Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Sci Fi Writer John C Wright on self-evidence, honesty and reason

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Mr Wright observes:


From time to time it is useful for sane men in an insane world to remind themselves of basic truths.
The first truth is that truth is true. A statement that there is no truth, if true, is false.

We know this truth is basic because without it, no question can be answered, not even the question of whether or not truth is true.
Truth is a subtle and complex topic, but what we mean by the word can be said in a short sentence using words of one syllable: Truth is when one says ‘it is’, and it is as one says.
The second conclusion springs immediately from the first. We know that truth is true because to say truth is untrue is illogical. A statement that truth is true is a self-evident statement, hence a true one. A statement that truth is untrue is a self-contradiction, hence false.
The second truth is that logic is valid. Nothing follows from a statement that logic is invalid.
By saying this, we are not attempting to convince any being who does not use reason to adopt the use of reason. The only point of the comment is to point out that whatever is undeniable is true.
Even to answer the question of whether or not reasoning is valid, we must use reason.
One is free to put aside reason, from time to time, I suppose: but when one does, nothing necessarily follows.
A third truth is that one ought to be honest. Honesty is a virtue one ought to practice. Anyone who says otherwise is dishonest.
Even to answer the question of whether or not honesty is a virtue one ought to practice, one ought to be honest. A dishonest answer to this question is not only untruthful and illogical, it is also vice.
In other cases, there may be an honest difference of judgment among rational men as to whether the particular dishonesty is expedient, justified, or mitigated, but not in this case.
This is the general cases that includes all others: if there is no rule against dishonesty at all, then there is no rule against dishonesty in the particular case.

It is time to call the gaslighting of our civilisation in order to undermine basic first truths and first duties of reason out for what it is. And, Mr Wright also has some choice words for that stunt:

Reminders of the obvious are useful and necessary in world where all our major public institutions are engaged in a reckless policy of gaslighting the public, that is, of saying obviously false, absurdly illogical, and morally repugnant things with an assumed air of nonchalance, as if you, dear reader, were the madman for not conforming to the appearance of a consensus.

The resemblance of such to things that too often have popped up here at UD but also pop up all around us like mushrooms after rain, is NOT coincidental. A civilisation that arrogantly turned its back on the heritage of Christendom, despising God, is reducing itself to utter irrationality.

