"You completely missed the point. I repeat, maximizing "pleasure" is not and cannot be the goal of a moral code, because the concept of pleasure presupposes an agent that already finds certain things pleasurable."
By this measure ethics are, once again, utterly subjective.
"If you asked me, "How can I maximize my pleasure", you would essentially be saying, "How can I acheive the acheivment of my aims?" Well, I would first need to know Ethics is the study, not of how to acheive your ends, but of what your ends should be"
Once again subjective and not based on external reference.
"As Henry Veatch wrote in his classic rational man the job of morality is not to make you happy but to make you unhappy, to rouse you from your complacency and awaken the thirst for self improvement."
Why?
Morality is a subjective phenomenon because values are subjective phenomenon.
tunk,
OK, we'll play it your way. Although, the trouble is with a less "bullet point'y" response is that it may seem more thoughtful and cohesive, it tends to be a method of ignoring inconvinient or difficult points raised by the previous post. (no offense)
I would argue that the classical Greek sense or "morality" is action best suited to achieve "arete", or virtue, which is usually appealed to as some natural "end-in-itself", without any sort of set criteria. Of course, I'm not too familiar with ancient Western philosophy, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
Morals are inherently prescriptive, rather than descriptive. Your definition is so broad as to be meaningless. Any action towards a desired end becomes a "moral" action. What if our desired ends differ? Are you saying that we all share common ends, or rather, there is only one ultimate end we all pursue? Instead, let us use some neutral, third party definition. Webster's good enough for you?
Moral -
a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments>
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem>
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior
So, unless you can first define what the "ultimate end" is, or should be, then you are just making it up.
I also consider the vague term "life" as the natural "ultimate end" rather dubiously. What do you even mean by that? Living a fascinating life for 30 years, or being in a coma for 125 years are both "life", so you are going to have to clarify a bit.
Sorry, I gotta quote for this one,
tunk:The problem is ultimate justification for human ends. And if you asked me why I did what I did, and I responded, "because of habit, faith, and ignorance", you would run into the same problem because you could simply ask me, "Why?"
I could simply do the same for any of your pet theories. This represents a limitation of the implementation of logical deduction whilst lacking omniscience, rather than a fault of the conclusions on deduces. See What the Tortoise said to Achilles.
On your quotes, again the problem remains,
What then, is this "ultimate end"? "Life" is an inadequate description.
You want an "ultimate end"? OK, how about Entropy? Build an ethic around that, since temperature differences are the whole reason anything does anything.
I don't deny the possibility of proof, but I also don't blindly believe that I have accrued enough information to state that my method of validation are themselves valid. Can you prove your proof? Again, see the link above.
Logic is fine, but it ain't everything. It isn't the deductive system that is lacking, it is both of our ignorance that makes argumentation even necessary. That is already conceding that we both "don't know" something (or anything!).
Your postition begs the question as much as mine does. That is why we both choose to ignore our respective begged questions as a matter of faith.
@ Neodoxy - If what you mean by "subjective" is that values are agent-relative, i.e. that only if you hold a certain goal can the means for achieving that goal be perscribed for you (e.g. only if you want to win the race should you train), then yes, I certainly agree with you. This is what Kant called the "problematic hypothetical imperative", i.e. if you want X, do Y. Certainly this is subjective.
But what if it could be demonstrated that there is one goal that everybody necessarily aims at, to which certain means can be universally prescribed? I.e. since you want X, do Y; what Kant called the "assertoric hypothetical". This is how Aristotelian-Randian morality is constructed, not on some mystical "intrinsic" values which have never been proved to exist, but rather the agent-relativity of values.
So if it can be demonstrated that you pursue a goal of which you have simply been unaware and which you have been pursuing very badly, then you should, on this conception of morality, be convinced to change.
@ Jackson LaRose -
Well, virtue in the Aristotelian sense is associated with good functioning, pursuing the natural potential towards which you are oriented. Man's natural end is his flourishing or happiness, according to Aristotle, and virtue is not an instrumental means to it but a constitutive or "dominant" means. In other words, buying a golf club is an instrumental means to playing golf; it is a necessary precondition for the game. But swinging the club is a constitutive means; swinging the club forms part of the very activity of golf-playing.
Similarly, virtue is not an instrumental means to man's self-actualization, but rather constitutes part of that end-in-itself towards which we are oriented. So yes, virtue is an end-in-itself, essentially. (NOTE: I don't necessarily agree with this analysis, I'm just providing it since you asked about it.)
Admittedly it is true that modus ponens is not an axiom that can be demonstrated, as Lewis Carrolls' fable shows. But no one has ever claimed it was. Rather, the "if-then" relationship is something that is implicit in the very meaning of the words "if" and "then". If you use the language and engage in argumentation, then you necessarily accept the the modus ponens principle, like it or lump it. If you don't like it, well, then shut up and quit arguing. Quit thinking too, for that matter.
