Aristotle famously calls man the "Rational Animal". And many philosophers (such as Plato, Descartes, etc.) also believe that reason reigns supreme over the land of the living. Do you agree? Or, like Hume, do you believe that there are limits to what reason can accomplish? What do you think these limits are? Where do emotions fit in (i.e. are they "rational" or "irrational"?) You don't have to address all these questions - just the ones that interest you the most.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Reason, emotion, mind, body, wisdom, desire...all are ideas which seem to be constantly competing with each other for domination of our ridiculously simple Human psyche. Should we place more validity on decisions made by reason than those made of emotion? Or vice versa? There are certainly cases which support each arguement and putting anymore weight on one over the other is, in my opinion, completely absurd. How or why the decision is made is not important, the result is the only real thing of consequence. We will never really know whether it was our passions or our reason which lead to the final decisions, especially if we are the observers looking in on some experiment of Human Nature.
Concerning the limitations of reason, I would argue the only limitations of reason are inescapable paradoxes and contradictions which come from any philosophical position. I would maintain that every philosophical position has paradoxes within it if you reason with it long enough. Take my personal position, nihilism, as an example. I maintain that everything is pointless and of no worth. This makes nihilism pointless and of no worth. By nihilism being pointless and of no worth, it is discarded as such. However, by nihilism being pointless, it enforces the very idea which it preaches making it reseurrect from its self-defeating ashes. However, this resseurection is pointless, and so it is discarded, resulting in nihilisms rebirth as the pointlessness continues...Do you see what I mean? Paradox. Some would maintain that paradoxes are an afront to reason and must be dismissed because the truth would be a "clear and distinct idea." However, even here we are faced with a paradox. If the truth is clear and distinct, shouldn't it be blatantly obvious and require no reasoning to achieve? There is no escaping these paradoxes, leading us, well...me at least, to the only inescapable conclusion that everything is pointless.
Concerning the rationality of emotion, I place equal faith in emotional reasoning as I would in logical reasoning. My reasons? Simply put, I'm no slave to my logic. Upon my realization of the pointless absurdity of our comical existances (or non-existances, depending on who you talk to), I decreed that I would do what amuses me, regardless of whatever 'illogical' actions they may be. While some would counter that I seem to be driven more by emotion than by logic, I would counter that I came to this state of 'emotional' drive by logic and if the product is truly the sum of its parts, then am I not a logically emotional being? Or are the two simply too contradictory to co-exist with one another? I stand by the former, because every day, with every conversation I take part in, with every phrase I read, every word I hear...I find myself finding the paradoxes, the philosophical insignificance of everything and this is what amuses me.
Of course, I might just be one freaking lunatic...I'll leave that for you to decide for myself.
Matt M.
"What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."
Karl Marx - The Communist Manifesto
The debate over what are defining characteristics of human life was raised by many philosophers. Some philosophers were rationalists eg. Descarte… and others were empiricist eg. Locke… and they always had a conflict over this issue because each one believed that we should trust reason more and the other believed we should trust emotions… more. In my opinion, combination of both is defining characteristic of human life. The reason is not the only key, we also need emotions because that is what separates us from being a robot… and we need reason because reason separates us from animals. So we see that both are needed in equal proportions. We need experience because with it we acquire knowledge about world, but with reason we need to solve problems. Nevertheless, we still that there are limitations in each category that we can not completely trust senses because if we are in despair or bad mood…. we might do crazy things so we need reason to control our emotions so no disaster will occur. But still emotions are not that bad because they make us to be more human and sensitive to others. Can you imagine everyone to be rational and without no senses and feeling? Senses stop us from hurting others… so emotions are the instruments to help us feel and to know the world. I think it is kind of weird to claim that we need our reason more or we need emotions more. We need everything in equal proportions so everything will be balance.
Alina K.
Reason, emotion, mind, body, wisdom, desire...all are ideas which seem to be constantly competing with each other for domination of our ridiculously simple Human psyche.
To say that the human psyche is ‘ridiculously simple’ is bold. What evidence do you have for this? Why do you believe this? Explain something.
How or why the decision is made is not important, the result is the only real thing of consequence. We will never really know whether it was our passions or our reason which lead to the final decisions, especially if we are the observers looking in on some experiment of Human Nature.
Is it really the case that we can never know what motivates our behaviour? Is it the case that only the action matters, and that the thought process is irrelevant? If someone commits a good deed by accident, is he to be praised in the same way as one who commits a good deed purposely? Is there no difference between pre-meditated murder and manslaughter? Do the circumstances surrounding a given action really fail to possess any significance? This seems unlikely. If we count only effects as important and ignore causes, we lose the capacity for any kind of understanding. A sophisticated capacity for the recognition of cause and effect is a hallmark of humanity. If we don’t ask why, we have no choice but to revert back to superstition and mysticism, and God becomes the first and final cause of everything.
Concerning the limitations of reason, I would argue the only limitations of reason are inescapable paradoxes and contradictions which come from any philosophical position.
This is immeasurably bold.
