Internalizing the Six Philosophical Commitments

 Show me how to fully internalize Sterling's six philosophical commitments.

Claude:

Internalizing the six commitments requires moving them from intellectual agreement to lived conviction—from propositions you accept to the actual framework through which you perceive and reason. Here's a systematic approach:

---

**THE SIX COMMITMENTS**

1. Substance Dualism (mind and body are distinct substances)

2. Libertarian Free Will (genuine agency over assents and impulses)

3. Ethical Intuitionism (direct rational apprehension of moral truths)

4. Epistemological Foundationalism (some beliefs are self-evident)

5. Correspondence Theory of Truth (truth matches reality)

6. Moral Realism (objective moral facts exist)

---

**PHASE 1: UNDERSTAND THE STAKES**

For each commitment, grasp what you lose if you abandon it:

**Substance Dualism**: Without this, your choices reduce to physical causation. There's no "you" making decisions—just neurons firing. Stoic practice becomes incoherent because there's no rational faculty genuinely separate from bodily determination.

**Libertarian Free Will**: Without this, impressions don't await your assent—they just happen to you. The entire discipline of examining impressions presupposes you can actually choose whether to assent. No freedom = no virtue possible.

**Ethical Intuitionism**: Without this, you have no reliable access to moral truth. You're stuck in endless regress (how do you know *that* principle?) or reduced to preference or convention. The Stoic claim that virtue is knowable collapses.

**Foundationalism**: Without this, you can't start reasoning at all—everything requires proof of proof of proof infinitely. The Stoic system needs axioms that are self-evidently true to build from.

**Correspondence Theory**: Without this, "living according to nature" is meaningless. If truth doesn't match reality, your assents have no genuine object. Stoic practice requires that correct judgments actually correspond to how things are.

**Moral Realism**: Without this, virtue is just opinion or preference. "Only virtue is good" becomes "I happen to prefer virtue" rather than "virtue *is* objectively good." The whole Stoic enterprise depends on virtue being really, actually good—not just culturally constructed or personally chosen.

**Exercise**: Write out, in your own words, what practicing Stoicism would look like if you abandoned each commitment. Make it concrete and disturbing.

---

**PHASE 2: TEST IN EXPERIENCE**

For each commitment, actively look for experiential confirmation:

**Substance Dualism**: 

- Notice the difference between "my leg hurts" (bodily state) and "I'm choosing to examine this pain calmly" (mental act).

- Observe how you can think *about* your body, supervise it, direct it—you're not identical with it.

- Daily practice: When strong bodily sensations arise (hunger, fatigue, arousal), pause and recognize the rational faculty observing and deciding how to respond. You're not the hunger; you're the one considering the hunger.

**Libertarian Free Will**:

- Catch moments of genuine deliberation—where you're genuinely weighing options before choosing.

- Notice the phenomenology of choice: it *feels* like you could go either way. That's not illusion; that's your libertarian agency operating.

- Daily practice: Before every significant action today, pause and consciously affirm "I am choosing this." Feel the weight of that choice. Document moments where you clearly could have chosen differently.

**Ethical Intuitionism**:

- Notice how moral truths present themselves with immediate clarity—"cruelty to the innocent is wrong" isn't derived from other principles; you just *see* it.

- Observe how you can distinguish genuine moral intuitions from mere preferences or conventions.

- Daily practice: When facing moral questions, notice what you immediately apprehend as right before reasoning enters. Trust that direct perception; then test it with reasoning.

**Foundationalism**:

- Identify self-evident truths you rely on: "I exist," "Contradictions can't both be true," "I'm experiencing something now."

- Notice how these don't need proof—trying to prove them presupposes them.

- Daily practice: When reasoning about anything, trace back to what foundational truths you're building from. Make them explicit.

**Correspondence Theory**:

- When you make a true judgment, notice how it *matches* reality—"the door is open" is true because the door really is open.

- Contrast this with purely coherentist or pragmatic notions of truth.