First principles are never "demonstrated" (for that would beg the question), but are merely shown in a dialectical manner to be self-affirming. (As long as they're not self-contradictory, who cares?)
This is why logic is not something that can be argued about, but rather something that makes argumentation possible to begin with. Its existence is axiomatic for any participant in discussion and argumentation, but, yes, who gives a crap about logic outside this context? Logical arguments cannot be made in a vacuum, but only to another conscious, rational being. (Hoppe has some great writing about this in "In Defense of Extreme Rationalism".)
Now, yes I am saying there is one ultimate end that we all pursue. I thought I made this clear. And no, life qua ultimate end is free from any problems of regression, because life qua ultimate is also a self-affirming axiom. To quote myself,
tunk: I take the Randian position, that man is by nature an acting being involved in a struggle for survival that in itself makes it necessary to act and pursue goals. Man's life qua survival is his ultimate end. So if you were to ask, by "what standard of value did you decide to pursue life", I would say that in order to pursue any standards of value at all, I must pursue life, and in order to pursue life, I must have standards of value. (Life's basic requirement is goal-directed action.) Life is the ultimate end because the ultimate means. This is why it is a self-justifying goal. (And self-affirming: the only alternative to pursuing life is pursuing death, which cannot be an ultimate goal and give rise to values because death is merely the absence of all values and all action. So for someone who commits suicide, their immediate goal is a positive existential state where they have a knife in their chest or are breathing carbon monoxide fumes, but their ultimate goal is still necessarily life, otherwise they couldn't have acted to attain their death. Of course, human beings can err -- as well as be ignorant of their natural end -- which is what has happened in the case of the person who kills themself. He is a hypocrite who is basically saying, "I want my natural end, but I won't do what is necessary to attain it." If you don't want to train for the race, why bother running it?) This isn't merely "survival" in the short-run sense though, because that would also run into the means-end regression problem. Namely, supposing your natural death is at time t, by what standard of value did you decide that you would prefer to die at time t-1? Rather, life as a goal is, in Irfan Khawaja's words, the pursuit of optimal conditions for the operation of your essence. This goal cannot be boxed into a time frame, since it includes trying to extend your lifespan (perhaps through hobbies, fruitful relationships, diet & exercise, etc.), and so involves long-run as well as short-run calculations.
So if you were to ask, by "what standard of value did you decide to pursue life", I would say that in order to pursue any standards of value at all, I must pursue life, and in order to pursue life, I must have standards of value. (Life's basic requirement is goal-directed action.) Life is the ultimate end because the ultimate means. This is why it is a self-justifying goal.
(And self-affirming: the only alternative to pursuing life is pursuing death, which cannot be an ultimate goal and give rise to values because death is merely the absence of all values and all action. So for someone who commits suicide, their immediate goal is a positive existential state where they have a knife in their chest or are breathing carbon monoxide fumes, but their ultimate goal is still necessarily life, otherwise they couldn't have acted to attain their death. Of course, human beings can err -- as well as be ignorant of their natural end -- which is what has happened in the case of the person who kills themself. He is a hypocrite who is basically saying, "I want my natural end, but I won't do what is necessary to attain it." If you don't want to train for the race, why bother running it?)
This isn't merely "survival" in the short-run sense though, because that would also run into the means-end regression problem. Namely, supposing your natural death is at time t, by what standard of value did you decide that you would prefer to die at time t-1? Rather, life as a goal is, in Irfan Khawaja's words, the pursuit of optimal conditions for the operation of your essence. This goal cannot be boxed into a time frame, since it includes trying to extend your lifespan (perhaps through hobbies, fruitful relationships, diet & exercise, etc.), and so involves long-run as well as short-run calculations.
And finally, clearly, when we discuss ethics, we are discussing what it is proper for conscious beings who act purposefully and employ means to achieve desired ends to do; i.e. man. I don't see how entropy is relevant.
Tunk, What would be the purpose of knowing what my ends should be, if not to maximize (long-term) net pleasure?
Why anarchy fails
tunk:If you use the language and engage in argumentation, then you necessarily accept the the modus ponens principle, like it or lump it. If you don't like it, well, then shut up and quit arguing. Quit thinking too, for that matter.
I run into this one a lot. So, if I play Legend of Zelda, I must accept that I truly am Link in order to play the game? Or am I just manipulating the sprite of a fictional character on a TV screen?
Can I utilize logic without necessarily accepting its validity?
tunk:This is why logic is not something that can be argued about, but rather something that makes argumentation possible to begin with. Its existence is axiomatic for any participant in discussion and argumentation, but, yes, who gives a crap about logic outside this context? Logical arguments cannot be made in a vacuum, but only to another conscious, rational being.