I would maintain that every philosophical position has paradoxes within it if you reason with it long enough. Take my personal position, nihilism, as an example. I maintain that everything is pointless and of no worth. This makes nihilism pointless and of no worth. By nihilism being pointless and of no worth, it is discarded as such. However, by nihilism being pointless, it enforces the very idea which it preaches making it reseurrect from its self-defeating ashes. However, this resseurection is pointless, and so it is discarded, resulting in nihilisms rebirth as the pointlessness continues...Do you see what I mean? Paradox.
You are painting an enormous field of inquiry with one brush, so to speak. Yes, nihilism is inherently contradictory. It holds as a value that nothing has value. But to extend the faults of nihilism to all of philosophy is madness. You speak as though nihilism possesses some magic authority over all human thought, and imply that its failure necessarily marks the end of the credibility of any philosophical position. Why is this so? Where is an example? These philosophers (all of whom, so far, have been dead for quite some time) screwed some things up, perhaps, but to say that their ideas are paradoxical is to suggest that the contradictions that might be found in their writings consist of, let’s say, two equally true but mutually eclusive propositions, viz. blueness can only be rationally known vs. blueness can only be empirically known. This is only a paradox if both are somehow true. The combination of empiricism and rationalism does not constitute contradiction, but opposition between them, of course, does.
If the truth is clear and distinct, shouldn't it be blatantly obvious and require no reasoning to achieve? There is no escaping these paradoxes, leading us, well...me at least, to the only inescapable conclusion that everything is pointless.
First of all, the idea of clarity and distinctness is inextricably bound to the rational faculty, if you are referencing Descartes. If you wanted to speak generally of clarity and distinctness, you could easily say that Windex offers clarity and distincness, or that sight offers clear and distinct impressions of things. In a sense this is true – I clearly and distinctly see this computer screen. But Descartes is speaking of clarity and distinctness in terms of these qualities as they are available to the thinking thing. That which is clear and distinct is knowable outside of sense perception through the “natural light” of reason. This does not mean that the thinking thing will merely stumble half-blind and drunk towards the discovery of himself, but that the exercise of the natural light allows for the discovery of truth. I don’t necessarily agree with Descartes, but his argument isn’t as shallow as your writing suggests.
Second, why do the supposed paradoxes lead to the idea that everything is pointless? If you sincerely believe this, why write about it? Why attend tutorials, lectures? Why are you alive?
Concerning the rationality of emotion, I place equal faith in emotional reasoning as I would in logical reasoning. My reasons? Simply put, I'm no slave to my logic. Upon my realization of the pointless absurdity of our comical existances (or non-existances, depending on who you talk to), I decreed that I would do what amuses me, regardless of whatever 'illogical' actions they may be. While some would counter that I seem to be driven more by emotion than by logic, I would counter that I came to this state of 'emotional' drive by logic and if the product is truly the sum of its parts, then am I not a logically emotional being? Or are the two simply too contradictory to co-exist with one another? I stand by the former, because every day, with every conversation I take part in, with every phrase I read, every word I hear...I find myself finding the paradoxes, the philosophical insignificance of everything and this is what amuses me.
There is something dishonest about allowing logic, which you believe to be fundamentally flawed, to influence your emotion-driven behaviour. If nothing has value, and everything is rife with ‘paradox’, then logical principles clearly don’t apply. A paradox, as far as I know, is something that states that A is simultaneously A and not-A. I would imagine that this violates a pretty fundamental tenet of logic. If so, it would seem absurd to let it influence your behaviour.
"To say that the human psyche is ‘ridiculously simple’ is bold. What evidence do you have for this? Why do you believe this? Explain something."
First, nicky neptune, I'll offer you that this is an incredibly brief summary of my philosophical position. I was not aware that I would be required to basically submit entire philosophical treaties for your scrutiny which is why I have not completely defended some of my positions in anticipation of critque from others. Concerning the evidence I have for my opinion that the human psyche is 'ridiculously simple', my evidence lies in the fact that we're all incredibly stupid beings, myself included. If you study a Human being long enough, they can be predicted and even manipulated. For example, there is a school of psychological thought called "Neuro Linguistic Programming" which basically maintains that "You can use it to affect people's behavior and to change their state of mind." (Source: http://nlp.snowseed.com/intro_nlp.htm) If I can manipulate a person by simple gestures such as touching my chin when they are happy (an arguement maintained in the link above), I would call their psyche 'ridiculously simple.'
"Is it really the case that we can never know what motivates our behaviour? Is it the case that only the action matters, and that the thought process is irrelevant?"
If someone commits a good deed by accident, is he to be praised in the same way as one who commits a good deed purposely?"
First, I disagree with the use of the word "good." Good, evil...they're far to relative to be worth jack squat in any debate. There are some six billion differing opinions of what is 'good' and 'evil' in the world, so until we all agree on one definition, or God comes down and tells us what is what in blatantly obvious, non-cryptic terms everyone can relate to, they should not, logically, be included as reasoning behind any action. But fine, I'll grant you a stereoptypical definition of good for the sake of arguement.
You question whether we can ever know what motivates our behaviour and, personally, I believe that we can't know what motivates us. However, I'd even go one step further and say it doesn't matter what motivates us. I mean, so what if I know that I'm motivated by lust for power, does it change the fact that I'm motivated by my lust for power? That I make all of my descisions based on this lust for power? I'd argue that regardless of knowing that I lust for power, I'm still going to act based on my lust for power.I just know why I act the way I do. Besides being a, debatably, comfortable idea too make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, it serves no purpose to the world in which I inhibit.