What a surprise — NOT! END

Comments
Here is an interesting moral dilemma that was raised by science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke in his novels 2001 and 2010 where he explores some questions brought up by advanced or “strong” AI. Could a computer like the fictional computer HAL be programmed to be conscious? If it’s conscious does it become moral or could it be programmed to be moral. How can we trust a computer-- a machine-- if it is by nature amoral? Personally, I think it’s at least possible in principle that a computer could be programmed “not to lie.” Truth and falsehood are based things that are really very objective. That is the way HAL was programmed in 2001. But that created a logical dilemma for “him” when he was instructed keep the new (or revised) mission goal of the Discovery One secret. However, circumstances created a dilemma which HAL solved by killing or trying to kill D1's crew members.
Dr. Heywood Floyd: Wait... do you know why HAL did what he did? Chandra: Yes. It wasn't his fault. Dr. Heywood Floyd: Whose fault was it? Chandra: Yours. Dr. Heywood Floyd: Mine? Chandra: Yours. In going through HAL's memory banks, I discovered his original orders. You wrote those orders. Discovery's mission to Jupiter was already in the advanced planning stages when the first small Monolith was found on the Moon, and sent its signal towards Jupiter. By direct presidential order, the existence of that Monolith was kept secret. Dr. Heywood Floyd: So? Chandra: So, as the function of the command crew - Bowman and Poole - was to get Discovery to its destination, it was decided that they should not be informed. The investigative team was trained separately, and placed in hibernation before the voyage began. Since HAL was capable of operating Discovery without human assistance, it was decided that he should be programmed to complete the mission autonomously in the event the crew was incapacitated or killed. He was given full knowledge of the true objective... and instructed not to reveal anything to Bowman or Poole. He was instructed to lie.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086837/quotes In other words, HAL had been programmed not to lie but he had not been programmed not to murder. So to solve the logical problem he was faced with he killed the crew so he could complete his mission autonomously. Humans, on the other hand, have something known as a moral conscience. However, a moral conscience is of no value unless there are objective moral values (moral truth.) Again how can we have a meaningful discussion or debate about morality unless both sides in the discussion can trust each other to be honest and truthful?john_a_designer
November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
chirp, chirp, chirpkairosfocus
November 26, 2019
November
11
Nov
26
26
2019
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT
DAT, let's see. KFkairosfocus
November 25, 2019
November
11
Nov
25
25
2019
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT
UB, on target. KFkairosfocus
November 25, 2019
November
11
Nov
25
25
2019
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT
Upright, Well said. I think he won't answer your question because he has no retort sufficient to rebut your argument.DATCG
November 24, 2019
November
11
Nov
24
24
2019
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT
. Ed at 34,
[re: Ed on telling the truth] It is just one of the rules we have to follow if we want to be welcome in society. If I chose to live by myself in a cabin in the hills I would have no obligation to be honest to the rare person that stumbled upon me.
Yes, you’ve been very concise on this feature of your belief system, and we understand you. If you live in a society then you have to tell the truth as a moral obligation to the consensus of that society (who collectively believe that people should tell the truth). But if you live out on your own, then you are your own consensus, and as you clearly say, you ”have no obligation” to tell the truth to some poor sap who might happen upon you. You’ve made yourself perfectly clear on this. And if that poor sap who happens to come upon you on your hill also happens to be of the fairer variety, with breasts and a vagina ... well tough shit, eh Ed? I’ve asked you repeatedly if a woman being raped needed the consensus of a group in order to know for certain that the brutalization she feels is actually valid. That is certainly the belief you seem to espouse here. You promote this as the advanced and enlightened view of human life, and judging by your insistence, you apparently think others should follow your lead on the matter, particularly those god-fearers around you who still mistakenly believe that raping a woman is an immoral act whether or not there is even one other ‘effing human being on the entire surface of planet who thinks so. You’ve understandably refused to answer my question, of course, but you’ve certainly shed some light on the matter now. Whatever happens to that curvy sap who happens upon your hill, she can’t really say that what’s happening to her is “wrong”, per se, she’ll just have to keep in mind that what’s happening to her literally goes with the territory, and in this instance, she was merely on the “wrong” territory. As you say, there is no moral dilemma on your part, having acted on your decision. It’s just a geographic misfortune on her part. Hell, it could even be sheer dumb luck. But you view this whole thing as a trick question, a “loaded question” as you called it. We all know that you aren’t the type of man so hardened of heart that you would actually ever rape a woman (regardless of when and where she happens upon you). It’s just that you are the type who is hardened enough to think that you decide if it is wrong for her to be raped. It’s a deformity of reason, but I see you come here daily