This is why I consider it folly to attempt to build a universal ethic from such a deductive system. We've already established the necessity for blind faith in the system's validity.
tunk:Man's life qua survival is his ultimate end.
What a base, mundane pupose for life. Meaningless existence, like a rat.
Centinel,
Actions speak louder than words, and the state neither intentionally limits, balances, decentralizes, nor makes transparent, the elements of coercion in society by definition.
It wields unlimited power in a geographic area, by definition.
It claims a monopoly over all legitimate violence, by definition.
It is a centralized authority, by definition.
It is secretive, and run by a chosen exclusionary cadre, by definition.
I am uninterested in the populace of the Pacific Rim, the CIS, Sub-Saharan Africa, etc. I am concerned with my freedom, my self-determination, my ends, etc. Even while living in a Liberal Democracy, I am threatened with insumountable force to comply to certain norms, which typically run counter to my goals. If you could somehow demonstrate how I am more free under a Liberal Democracy, rather than an anarchic society, it may sway me, but until then, I think we've reached an impasse.
Jackson LaRose:Can I utilize logic without necessarily accepting its validity?
This strikes me as a silly question, because the demand for validity presupposes some framework by which we can evaluate a statement's validity, i.e. logic. You have already accepted this framework merely by posing the question. And this is hardly blind faith. Logic is simply a premise no one can rationally reject. The simple axioms of logic can be used to show that their opponent necessarily accepts them even as he tries to deny them, because they are the groundwork that make argumentation possible. So long as you are a conscious human being that engages in thought and language, you accept the basic principles of logic. I don't see anything wrong with writing a story (Randian-Aristotelian ethics) in a language we all speak.
Douglas Rasmussen puts it well:
Man's Natural End: A Groundwork for Rights:[T]he criterion used in judging whether X is a first principle is a result of the very language the opponent of X uses - namely, is X necessary for the very possibility of the subject matter under question, let us say Y, or not? [...] This way of arguing has been called "transcendental" because of Kant's arguments about "what is necessary for the possibility of experience," but there is even a more venerable source for this way of arguing - Aristotle's defense of the Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC) as a first principle [...] The PNC is defended by showing it to be necessary not only for the very possibility of its being denied, but even for the denier's thought, speech and action. [...] If the denial or the doubt regarding the PNC is to exist, if any significant speech or thought is to occur at all (Y), then the PNC (X) must be true. Something cannot be meaningfully said if it is also what it is not and therefore also everything else. Thus, the very existence of significant speech requires the truth of the PNC. [...] The premise of the negative demonstration - someone significantly speaking - cannot be rejected without self-refutation or self-defeating silence. [...] In claiming that the rejection of the starting point (the initial condition) of the negative demonstration of the PNC is unavoidable one could be accused of circular reasoning, for to point out that the denial of significant speech is itself significant speech is only to show that the opponent is both saying there is and there is not significant speech, but what is wrong with that? Surely, the opponent of the PNC cannot be judged ny the principle he denies. Yet [i]t is not self-contradiction that defeats him; rather, it is that the denial of significant speech must be significant if it is to be a denial, and if it is not, then it is not a denial. But if the denial is real, then significant speech exists. [...] As Marie C. Swabey has noted: "Rational procedure, it would seem, is not necessarily circular in a vicious sense, when dealing with its own canons. There is a vast difference between employing a law of logic as a principle of proof for itself and using it as part of the content of demonstration." If I reasoned using the PNC as a premise, I would be begging the question and could be accused of "vicious" cicularity. If, however, all I do is show that the premise cannot possibly denied by a conscious actor, I am indeed being circular but hardly in an objectionable way. This is why we call certain things axioms, like the action axiom on which Austrian economics is founded. Jackson LaRose: tunk:Man's life qua survival is his ultimate end. What a base, mundane pupose for life. Meaningless existence, like a rat. I encourage you to read Tara Smith's book Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics. The reality is actually the reverse of what you just said. If we take as our ethical starting point the goal to help every man survive in the most optimal way, then ethics, for from being mundance, becomes the most important study, of the "art of living well". Ethics becomes a guide for human flourishing. You are more likely to survive, for example, if you are convinced your life is worth living. If life is man's ultimate end, man is flourishing when he pusues hobbies, fruitful relationships, a healthy community, and good relations with his fellow man. Far from being meaningless, our lives turn into huge opportunities for actualizing our inherent potential as human beings. I don't see it as mundane or meaningless at all. | Post Points: 20
Jackson LaRose: tunk:Man's life qua survival is his ultimate end. What a base, mundane pupose for life. Meaningless existence, like a rat. I encourage you to read Tara Smith's book Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics. The reality is actually the reverse of what you just said. If we take as our ethical starting point the goal to help every man survive in the most optimal way, then ethics, for from being mundance, becomes the most important study, of the "art of living well". Ethics becomes a guide for human flourishing. You are more likely to survive, for example, if you are convinced your life is worth living. If life is man's ultimate end, man is flourishing when he pusues hobbies, fruitful relationships, a healthy community, and good relations with his fellow man. Far from being meaningless, our lives turn into huge opportunities for actualizing our inherent potential as human beings. I don't see it as mundane or meaningless at all.
tunk:This strikes me as a silly question, because the demand for validity presupposes some framework by which we can evaluate a statement's validity, i.e. logic.