Next, you offer that the thought process is important behind the action and I'll counter by saying it is irrelevant. If I kill person X, does my 'reasoning' or 'lack of reasoning' change the fact that person X is dead? Of course not (discounting the Everett many-worlds interpretation of the Schrodinger's Cat paradox). Now, I assume that you'll critque me with the legalities of the degrees of murder, and I'll counter stating all of them to be murder. I killed person X, the reasoning is completely irrelevant because person X is still dead. Regardless of how I justify the murder of person X, will it change the fact that I broke the law and killed person X? No, of course not.
"Is there no difference between pre-meditated murder and manslaughter?"
You offer that manslaughter is different than murder, and I counter that it doesn't change the fact that person X is dead. Reason is irrlevevant. However, it is interesting to note that a murder charge can be "reduced to manslaughter if the crime was committed "in the heat of passion", meaning that the person who caused a death was provoked in a manner that the law recognizes as a mitigating factor" (Source: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&cr=countryCA&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:Manslaughter&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title)
Basically, if I am emotionally justified in my actions that 'I wasn't thinking clearly' I get off on a lesser penalty. Or are my emotions not reason enough for a murder charge? Human law is so very entertaining.
"Do the circumstances surrounding a given action really fail to possess any significance? This seems unlikely. If we count only effects as important and ignore causes, we lose the capacity for any kind of understanding. A sophisticated capacity for the recognition of cause and effect is a hallmark of humanity. If we don’t ask why, we have no choice but to revert back to superstition and mysticism, and God becomes the first and final cause of everything."
I am not speaking of causality here, as you seem to be, I am speaking of Human actions and the psychological workings behind them. Perhaps that wasn't clear, and I can only blame myself for that mistake, but I make that addition now.
"This is immeasurably bold."
However, it is what I have witnessed throughout all of my philosophical inquiries. As of yet, I have yet to find one position or school of thought which does not result in paradox.
"You are painting an enormous field of inquiry with one brush, so to speak. Yes, nihilism is inherently contradictory. It holds as a value that nothing has value. But to extend the faults of nihilism to all of philosophy is madness. You speak as though nihilism possesses some magic authority over all human thought, and imply that its failure necessarily marks the end of the credibility of any philosophical position."
I offered nihilism as my example because it is my choosen school of thought and it is the one which I understand best. In addition, if it seems like I hold nihilism as some ultimate truth (God help us if that be the case!), it was unintentional. I wanted to point out the 'flaws' within my own position so that others would not accuse me of destroying everything but myself. If you would care for me to argue against another school of thought, please, by all means, offer me a suggestion and I shall attempt to accomadate you to the best of my abilities.
Concerning your latter position of nihilism's "failure necessarily marks the end of the credibility of any philosophical position." I said nothing of the sort. Personally, I view nihilism as the bi-product of all philosophical inquiry because I grant equal merit to all philosophical positions. If all are equally valuable, and equally plausible, which school of thought do we use to justify our actions? I argue that its pointless because their all speculative and subject to personal bias and opinion, nihilism as well. Its self contradictory defeat makes it no different than any other position and of exactly the same merit.
"These philosophers (all of whom, so far, have been dead for quite some time) screwed some things up, perhaps, but to say that their ideas are paradoxical is to suggest that the contradictions that might be found in their writings consist of, let’s say, two equally true but mutually eclusive propositions, viz. blueness can only be rationally known vs. blueness can only be empirically known. This is only a paradox if both are somehow true."
Fine. Which is it? Which of the two truths is the "Truth"? The former, which can be dismissed by following a certain line of reasoning? Or the latter, which can likewise be dismissed by another form of arguing? The paradoxes of which I speak are from conflicting ideas of equal merit. Its like saying "The next statement is absolutely true. The last statement was absolutely false." Because the two contradict each other, we don't know which of the statements is true, and whch is false, and only depending on personal bias does any one idea appeal to us more than any other.
"First of all, the idea of clarity and distinctness is inextricably bound to the rational faculty, if you are referencing Descartes. If you wanted to speak generally of clarity and distinctness, you could easily say that Windex offers clarity and distincness, or that sight offers clear and distinct impressions of things. In a sense this is true – I clearly and distinctly see this computer screen. But Descartes is speaking of clarity and distinctness in terms of these qualities as they are available to the thinking thing. That which is clear and distinct is knowable outside of sense perception through the “natural light” of reason. This does not mean that the thinking thing will merely stumble half-blind and drunk towards the discovery of himself, but that the exercise of the natural light allows for the discovery of truth. I don’t necessarily agree with Descartes, but his argument isn’t as shallow as your writing suggests."
First of all, I offered "clear and distinct idea" because it is a phrase which I actually like and it is credited to Descartes. However, I do not use it with the same meaning Descartes used. Call it misrepresentation if you will, but had I not used it as a citation and merely said clear and distinct idea, you would probably be accusing me of plagarising Descartes. My hands were, proverbially, tied in the matter. My use of the pharse was merely to point out that if you reason with the statement long enough, you'll find 'flaws' in it. I use it as an example to show that you can see the paradoxical nature in other ideas besides nihilism. If you like, I can go out and buy all of Descartes' works, read through them, find and highlight all of the paradoxes within them, post them here, debate with you about the paradoxes and the meaning of paradoxes, etc etc etc...but I'm cheap, lazy, and hardly willing to to all of that work for the sake correctly argueing paradoxes within Descartes' rationalism.