to sell it in public -- and you seem to really enjoy it, with that special kind of superior arrogance: Does a woman being raped need the consensus of society in order to know for certain that the brutalization she feels is valid. Yes she does, but a man living by himself on a hill outside society can rape her without any moral obligation whatsoever. Frankly, given those answers, I can understand why you don’t like to engage “loaded questions”. You know, you might ought to think about just abandoning this whole big pitch you keep making for your moral superiority, and just deal with the science questions that come up. I think I’ve suggested this to you once before. If you choose to accept that suggestion, you are welcome to engage the subjects I've already brought up. You might remember I recently asked you about a particular prediction, various physical evidence, and some of the documented history of science itself.Upright BiPed
November 24, 2019
November
11
Nov
24
24
2019
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT
EG, Besides the point. Generally speaking we have to be very carefully taught addition facts, times tables and key uses, even though these are necessary truths. How we may learn or grow in awareness regarding or contemplate something has nothing to do with whether it is true or inescapable. For example, it usually takes structured teaching experience and focussed reflection to appreciate the principle of distinct identity and its close corollaries. That has nothing to do with whether they are inescapable and self-evidently true. And, of course, there are a fair number of things we pick up in childhood that are anything but well warranted. Warrant and personal circumstances are categorically distinct, as has been pointed out to you several times. I remind, from Wiki speaking against ideological bent:
Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
Similarly, JCW's point obtains regardless of how we mature enough to appreciate it. Let's refocus:
A third truth is that one ought to be honest. Honesty is a virtue one ought to practice. Anyone who says otherwise is dishonest. Even to answer the question of whether or not honesty is a virtue one ought to practice, one ought to be honest. A dishonest answer to this question is not only untruthful and illogical, it is also vice.
That stands, regardless of our early childhood experiences, etc. ______________________ ET, pardon, but no need to be snarky. KFkairosfocus
November 24, 2019
November
11
Nov
24
24
2019
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
Ed George:
I believe that honesty is important for a stable society.
And yet you are not honest, Ed.
I would go further to assert that honesty is an excellent example of a value that we obtain through early teaching, repetition, indoctrination, feedback, repetition and rational extrapolation to possible consequences.
You must have skipped those lessons, Ed.ET
November 24, 2019
November
11
Nov
24
24
2019
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
KF, I believe that honesty is important for a stable society. Any third grader could reason this out from first principles. But that doesn’t mean that it is objectively true that we must be honest. It is just one of the rules we have to follow if we want to be welcome in society. If I chose to live by myself in a cabin in the hills I would have no obligation to be honest to the rare person that stumbled upon me. It is interesting that you picked the example of honesty. If there truly is a moral obligation for honesty, why doesn’t everyone here post under their real names? I would go further to assert that honesty is an excellent example of a value that we obtain through early teaching, repetition, indoctrination, feedback, repetition and rational extrapolation to possible consequences. I have never met a young child that has never lied through his/her baby teeth. They don’t stop doing this until they find out that the social consequences for lying are often more serious than what they are lying about.Ed George
November 24, 2019
November
11
Nov
24
24
2019
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
EG, you saw a direct demonstration of the inescapable, so self-evident truth of first duties of reason; which are truths of moral character. It seems that you have a blind spot there. KF PS: Let's note from JCW, again to see one way that is made plain:
A third truth is that one ought to be honest. Honesty is a virtue one ought to practice. Anyone who says otherwise is dishonest. Even to answer the question of whether or not honesty is a virtue one ought to practice, one ought to be honest. A dishonest answer to this question is not only untruthful and illogical, it is also vice.
kairosfocus
November 24, 2019
November
11
Nov
24
24
2019
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
Ed George:
If you concede that objective morality is not one of these “TRUTHS”...
Why would he do that?ET
November 24, 2019
November
11
Nov
24
24
2019
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
KF
November 24, 2019 at 3:11 am EG, Vivid is right. I spoke to CERTAIN– particular, identifiable — truths, not to truth in general.
Fair enough. If you concede that objective morality is not one of these “TRUTHS” then we can simply agree to disagree about their source.Ed George
November 24, 2019
November
11
Nov
24
24
2019
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
EG, Vivid is right. I spoke to CERTAIN-- particular, identifiable -- truths, not to truth in general. Truth, understood as that which says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. The truths summarised as first principles and first duties of right reason, are inescapable, unavoidable, antecedent to attempted proofs or warrant. Such attempts must rely on the first principles and duties. They are canons of rational, responsible freedom, lurking in every rational act, thought or utterance we make. These, therefore, are part of the roots of any viable worldview. KF PS: For background, I again point here on http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_bld_wvukairosfocus