ORLY??? I determine validity by direct revelation from God, not by utilizing rational deduction. There are other ways to validate positions. Which you choose to accept as valid is a statement of preference.
What we consider contradictory/non-contradictory is based upon our knowledge. Non-omniscience is the limitation of our application of logic. Loggic is a problem solving algorithm, like a computer program. If you use garbage data (our knowledge) as the inputs to that machine, you will get nonsensical results (the old programming adage, "Garbage in, garbage out"). My favorite example,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
Bulletproof logic leading to (what we consider) ridiculous conclusions.
If the denial or the doubt regarding the PNC is to exist, if any significant speech or thought is to occur at all (Y), then the PNC (X) must be true. Something cannot be meaningfully said if it is also what it is not and therefore also everything else. Thus, the very existence of significant speech requires the truth of the PNC. [...] The premise of the negative demonstration - someone significantly speaking - cannot be rejected without self-refutation or self-defeating silence. [...]
This demonstrates our personal cognitive limitations, nothing more. All swans are not white.
tunk:If, however, all I do is show that the premise cannot possibly denied by a conscious actor, I am indeed being circular but hardly in an objectionable way. This is why we call certain things axioms, like the action axiom on which Austrian economics is founded.
This is also why some of us think we are too ignorant to even be close to claim this and that as "axioms".
Your last paragraph is really just a statement of aesthetic preference. None of it follows from from your starting premise,
Wow, you simply tossed aside every argument I made and chose to just restate your own beliefs. Whether you like it or not, having this argument wouldn't even be possible unless the law of non-contradiction held true, since otherwise your utterances would be entirely incoherent.
Loggic is a problem solving algorithm, like a computer program. If you use garbage data (our knowledge) as the inputs to that machine, you will get nonsensical results (the old programming adage, "Garbage in, garbage out").
Duh. That's the difference between a sound argument and a valid one. Philosophy 101. How does this disprove logic again?
And of course, everything I say will strike you as "a statement of aesthetic preference", because you begin with the assumption that all statements are statements of aesthetic preferences. Of course, you engage in hilarious self-contradiction even as you write it, but you refuse to admit it.
What were the arguments you made, exactly?
tunk:Philosophy 101
Sorry, I dropped out of high school, smarty-pants.
I'm not trying to disprove logic. I'm attempting to demonstrate how our implementation of logic is insufficient to derive "truth", such as an objective ethic.
tunk:because you begin with the assumption that all statements are statements of aesthetic preferences.
Well, aren't they?
tunk:Of course, you engage in hilarious self-contradiction even as you write it, but you refuse to admit it.
So do you.
So everything I've been writing has been neither read nor understood. I've been talking to a wall. How surprising.
Believe what you want to believe. But you haven't demonstrated anything. You just keep repeating some postmodern nihilist slogans about "aesthetic preferences" and similar garbage. You have yet to rebut the law of non-contradiction. Until you can do that, you haven't made your case nor proved that anything I said was false. (You don't even believe that anything can be "false", though you don't realize it, since you pointlessly argue against the possibility that anything could ever be evaluated as false. Quit arguing, then.)
No, what you've been writing has been nonsense dribbling from a logic-bot.
You've already conceded that our implementation of logic is limited, so you've lost the argument.
Nevermind that flowery gobbledy-gook of bare assertions concerning "life"and "virtue", which you conveniently chose to leave untouched after my challenge.
I thought the folly of attempting derive perfect conclusions (objective anything) from an imperfect system (human cognition) would become evident as we went on, but apparently I was wrong.
I think this really sums it up well:
tunk:I am indeed being circular but hardly in an objectionable way.
LOL, OK keep on keepin' on, brother. Trust me, it won't hurt to admit you don't know what you are talking about any more than I do.
I have "already conceded that our implementation of logic is limited"? I'm sure you'd like to believe that, but why don't we have a look at what I actually said.
So long as you are a conscious human being that engages in thought and language, you accept the basic principles of logic.
I fail to see how this is a concession.
I "conveniently chose to leave untouched" your "challenge"? What was your challenge?