"Second, why do the supposed paradoxes lead to the idea that everything is pointless?"
Simply put? Because for every A there is a not-A. If both are of equal merit, how do we determine which one is the truth without resorting to personal bias? People will believe A, people will also believe not-A. Its pointless because regardless of what arguements are offered against either of them, they will both exist as ideas and still have equal merit dispite completely contradicting each other, making the whole process of eliminating one as a falsity completely pointless.
"If you sincerely believe this, why write about it?"
Because I choose to and not writing about it would be just as poitnless as writing about it.
"Why attend tutorials, lectures?"
Because they amuse me and not going would be just as pointless as going.
"Why are you alive?"
Because the act of suicide is just as pointless as staying alive.
"There is something dishonest about allowing logic, which you believe to be fundamentally flawed, to influence your emotion-driven behaviour."
First of all, I do not believe logic is flawed, I just think its pointless. I could easily offer the arguement that we are 'rational beings' and the greatest of all greatness is following logic through until we unveil the ultimate truths of the cosmos! Of course, I oversimplify, but you get the point. Is that position of any more or less merit than saying I am a being of passion, I lust after the physical pleasures of life, reason is irrelevant, and the ultimate truth lies in sex? I'd say no, both are equally plausible to me, and they, ultimately, don't matter because despite contradicting each other, neither one can dismiss the other as a possibility.
"If nothing has value, and everything is rife with ‘paradox’, then logical principles clearly don’t apply. A paradox, as far as I know, is something that states that A is simultaneously A and not-A. I would imagine that this violates a pretty fundamental tenet of logic. If so, it would seem absurd to let it influence your behaviour."
Suppose logic is flawed. Suppose logic is limited. Suppose logic is perfectly fine and its laguage that is the problem. Suppose only A is true and not-A is just faulty reasoning. Suppose that that which is absurd is actually the most real thing out there...There are too many other arguements I can offer against your conclusion, against all of my counter arguements there will, inevitably, be more counter arguements, and counter-counter arguements, and counter-counter-counter arguements, etc etc etc.
Concerning the absurdity of letting logic govern my way behviour...its just as absurd, in my opinion, to be governed by anything else. I chose to let logic govern my life (at least in this eigenstate) because it amuses me. It would be equally pointless for me to live a life governed by my passions alone.
I hope my answers satisfy you, and if you do feel the need to tear my position apart again, I ask that you consider this is no philosophical treaties I write here, they are merely opinions and meager defenses of my position which has come into question.
Sincerely,
Matt M.
"There is no spoon."
The Matrix.
“"Neuro Linguistic Programming" which basically maintains that "You can use it to affect people's behavior and to change their state of mind." (Source: http://nlp.snowseed.com/intro_nlp.htm) If I can manipulate a person by simple gestures such as touching my chin when they are happy (an arguement maintained in the link above), I would call their psyche 'ridiculously simple.'”
You have the privilege of asserting your own stupidity. I am neither simple nor stupid.
Notwithstanding that outstanding lack of credibility of your source (it includes links to introductory hypnosis and something called “State of Power” and misspells “spatial”), the idea still fails to suggest simplicity. But this doesn’t matter, because it is not human simplicity that is at the root of this argument, and I’m not really looking for sources.
“First, I disagree with the use of the word "good." Good, evil...they're far to relative to be worth jack squat in any debate.”
I posit that “good” is that which is beneficial to the preservation and subsistence of an individual so long as it does not interfere with the preservation and subsistence of any other individual. I cannot claim that this is a constant, but is closer to the Aristotelian idea of the Mean. If someone wishes to kill you and your family, what is good is the preservation of yourself and your family perhaps at the expense of someone who has given up his right to self-preservation. I could expand on this if you require it.
“You question whether we can ever know what motivates our behaviour and, personally, I believe that we can't know what motivates us. However, I'd even go one step further and say it doesn't matter what motivates us. I mean, so what if I know that I'm motivated by lust for power, does it change the fact that I'm motivated by my lust for power? That I make all of my descisions based on this lust for power? I'd argue that regardless of knowing that I lust for power, I'm still going to act based on my lust for power.I just know why I act the way I do. Besides being a, debatably, comfortable idea too make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, it serves no purpose to the world in which I inhibit.”
You need to define and/or clarify a few things.
If I steal a loaf of bread because I am starving to death, am I unaware of my motivation for the act of theft? How is this unknowable?
I agree that the motivation for your action does not change the action itself, but I still maintain (until you can convince me otherwise) that the motivation changes the nature of the action. Your lust for power leads you to some action or string of actions. What motivates your lust for power? Perhaps you wish to commit genocide, or perhaps you wish to free a group of people oppressed by the current government. Do you think that your motivation – genocide or emancipation – has no bearing on your goodness? If goodness is as I have defined it (and it will remain defined in that manner until you can provide a convincing account of its failure) then emancipation is ‘good’ and genocide is ‘bad’. The immediate actions may not change, but subsequent and prior actions most certainly will.
