. Like I said to Reasoning, "Whichever makes each individual more happy. It isn't a majority thing. It would imply a minimal standard of living for all. That may sound Socialist but it's not, it simply means smaller groups of people shouldn't be abused just because it makes the majority happier."

Well if it makes them happier to do so.. Problem is your standard is relativistic.

True. I would try to subject each system to as much scientific scrutiny as possible.

So you going to force populations into what? You can't 'science' populations in this sense. No control groups, you can't account nor control for all variables.

At 3/8/2010 12:16:49 AM, Puck wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:13:04 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:10:03 AM, Puck wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:07:56 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:06:03 AM, Puck wrote:
Also, more utilitarian than not.

Your probably right. It's like a middle ground between Egoism and Utilitarianism.

What's not util about it? You want to maximise happiness - and propose the best economic system is that which achieves it.

I would think it implies a little more selfishness. It's base is actually selfishness, instead of claiming to do what is best for all for it's own sake.

The two are not incompatible - under your system presumably to maximise individual achievement would require compromise to negate conflict. Utilitarianism just under another name. :P

Your right.

At 3/8/2010 12:18:28 AM, Puck wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:14:20 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:11:37 AM, Puck wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:09:44 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:07:55 AM, PoeJoe wrote:

At 3/8/2010 12:04:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:59:35 PM, PoeJoe wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:51:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 3/7/2010 11:44:31 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
This looks a lot like Objectivism.

It's very similar.

...how is it different?

Objectivism is very specific.

Systemists don't necessarily have to be Atheist or Minarchist.

In fact, if anything in terms of politics, it may imply economic moderation. A Systemist should be looking for a system which provides the best average of both the highest maximum standard of living(Capitalism) and the highest minimum standard of living(Socialism).

Well, I'd disagree with your definitions of Capitalism and Socialism, but...

So, "Systemism" is just Democracy spun around to sound cool?

No no no. Like I said to Reasoning, "Whichever makes each individual more happy. It isn't a majority thing. It would imply a minimal standard of living for all. That may sound Socialist but it's not, it simply means smaller groups of people shouldn't be abused just because it makes the majority happier."

Well if it makes them happier to do so.. Problem is your standard is relativistic.

True. I would try to subject each system to as much scientific scrutiny as possible.

So you going to force populations into what? You can't 'science' populations in this sense. No control groups, you can't account nor control for all variables.

What I mean is I'll be observing and collecting as much data as I can. Not forcing anyone.

At 3/7/2010 11:09:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I am now officially coining the term "Systemism".

Your wording is clumsey and awkward and it is a recycled idea.

Pragmatic hedonism, hedonistic utilitarianism, the list of synonyms goes on.