What was my response?
I encourage you to read Tara Smith's book Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics. The reality is actually the reverse of what you just said. If we take as our ethical starting point the goal to help every man survive in the most optimal way, then ethics, for from being mundance, becomes the most important study, of the "art of living well". Ethics becomes a guide for human flourishing. You are more likely to survive, for example, if you are convinced your life is worth living. If life is man's ultimate end, man is flourishing when he pusues hobbies, fruitful relationships, a healthy community, and good relations with his fellow man. Far from being meaningless, our lives turn into huge opportunities for actualizing our inherent potential as human beings. I don't see it as mundane or meaningless at all.
What was your reply to this? Nothing, except caricature and fashionable slogans. Yeah, I know traditional virtue ethics isn't popular in the postmodern-leftist university climate. I don't really give a crap.
And what is your finishing blow? At the end of your post you quoted me out of context and then concluded triumphantly as if you'd won. You have the standards of debate of a Stalinist commisar.
What I said was there's no problem with an axiom being self-referential as long as it isn't self-contradictory. Have you made any effort to refute this? No.
Whoever it is that doesn't know what he's talking about here, it isn't me.
ANd I'm still waiting for a rebuttal of the law of non-contradiction. Yawn.
You have yet to rebut the law of non-contradiction.
In so much as these things are:
A=A.
I=I
Good = Good
Bad = Bad
Coersion = Coersion
Peace = Peace
etc
In so much as one of these things is, it is as it's own and functions for it's own sake. In so much as I am - I utilize all that which is mine. If something is coercive, or peaceful; it is my peace.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
tunk:What I said was there's no problem with an axiom being self-referential as long as it isn't self-contradictory. Have you made any effort to refute this? No.
I'm not the one with an assertion about some eternal universal ethic! The burden is on you. What you are describing sounds circular to me. How about this one,
"My ultimate goal is the cessation of suffering".
Not self refuting, self-referring, which is cool, right?
tunk:I fail to see how this is a concession.
Because that wasn't your concession. Yawn. Fart. Cough.
This was your concession. Talk about begging the question!
"What makes a circular argument objectionable/not objectionable?"
Oh, wait, that's right: YOUR AESTHETIC PREFERENCE!!!
Damn, that's probably just another "nihilist slogan", or me unfairly caricaturizing you, though. Better just ignore it.
tunk:ANd I'm still waiting for a rebuttal of the law of non-contradiction.
As you said, interpersonal communication cannot express such a rebuttal without being self-refuting. That demonstrates the limits of language and our congnition, nothing more. Oh crap, more "slogans".
This was not a concession. You clearly did not read what came before it, since I was summarizing the passage from Rasmussen. Let me quote it again, and this time try to avoid quoting me selectively and distorting my posts so that they fit your self-serving narrative.
In claiming that the rejection of the starting point (the initial condition) of the negative demonstration of the PNC is unavoidable one could be accused of circular reasoning, for to point out that the denial of significant speech is itself significant speech is only to show that the opponent is both saying there is and there is not significant speech, but what is wrong with that? Surely, the opponent of the PNC cannot be judged ny the principle he denies. Yet [i]t is not self-contradiction that defeats him; rather, it is that the denial of significant speech must be significant if it is to be a denial, and if it is not, then it is not a denial. But if the denial is real, then significant speech exists. [...] As Marie C. Swabey has noted: "Rational procedure, it would seem, is not necessarily circular in a vicious sense, when dealing with its own canons. There is a vast difference between employing a law of logic as a principle of proof for itself and using it as part of the content of demonstration. The point of this passage is that reasoning from the PNC to prove the PNC would indeed be "viciously" circular and would beg the question. But that wasn't what I was doing. It is not "vicious" circularity but self-affirming circularity if I merely demonstrate that the opponent of the PNC cannot attempt to deny it without accepting it. The PNC is what makes argumentation possible. You are accepting it as you attempt to deny it. To make this point clear, go back to Lewis Caroll's fable. According to her, logic is based on question-begging premises and should be mistrusted. Yet can't this be put in syllogistic form? Every argument that begs the question ought to be rejected Logic begs the questions. Thus, logic should be rejected. The "if-then" relationship can only be rejected by making use of the if-then relationship! You can regard this as a "limitation" of language and thought if you want, though I hardly think the foundations of a house are "limiting" the building of the house so much as they are making the existence of house possible. The point is that, if what I've said is true, then logic can be regarded as a kind of language that everyone speaks by virtue of being a thinking, speaking human being (though certainly some people speak the language better than others), and whatever is shows to be true through logic holds for all thinking, speaking human beings. This is what I wanted you to disprove, not my claims about morality, and you have yet to do so. Since it's obvious that you can't because it's by definition an impossible task, let's move on. | Post Points: 20
We are on two different planets, kid.