“Regardless of how I justify the murder of person X, will it change the fact that I broke the law and killed person X? No, of course not.”
Concerning this and the other references to manslaughter and the comedic qualities of “human law” (as opposed to Tiger law), I would raise the same objections as above. The act of murder does not change, but all of human behavior does not revolve around a single, decisive moment. There is a long, chronological series of events that lead up to and follow the act of murder. Have we executed an extremely dangerous, genocidal dictator? Or have we run down a nun with a forklift?
“I am not speaking of causality here, as you seem to be, I am speaking of Human actions and the psychological workings behind them.”
The phrase “…human actions and the psychological workings behind them” seems to imply some kind of chronology – that is, that the psychological workings preceded the human actions; were “behind” them. This seems like a causal relation to me.
“I offered nihilism as my example because it is my choosen school of thought and it is the one which I understand best. In addition, if it seems like I hold nihilism as some ultimate truth (God help us if that be the case!), it was unintentional. I wanted to point out the 'flaws' within my own position so that others would not accuse me of destroying everything but myself. If you would care for me to argue against another school of thought, please, by all means, offer me a suggestion and I shall attempt to accomadate you to the best of my abilities.”
I would like you to argue against another school of thought. I would like you to legitimately assess rationalism and empiricism and formulate conclusions about them. There may very well be contradictions. I intend to address that issue shortly.
“If all are equally valuable, and equally plausible, which school of thought do we use to justify our actions? I argue that its pointless because their all speculative and subject to personal bias and opinion, nihilism as well. Its self contradictory defeat makes it no different than any other position and of exactly the same merit.”
I think this is what lies at the heart of the disagreement. If you grant that every school of thought (every thing, too?) has equal merit, discussion becomes impossible. This is where you derive your paradoxes from. There is the realm of the possible, and the realm of the impossible. Possible things may or may not happen, and impossible things will never happen. The contingency of possible things means that something can seem right without actually being true. Because it is possible, we can imagine it. Like a unicorn, however, it doesn’t necessarily exist (despite the fact that unicorns are awesome). As an example, both Descartes and Hume are pretty convincing, but because their possible worldviews contradict, one or both are incorrect.
This leads to a discussion of truth. Let’s say that that which is true is that which is possible AND existent or occurring. It is not the case that all ideas have equal merit. If it were, nothing would be true, because many conflicting things could be occurring or existing simultaneously (like, the earth is exploding and not exploding). This is not possible. You are clever enough to see problems in Descartes and Hume, but this does not mean that they are both right and equally meritorious. It means, as I said, that one or both of them screwed up somewhere.
“Simply put? Because for every A there is a not-A. If both are of equal merit, how do we determine which one is the truth without resorting to personal bias? People will believe A, people will also believe not-A.”
Both are not of equal merit. A and not-A can’t both be true. A paradox is when this SEEMS to be the case. It is a question, not an answer.
I would also suggest that what people think about the truth or falsity of a given proposition, A, is really very inconsequential to the actual truth value of A. Bias may come into play concerning their BELIEF, but it has no bearing on the actual truth of the matter.
“First of all, I do not believe logic is flawed, I just think its pointless.”
I am not sure what you mean by pointless. I don’t think logic is supposed to be like the bible – it isn’t the answer itself, but the tool that allows you to pursue truth.
Suppose logic is flawed. Suppose logic is limited. Suppose logic is perfectly fine and its laguage that is the problem. Suppose only A is true and not-A is just faulty reasoning. Suppose that that which is absurd is actually the most real thing out there...There are too many other arguements I can offer against your conclusion, against all of my counter arguements there will, inevitably, be more counter arguements, and counter-counter arguements, and counter-counter-counter arguements, etc etc etc.
So offer them.
-----------------------------------
www.dictionary.com
"You have the privilege of asserting your own stupidity. I am neither simple nor stupid.
Notwithstanding that outstanding lack of credibility of your source (it includes links to introductory hypnosis and something called “State of Power” and misspells “spatial”), the idea still fails to suggest simplicity. But this doesn’t matter, because it is not human simplicity that is at the root of this argument, and I’m not really looking for sources."
Mmm...and you have the privelege of asserting your own arrogance. In all fairness, you asked me why I thought the Human psyche was simple and I gave you my reasoning. Furthermore, you assert your own stupidty because both "spacial" and "spatial" are recognized spellings of the same word according to the Oxford English Dictionary. As for NLP being sufficient grounds to call something simple, here we'll see our differing opinions. I'll probably not concede to you, nor are you likely to concede to me. Provided neither of us moves, which of us has the correct position? This is, of course, after you've removed your arrogance from the picture and brought yourself down to the level of equality. Of course, I'd suggest you do that anyways because otherwise, no further debate is necessary because clearly you are infallible. But fine, let us let this issue die because as you stated, it is not the root of our arguement.
"I posit that “good” is that which is beneficial to the preservation and subsistence of an individual so long as it does not interfere with the preservation and subsistence of any other individual. I cannot claim that this is a constant, but is closer to the Aristotelian idea of the Mean. If someone wishes to kill you and your family, what is good is the preservation of yourself and your family perhaps at the expense of someone who has given up his right to self-preservation. I could expand on this if you require it."