- Daily practice: For every significant judgment today, ask "Does this match how things actually are?" Make correspondence explicit.

**Moral Realism**:

- Notice how "virtue is good" presents itself as discovering a fact, not creating a preference.

- Observe how moral disagreement presupposes objective truth—we argue because we think there's a right answer.

- Daily practice: When making moral judgments, consciously frame them as recognizing objective facts: "This *is* virtuous" not "I prefer to call this virtuous."

---

**PHASE 3: DEFEND AGAINST CHALLENGES**

For each commitment, encounter the strongest objections and develop responses:

**Substance Dualism objections**:

- "But neuroscience shows thoughts correlate with brain states!"

- Response: Correlation isn't identity. Mind-brain interaction doesn't prove they're the same substance. The rational faculty supervising bodily states is evidence of distinction.

**Libertarian Free Will objections**:

- "But determinism! Every event has causes!"

- Response: Rational agency is self-caused—not uncaused, but caused by the rational faculty itself in a way that preserves genuine choice. The experience of deliberation is evidence, not illusion.

**Ethical Intuitionism objections**:

- "But people disagree about morals!"

- Response: People disagree about math too, but 2+2=4 is still objectively true. Disagreement doesn't disprove objective truth; it means some people are wrong.

**Foundationalism objections**:

- "How do you know your foundations are right?"

- Response: Self-evident truths justify themselves through immediate rational apprehension. Demanding proof for them presupposes them, which validates them.

**Correspondence Theory objections**:

- "But we can't step outside our minds to compare thoughts to reality!"

- Response: We don't need to. Rational apprehension directly grasps reality. The coherence of successful action presupposes correspondence.

**Moral Realism objections**:

- "But morality evolved! It's just useful conventions!"

- Response: Evolution might explain how we came to *recognize* moral truths, but doesn't explain them away. Evolutionary debunking arguments prove too much—they'd undermine rationality itself.

**Exercise**: For each commitment, write out the three strongest objections you can think of, then develop Sterling-consistent responses. Practice articulating these until they're automatic.

---

**PHASE 4: INTEGRATE INTO IMPRESSION EXAMINATION**

Now connect each commitment to your daily practice:

**When examining impressions, ask:**

- **Substance dualism check**: "Am I confusing bodily states with rational judgments? Am I letting physical sensation drive my assent?"

- **Free will check**: "Am I acting as if I have no choice here? Am I recognizing my genuine agency over this assent?"

- **Intuitionism check**: "What does my rational faculty directly apprehend here? Am I trusting my moral intuition or deferring to mere convention?"

- **Foundationalism check**: "What self-evident truths am I building from? Am I starting from solid ground?"

- **Correspondence check**: "Does this judgment match reality as it actually is? Or am I distorting things?"

- **Moral realism check**: "Am I treating virtue as objectively good, or slipping into relativism or preference?"

**Exercise**: Take each impression from your log and explicitly check it against all six commitments. Make this part of your daily template.

---

**PHASE 5: LIVE FROM THEM**

The final stage is when the commitments become your default operating system:

- You automatically parse experience through substance dualism—naturally distinguishing mind from body.

- You habitually exercise libertarian agency—recognizing your freedom in every moment of choice.

- You instinctively trust ethical intuitions—while also testing them rationally.

- You reflexively reason from foundations—knowing your starting points.

- You consistently check for correspondence—matching judgments to reality.

- You invariably treat moral truths as objective—never sliding into relativism.

This doesn't happen overnight. Sterling worked within this framework for decades. But with consistent practice—daily examination of impressions through this lens, regular defense against objections, conscious application in every situation—these commitments become fully internalized.

**Timeline expectation**: 

- Months 1-3: Intellectual mastery, deliberate application

- Months 4-12: Growing automaticity, catching yourself when you violate them

- Years 1-3: Deep internalization, intuitive application

- Years 3+: Complete integration, these *are* how you think

---

Would you like me to develop any of these phases more fully, or create specific exercises for particular commitments you want to work on first?