Man and Logic is obviously your deity.
Mine is the Tao and nothingness.
tunk:You can regard this as a "limitation" of language if you want, though I hardly think the foundations of a house are "limiting" the building of the house so much as they are making the existence of house possible. The point is that, if what I've said is true, then logic can be regarded as a language that everyone speaks by virtue of being a thinking human being (though certainly some people speak the language better than others), and whatever is shows to be true through logic holds for all human beings.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - John 1.1
If that is the case, then logic is my enemy, a fetter keeping me bound to the illusory "self". See Zen Koan
And this,
and whatever is shows to be true through logic holds for all human beings.
Should demonstrate how much faith you are placing in your own deductions.
tunk:Since it's obvious that you can't, let's move on.
Can't what, prove that there isn't an objective ethic? LOL, there very well may be, but there is no way for either of us to find out who's right and who's wrong. I actually think there is too, but to discover it requires one to no longer be an "conscious, acting, human". It requires the shedding of all illusions, and reconnection with the Atman.
Can I "prove" that? No, and I don't pretend to. I'm just trying to get you to see that your assertions are just as baseless!
Jackson LaRose:Can't what, prove that there isn't an objective ethic?
I am beginning to suspect you have some kind of reading difficulty.
tunk:This is what I wanted you to disprove, not my claims about morality, and you have yet to do so.
I wasn't saying, "OBJECTIVE ETHICS EXIST PROVE ME WRONG LOL"; I made my case for objective morality elsewhere and in a different way. I was asking you to try and rebut the laws of logic. (Which you still haven't done; you've only changed your accusation. Now I apparently worship logic, although I don't recall appealing to anybody's revelation that the principle of non-contradiction holds true.) These were two different issues. Stop conflating them.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - John 1.1 If that is the case, then logic is my enemy, a fetter keeping me bound to the illusory "self". See Zen Koan And I'm the one appealing to "faith"? Okay, so you like the Tao. Good for you. I don't accept the authority of either scripture. | Post Points: 20
And I'm the one appealing to "faith"? Okay, so you like the Tao. Good for you. I don't accept the authority of either scripture.
tunk:I was asking you to try and rebut the laws of logic.
That is like asking me to rebut the laws of Scrabble. If logic is what you choose to utilize to attempt to discover truth, then fine. This begs the question,
"why do you consider logic a valid method of discovering truth?"
Which is what I've been driving at, and what you've merely shrugged off.
tunk:Now I apparently worship logic
No, you take Man as the giver of truth, apparently by utilizing logic. No more, no less. I'm not saying you "worship" anything, although I will say you engage in "magical thinking", as much as some muttering Catholic when they ring the bell that turns crackers into Jesus.
"Let us celebrate the mystery of faith..."
tunk:Stop conflating them.
Hey, you started it. I doubted your premise, which certainly was the existence of objective ethics, by questioning the validity of your method (logic) as a method of discovering truth. What exactly am I conflating?
tunk:And I'm the one appealing to "faith"?
We both are, that's why I've said so a couple times already.
Jackson LaRose:It is the individual which chooses, as a matter of faith, their ultimate goal.
Jackson LaRose:I also don't blindly believe that I have accrued enough information to state that my method of validation are themselves valid.
Jackson LaRose:we both choose to ignore our respective begged questions as a matter of faith.
That's the thing with you logic-bots, no understanding of nuance.
tunk:I don't accept the authority of either scripture.
Obviously, only the "rational" (aka derived from Man) is to be considered valid.
"IT IS RIGHT TO GIVE US THANKS AND PRAISE!!!"
OK, you're right. Liberal democracy is the best. I can't wait to pay my taxes!
Jackson LaRose:"why do you consider logic a valid method of discovering truth?"
I haven't "shrugged off" this question. As I say, I regard this question as ridiculous, because the words "validity" and "truth" and "rational" by definition refer to a certain interrelationship among concepts that has already been discovered and established as part of a body of categorical associations called "logic". You are asking me why I regard 2 + 2 as a "valid method" of getting 4. Your very question presupposes logic, otherwise you could not ask it, just as denial of the "if-then" relationship itself requires the use of the if-then relationship. If this is too "unnuanced", absolutist, dogmatic, blah, blah, blah, for you, it ain't my problem.
I have absolutely no clue what you mean when you accuse me of "taking Man as the giver of truth". "True" and "false" are properties of statements. And even to such a "nuanced" mind as your own, it should be clear that trying to argue that it is an absolute truth that nothing can ever be established as absolute truth is a pointless and self-refuting enterprise. Again, your argument presupposes such concepts as "truth", or else you could not make it.