Fine, I grant you your definition of "good." Now, let us see where my examination leads us. Let us look at your "good" man in relation to the state around him. He is a farmer and he lives off the land with his wife and child. He asks nothing of those around him, nor do those around him ask him for anything. He is on pleasant terms with his neighbours, and the state in which he lives. Then, one day, the state is attacked by a vicious enemy and his state calls its citizens to arms to defend their way of life. And so, our man is faced with his philosophical dilemna. Does he go to war, acting on his innate desire to preservate himself? Or, does he refuse to fight, acting on his innate desire to "not interfere with the preservation and subsistence of any other individual?" Your "good" falls apart when it is put into conflict because your "good" man can not preserve himself without interfering with the lives of others.
Concerning your example, call me stupid if you really must (though such vulgarities do nothing to defend your position), but what do you mean by "given up the right to self-preservation?" This implies, to me at least, the person no longer has the right to live simply becaue he wants me to die.
"You need to define and/or clarify a few things.
If I steal a loaf of bread because I am starving to death, am I unaware of my motivation for the act of theft? How is this unknowable?"
First, I'd like to clarify that I'd thought our discussion was focused on aspects of the psyche and of reason and I'd assumed that this meant that all the actions which we would speak of would have their origins in the mind. Your analogy does not fit my parameters of this discussion as the reasoning originates as a biological necessity which is a whole other can of worms. However, I'll not resist your conclusion that in this situation, we have a clear motivation: a biological necessity. However, the action still remains unchanged. You still stole the loaf of bread. Whatever reasoning you may have to justify it is irrelevant because people will have different opinions about the action itself. Some will suggest that because you were starving, you were justified in stealing the bread. Others would offer that regardless of your pathetic suffering, you should have gotten a job and paid for the loaf of bread like any decent citizen of the state would have done. Still others would offer other confliting ideas about the issues, but the result is the same. You stole a loaf of bread all debate about the reasoning why just personal bias.
"What motivates your lust for power? Perhaps you wish to commit genocide, or perhaps you wish to free a group of people oppressed by the current government"
A perfect example of how ethics are relative. Concerning the former, my wish to commit genocide, those who share my hatred of the race of my genocide will support my claims and call me "good" for acting on them meanwhile the unfortunate objects of my scorn would call me "evil" for obvious reasons. Concerning the latter, those who currently benefit from the current regime and like its design would call me "evil" for having opposing ideas to their own, however, the people who I seek to free from their dictators would view me as "good" for bringing them liberty.
"Do you think that your motivation – genocide or emancipation – has no bearing on your goodness?"
No, as I previously demonstrated, they are just relative terms depending on which side of the arguement you're on.
"If goodness is as I have defined it (and it will remain defined in that manner until you can provide a convincing account of its failure) then emancipation is ‘good’ and genocide is ‘bad’."
"Goodness" is not as you defined it. Not only is your arguement for "good" basically impossible (Its pretty much impossible to improve my own life without imposing even an itty bitty bit on another's rights. Surely, you see that, do you not?), but in our examples above, I've listed those persons who would support my genocide, and those persons who would oppose my liberating the slaves. Does their support or condemnation change the fact that I act on my lust for power? No. Does it change the fact that these persons involved react to my actions based on personal bias? No. Will there be persons on both sides of the arguement arguing for and against my rights to do the things I did? Of course. And what do we have? There is no conclusion in either case. People who support my genocide will still support my genocide, people who denounce my revolution will still denounce my revolution just as their counter-parts will fight for their position. And what do we have? Pointless debates where neither side concedes to the other, this will, probably, eventually lead to mass violence and war or revolution. For what? Different opinions over actions.
If I offer you a list of reasons why all homosexuals should be killed and, simultaneously, offered you a list of reaons why all homosexuals should have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals, which list will you choose to believe in? Both are, of course, argued exactly the same way, using exactly the same evidence, and of completely equal merit with one another. Suppose you choose the former, while anothe person subjugated to the same ordeal chooses the latter. Which of you two is right? If you both act on your supposed sides, which side is the more just in its cause? The former, because they are removing a tainted filth from the face of the earth? The latter, because they are fighting for the gays' rights to "self-preservation"? Neither? Both? It is all just opinion and therefore, irrelevant. The ethics behind a person, or psychological reasons why they act the way they do is little more than personal bias. Period. There is nothing more to say on the issue.
As for your paranthesized challenge for your ethics, I don't care. Your ethics are just an opinion of billions. A capitalist would argue "If I can make a million dollars more by pissing on the poor, Imma piss on the poor" and that contradicts your position. A Communist would argue "Its all for the good for my comrades, my life means nothing by comparison," so there "good" requires only self-sacrifice. A dictator would argue "What is good is what benefits me and keeps my power here," and that is his opinion. Your idealist isolationist/anarchist position of good would be easily dismissed by any of the afore mentioned schools of political theory or anyone devoutly dedicated to their schools of thought. Among philosophers, your "good" has no place in the Plato's kallipolis, Lao Tzu would disagree with you because you are not siding with the submissive and recognizing balance and yadda, Nietzsche would obliterate you because ethics are meaningless to him...are you really arrogant enough to assert that your truth here that "“good” is that which is beneficial to the preservation and subsistence of an individual so long as it does not interfere with the preservation and subsistence of any other individual" is the absolute, irrefutable Truth of "good"? If no, then your position is of exactly the same merit as anyone elses and little more than personal bias. If yes, then I'll concede this debate here and now because you're too vastly arrogant to make such a claim meaning further discussion with you would be an epitome of pointlessness and there's enough of that going around as it is.
"Have we executed an extremely dangerous, genocidal dictator? Or have we run down a nun with a forklift?"
What does it matter? Hitler still has neo-Nazi followers today despite being, arguably, the most evil bastard in history. Is his right to live somehow inferior to our own because he is a genocidal dictator? Is the nun's life somehow worth more because of her choosen profession? I laugh at the concept. A Human is a Human is a Human. We do not call a monkey, "good" or "evil", we call him a monkey. We do not call the wolves "good" or "evil" we call them wolves. Is your definition of "good" anymore valid that Nietzsche's? Or a Capitalists? Or a Communists? Or a Buddhists? Or a Satanists? Please. They all place themselves in the same high regard that you place yourself in with the same benefits and limitations of their philosophies that you would encounter with yours. However, they're all still Human.
"The phrase “…human actions and the psychological workings behind them” seems to imply some kind of chronology – that is, that the psychological workings preceded the human actions; were “behind” them. This seems like a causal relation to me."
Fine, there's a psychological reason for everything. What is it? Why do I punch person X after just meeting him? Did I just hate him at first sight? Was it problems with my father? Just a bad day, perhaps? Maybe he's an evil dictator? Maybe he's a revolutionary threatening my regime? All of those are equally valid reasons, so tell me, why did I punch person X? Mmm, regardless of which one you choose, its just personal opinion. Others will argue that it was because of reasons A-Z, and still others will argue it was because of subconcious reasons A-Z. Which one is right? Ooo, better question, does it change the fact that I punched person X in the face? Do you really think he cares why I punched him in the face or is he just gonna sue me?
Using just the conscious mind, I can come up with a near infinite number of reasons why I punched person X in the face, can I say, with 100% certainty the reason why I did it? I may suspect, but I will never know what motivated me to act. Throw in the unconcious mind and that's another Pandora's box of potential reasons why I punched person X in the face. So, why did I punch person X in the face? Answer that and maybe I'll consider your cause and effect relation between the psyche and action something of merit.
"I would like you to argue against another school of thought. I would like you to legitimately assess rationalism and empiricism and formulate conclusions about them. There may very well be contradictions. I intend to address that issue shortly."
How legitimate are we talking here? Do you want pages and pages of philosphical dialogue going through line by line of each rationalist and empiricist thinker pointing out all the paradoxes and contradctions within each of them? Or, do you expect me to summarize each position and point out general flaws within them? While I think you will tell me the latter, you will, undoubtedly, mean the former and treat my brief summaries as philosophical treaties written by fiftieth year university professor, revelling in each thread of my arguement you can tear down. I'll save you a step, consider my arguements destroyed and my counter is as simple three little words. "That's your opinion." The meaning should be obvious by now. You'll probably think I'm taking a cop out and really, I am. But thankfully, I don't really care that you think that. Because when it comes down to it, I'm too lazy and I find empiricism and rationalism boring to read. Note: I said boring, that doesn't mean I don't hold them as equal to any other position.
"There is the realm of the possible, and the realm of the impossible."
There is no impossible. There is only the improbable. But I'll allow your assumption for the sake of arguement (I can't wait for you to tear this one apart.)
"This leads to a discussion of truth. Let’s say that that which is true is that which is possible AND existent or occurring"
Sweetheart! You're making all my arguements for me at this point! "Let us say..." Fine! Lets! But that doesn't dismiss any of the conflicting ideas which can contradict your own offered ideas here!
"You are clever enough to see problems in Descartes and Hume, but this does not mean that they are both right and equally meritorious. It means, as I said, that one or both of them screwed up somewhere."
There's a saying I heard a while ago and I think its very applicable here. "For every philosopher, there is an equal an opposite philosopher. Both of them are wrong." If it is not Hume or Descartes, or any other philosphical or religious system which holds the Truth which you seem to seek in a flawless display of reasoning and logic, then what, my dear nicky neptune, is the Truth? Which of the infinite belief systems is in your realm of the possible? Offer now and subjugate it to my own scrutiny so you can play the defensive in our next debate.
"Both are not of equal merit. A and not-A can’t both be true. A paradox is when this SEEMS to be the case."
Perhas you don't yet understand. Position A and not-A are, in my opinion, equal ideas. A contradicts not-A and not-A contradicts A. Both can not be true, however, both are held as equally plausible ideas. I'll use my former paradox as an example. "The next statement is absolutely true" seems like a plausible idea. "The last statment was absolutely false" seems like an equally plausible idea. what happens when we combine them? "The next statement is absolutely true. The last statement was absolutely false." Whee. Paradox. Not relevent enough? Fine, lets look at a big question then. Ready? Here it is:
God exists. God doesn't exist.
Need another one? Okay, fine...here it is:
"Good" is what the masses hold to be true. "Good" is what the individual holds to be true.