The rest of your comment is irrelevant. So I'm a "logic-bot". Fine. Better than than being some mystical shaman hippy wannabe.
I'm not saying you "worship" anything, although I will say you engage in "magical thinking", as much as some muttering Catholic when they ring the bell that turns crackers into Jesus.
"I'm not saying your mother's a whore, I'm just saying she has sex for money."
Take it easy, Ralphie, you'll bend your wookie!
tunk:I regard this question as ridiculous, because the words "validity" and "truth" and "rational" by definition refer to a certain interrelationship among concepts that has already been discovered and established as part of a body of categorical associations called "logic".
Are you saying that if there was no one here to percieve it and then think about it, the universe would not exist?
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
tunk:You are asking me why I regard 2 + 2 as a "valid method" of getting 4.
No, I'm saying 2's, +'s and 4's are abstract concepts formed in the head, like so many daydreams.
tunk:Your very question presupposes logic, otherwise you could not ask it
Yes, I can utilize the rules of logic to communicate with others. That does not mean logical thought is "true" thought, and illogical thought is "false" thought, in an objective sense.
Again, the realtive truth of our logical deductions is limited by our knowledge and cognitive abilities. One would have to be omniscient to be able to logically deduce a "truth".
tunk:it should be clear that trying to argue that it is an absolute truth that nothing can ever be established as absolute truth is a pointless and self-refuting enterprise.
When did I ever exclude the possibility of knowing a "truth"? This is certainly a nuance issue,
"Beep, bop, boop, if proposition not utterly accepted, skeptic must hold completely contrary position, zfft, shoop, whirr"
I do believe knowing "truth" is possible, but I don't think logic can get you there.
tunk:Better than than being some mystical shaman hippy wannabe.
LOL, I bet it isn't!
Oh, and for the record, when I say you belive in 'Man as the giver of truth', I'm saying you believe that mankind is capable of discovering truth for themselves, rather than appealing to some deity or supernatural presence to reveal it.
tunk:"I'm not saying your mother's a whore, I'm just saying she has sex for money."
Oh, brother, lighten up. Just admit that you accept logic as valid on faith, I'll restate that I believe in non-duality as valid on faith, we'll shake hands and go our merry ways!
Wow, you correctly identified the character in my avatar. You sure are a sharp one. Ralph Wiggum indeed. Give me your sandal, hippie, and I'll autograph it for you.
Oh boy, another BS point-by-point response. I'm going to have to give in to the temptation just a little bit....
I don't recall saying that. If you can provide an actual instance of me saying that I'd love to see it. I was making the point that questioning logic presupposes logic.
I'm saying 2's, +'s and 4's are abstract concepts formed in the head.
Why is this supposed to be a shocking discovery? Everybody knows this.
It isn't that you utilize the laws of logic only to "communicate", it's that you utilize to them engage in thought itself and thereby any purposeful action whatsoever. It's rather pervasive, to say the least.
What does it means to say that "logical thought is 'true' thought"? Who ever said this? Why are you shoving words in my mouth? Logic simply identifies the coherence of relationships between various concepts. It is indeed another question whether those concepts correspond to anything in the real world. This is the difference between a sound argument and a merely valid one. Again, Philosophy 101.
Now, I'm sure you are going to paint what I just said as some stunning confession. It isn't really. If when you said "the realtive truth of our logical deductions is limited by our knowledge and cognitive abilities", you meant that the conclusions only hold if the reasoning is valid and the premises are true, then I certainly agree. But it does not follow from this that "One would have to be omniscient to be able to logically deduce a 'truth'". I don't think Rothbard was in possession of omnisciency when he deduced time preference and marginal utility from the fact of human action. Some premises are necessary axioms and impossible to deny.
Translation:
"I do believe that sound conclusions can be drawn, but I don't think drawing sound conclusions will get you there."
I'm saying you believe that mankind is capable of discovering truth for themselves, rather than appealing to some deity or supernatural presence to reveal it. [...] Just admit that you accept logic as valid on faith
What you have said here is very revealing. You denounce a priori reasoning, and yet you accept faith as the only means to knowledge a priori. Who can argue with this? When you have a hammer every problem strikes you as a nail. If recreational narcotics and Deepak Chopra is your thing, I can dig that, but I generally think life is better lived without illusions and superstition. (I imagine you're going to reply to this that logic is a superstition. Of course, in that case, as I have repeatedly pointed out, you would merely be using modus ponens to reject modus ponens, and you would end right back where you started.) So I don't see I have anything to "admit".
Same old, same old, we are talking in circles.
I am bored.
I'll just sum it up,
neither of us can be sure we have ever experienced anything "real", so the material world you suppose you are experiencing may not be, making any sort of inferences you might draw from that observation and perception poentially false, and so render any sort of classification, characterization, discrimination you infer from that observation potentially false.