"It is a question, not an answer.
I would also suggest that what people think about the truth or falsity of a given proposition, A, is really very inconsequential to the actual truth value of A. Bias may come into play concerning their BELIEF, but it has no bearing on the actual truth of the matter."
Ahhh! BELIEF! The magic word! EVERYTHING IS A MATTER OF BELIEF BEACUSE WE KNOW NOTHING! You see? I can't make it clearer than that! For every thing you'll tell me is true I can almost gurantee there will be someone who can contradict that truth! Maths, sciences, religion, philosophy, politics...its all based on BELIEF!
"I am not sure what you mean by pointless. I don’t think logic is supposed to be like the bible – it isn’t the answer itself, but the tool that allows you to pursue truth."
And truth, debatably, doesn't exist making the whole process pointless. You can use logic and reason to prove or disprove anything, really. So it all comes down to opinion and opinions on the grand scale are pointless.
"So offer them."
~Chuckles~ I did, but perhaps too subtley. What was meant by my suppositions was to make you realize that there is more than one opinion of logic and they will contradict each other and the whole process is comically pointless.
Have fun.
Matt M.
"I'd start a revolution...if I could get up in the morning."
Aimee Allen - Revolution.
This is getting a little pretentious.
Quite frankly, I agree with you. I'd never intended my arguements to go this far and I do apologize for taking them to this level, however, I was only defending my position which came under Nicky's scrutiny.
DAMN! Forgot my quote!
"In heaven, all the interesting people are missing."
Frederich Nietzsche
That's for the last post...and now, my usual quotation.
"Do you believe, in heaven above?
Do you believe in love?
Don't tell a lie,
Don't be false or untrue,
It all comes back to you."
Paul Oakenfold - Send me an Angel
I think we've exhausted all of the issues, and found that one or both of us is unwilling to budge.
Thanks for your time and effort.
I apologize for my somewhat rash treatment of the word "spatial". That was silly of me.
I also want to clarify that when I wrote, "You have the right to the assertion of your own stupidity," I meant that when you wrote, "we're all incredibly stupid beings" you did not have the right to speak on my behalf, only your own. I wasn't calling you stupid, you wrote that you - indeed, all people - were stupid. I just happened not to agree, but I acknowledge your right to speak for yourself.
I am disappointed that what I hoped would be a productive discussion degenerated into name-calling ('sweetheart', 'arrogant' etc.), and I hope that this can be avoided in the future.
Good luck.
And I, nicky neptune, will likewise apologize to you. Your phrasing that I "had the privelege of asserting my own stupidity" seemed like you were calling me stupid for my arguements, specifically, for using an untrustworthy source.
As for the "Sweetheart," it was not meant to be an insult, rather, a lighthearted term of endearment. I call many people, male and female, "honey," "hon," or similar terms on a daily basis. If it offended you, I do apologize but it was not my intention.
I thank you for the challenge of defending my position and tip my hat to you for doing so.
Sincerely,
Matt M.
"Willst du frei sein?"
Oomph - Willst du frei sein.
When I think of Reason, I think of the word BECAUSE. Now, Hume says that we cannot know the causal link between two events. Now, we can approach the analasis of whether human beings are rational, another name for reasonable, is by observing them. From observation we gather that what humans are not reasonable at all. If we were reasonable animals, we would stop destroying and exploiting this planet, there would be no wars and everybody would live in dignity.
I feel like Phoedrus from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainance, chasing the Spirit of Reason when I say that the human being tends toward camouflaging his desires, fears and anxieties, dismissing the connection between cause and effect.
Bob Marley sang (quite correctly) that we are "thinking you're in heaven but you're living in hell". While reason is a weapon in the philosopher's arsenal, it is not at all given that the human being can remain reasonable all the time.
I do agree that reason reigns supreme over the land of the living, it is a necessity for everyone to possess some extent of reason to survive. Of course there are limits to reason, including the incompatibility between each person’s use and methods of reason and the effects of emotions on one’s reason. However, I find it impossible to believe that someone who does not have reason could possibly get by. Even our most mundane decisions (i.e. what time we must wake up to make it to a 9:30 am class on time) rely on a degree of reason. We use reason to figure out that the white, yellow and red plugs on the DVD player plug into the corresponding color on the TV jack, without even the minutest amount of reason we could not even function independently. Unfortunately, one can not rely on anyone else’s reason, for every individual’s reason is different and that is a large downfall in reason. Why do people think it is reasonable to drive while drunk? That completely eludes my understanding of reason, their reason must be leagues different then mine. Reason can also be confused when emotions are involved, they are most always irrational and tend to scatter everything else. When we are angry we make rash decisions, when frustrated we are careless, when we are in love we are witless and when we are depressed we are inefficient. Whether the feelings are good or bad, they always have a negative influence on our reason. I believe that it is each individuals strength of will that decides whether they will let their reason be swayed by emotions, though I will admit, that the even the strongest person will could probably be pushed aside in the wake of a very intense emotion. Though, in the end, reason can not bring you a huge understanding of anything unless it comes with an experience. I believe that one can learn nothing if they just sit at home and think (sorry Descartes!), one must reason AND experience to truly understand.
Post a Comment