You don't "know" you are experiencing anything, you "believe" you are experiencing anything.
This uncertainly can be "functionally ignored", as when we engage in discourse, but when the "ding an sich" is attempted to be discovered, that uncertainty must be considered.
This is why I do not think that either of us are capable (as of this moment) to derive a method of "knowing", relative to reality at large. It is beyond us, in other words.
As you say the best we can do in order to act, is to just accept our pet theories as true, because it is the closest proximation we are currently capable of. I do not think though, that should be cause to settle.
Oh, and I even understand your handle's reference,
"I think he means trunk."
Now you strike me as much more reasonable.
I agree with you that, as Ayn Rand says, our premises have to be constantly checked in order to make sure the conclusions are valid. It may be that the abstract premises we reason from don't correspond to anything in the real world. Some things we can't ever "know". (Though saying all knowledge is impossible is itself a knowledge claim.) But Austrian economics & Aristotelian ethics are both deduced from the axiom of purposeful human action, which escapes the possibility of all skepticism by being a self-affirming proposition. You don't reject Austrianism, as far as I know. Well, rational egoism is deduced from the same premise.
tunk:But Austrian economics & Aristotelian ethics are both deduced from the axiom of purposeful human action, which escapes the possibility of all skepticism by being a self-affirming proposition. You don't reject Austrianism, as far as I know. Well, rational egoism is deduced from the same premise.
Wu Wei
Wu wei [...] is an important concept of Taoism (Daoism), that involves knowing when to act and when not to act.
....this is just semantics and wordplay. The decision not to act is itself an action. So long as you are conscious, you act.
The distinctive and crucial feature in the study of man is the concept of action. Human action is defined simply as purposeful behavior. It is therefore sharply distinguishable from those observed movements which, from the point of view of man, are not purposeful. These include all the observed movements of inorganic matter and those types of human behavior that are purely reflex, that are simply involuntary responses to certain stimuli. Human action, on the other hand, can be meaningfully interpreted by other men, for it is governed by a certain purpose that the actor has in view. [...] We could not conceive of human beings who do not act purposefully, who have no ends in view that they desire and attempt to attain. Things that did not act, that did not behave purposefully, would no longer be classified as human.
We could not conceive of human beings who do not act purposefully, who have no ends in view that they desire and attempt to attain. Things that did not act, that did not behave purposefully, would no longer be classified as human.
Exactly. "Human" is an illusion.
Do without "Doing". That is the Tao, also the Atman, also Nirvana. But none of that crap makes any sense, so they must be full of it!
Hey, if you like that sort of thing then you like that sort of thing.
I find it ironic that you are so quick to dismiss what is essentially an affirmation of your theory, put in different language.
Did I seem like I was dismissive? I didn't mean to be.
"Meh, just semantics and wordplay"
"if that's your thing, then whatever"
Well, the first bit is dismissive, admittedly. Sorry about that. But I mean, the decision not to pursposefully act is purposeful action. Unless you understand 'action' a different way, as I'm sure Taoism probably does. But yeah, to each his own.
The article explains it fairly well.
Do trees "act" by growing? Do planets "act" by orbiting? In other words, what makes humans the only "actors" vis avis the rest of the kown univers? Are we somehow seperate from it? is it because we can communitate linguistically? Why do we presume other animals aren't "conscious actors"? Simply becuase they can't tell us they are?
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken and acts without effort. Teaching without verbosity, producing without possessing, creating without regard to result, claiming nothing, the Sage has nothing to lose. [...] The goal for wu wei is to get out of your own way. This is nice stuff but some things strike me as worth getting riled up over and being passionate about. I like to think I would die for liberty, should it ever come to that. Animals might engage in purposeful action. I don't know. All we know is that, were we to analyze their behaviour that way, we would be imposing a human concept on non-humans and engaging in the anthropomorphic fallacy. | Post Points: 20
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
It would seem that from your point of view, dying for liberty wouldn't make any sense. Ending all liberty (secular death) for liberty?
tunk:All we know is that, were we to analyze their behaviour that way, we would be imposing a human concept on non-humans and engaging in the anthropomorphic fallacy.
Why do we treat humans as special?
This is the tricky aspect of interpreting non-dualism through a dualistic lens. If all is one, what is liberty? That presupposes something external that can restrict you. There is no need for passion, because all distinction has been removed.
Five Aggregates
Anyways...
It seems to me, Tunk, that you went from "ultimate end is survival" to "the ultimate end is to survive in the most optimal way." Well yeah, now it really just is life advice. My continuing point is that there is no reason to evoke the extra "ethics" baggage and Randian objectivism and "flourishing." Life advice is the clearest way to say it, so why not stick to that?
deleted