November 24, 2019
November
11
Nov
24
24
2019
01:11 AM
1
01
11
AM
PDT
Vivid [attn EG]: Prezactly, EG has unfortunately set up a strawman caricature which he is knocking down. Not realising, that even so, he is implying that we have duties of care to right reason, to truth, to prudence [so, warrant], etc. The point was, is, and remains, that the first principles and first duties of reason are inescapable, antecedent to any argument as any argument unavoidably pivots on these. They are therefore PRIOR TO DEMONSTRATIONS OR PROOFS. They are start-points of reasoning that any proofs, demonstrations, axiomatisations, inductive frameworks, bodies of knowledge etc must unavoidably rely on. Such is not question-begging [and explicit or implicit appeal to avoiding fallacies is of course a case of appeal to first duties of right reason . . . ], it is pointing out that one form of self evidence as to necessary truth is inescapability. The absurdity on attempted denial, comes by being forced to implicitly rely on what one wishes to deny or dismiss. That is and should be quite evident to a reasonably aware person; but, such duties point to reality root, worldview challenges that many will find unpalatable. That is, we need a good answer to bridging the IS-OUGHT gap in the world root. That points to needing the inherently good and utterly wise as the necessary being source of worlds. KFkairosfocus
November 24, 2019
November
11
Nov
24
24
2019
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT
E.G. “Here is my prediction. KF will dismiss my argument by claiming that I deny the existence of truth.” But he did not dismiss your argument by claiming you deny the existence of truth!! He is referring to “certain truths “ It would be helpful if you would address the argument he is making not the one you think he is making.He is saying you by your objection you are affirming the very thing you deny.Just a friendly suggestion. Vivid Vividvividbleau
November 23, 2019
November
11
Nov
23
23
2019
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT
EG
Here is my prediction. KF will dismiss my argument by claiming that I deny the existence of truth.
KF
EG, you are refusing to acknowledge the inescapability of certain truths regarding first duties of reason, even as every attempt to argue that you present turns on them.
Prediction confirmed.Ed George
November 23, 2019
November
11
Nov
23
23
2019
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT
EG, you are refusing to acknowledge the inescapability of certain truths regarding first duties of reason, even as every attempt to argue that you present turns on them. KFkairosfocus
November 23, 2019
November
11
Nov
23
23
2019
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
Ed George:
KF will dismiss my argument by claiming that I deny the existence of truth.
Or just reject it because it is nonsense. Have you found an adult to help you?ET
November 23, 2019
November
11
Nov
23
23
2019
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT
KF
it is quite clear that in every comment you make, you expect us to acknowledge truth, and a duty to correct errors.
Again, when have I denied the existence of truth? You seem to think that proving the existence of truth proves your point. All I have argued is that some of the things that you have claimed to be true have not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Here is my prediction. KF will dismiss my argument by claiming that I deny the existence of truth. Again. As I mentioned previously, there is no point in continuing this discussion as you are incapable of accurately representing, and thereby countering, my views.Ed George
November 23, 2019
November
11
Nov
23
23
2019
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
PS would such duties change were we taught in early childhood otherwise? Think here of children raised up as part of a subculture of theft. Or, would we say instead, that these were being groomed in evil, a very wicked thing.kairosfocus
November 23, 2019
November
11
Nov
23
23
2019
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT
EG, it is quite clear that in every comment you make, you expect us to acknowledge truth, and a duty to correct errors. Similarly, to follow what is warranted or reasonable. That already shows the inescapable first duties of reason in action; duties that are antecedent to any attempted proofs, indeed the very attempt or expectation of proof or warrant assumes and necessarily involves these duties. Further to such, I draw attention to JCW's summary on honesty:
A third truth is that one ought to be honest. Honesty is a virtue one ought to practice. Anyone who says otherwise is dishonest. Even to answer the question of whether or not honesty is a virtue one ought to practice, one ought to be honest. A dishonest answer to this question is not only untruthful and illogical, it is also vice.
Is it true or false (or meaningless, or delusional or whatever) that one ought to be honest? (Which includes duties to truth, warrant, prudence, right reason, justice.) KFkairosfocus
November 23, 2019
November
11
Nov
23
23
2019
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT
Ed George:
You may take pleasure from receiving praise from, and supporting, homophobes like Joe, but I prefer not to give people like him any air.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA- Dude, you are just an infant projectionist. You give me air? You are so freaking clueless.
When you want to have a serious discussion, let me know.
Why? Are you going to call a grown up and have them read what he writes? :razz: :cool:ET
November 23, 2019
November
11
Nov
23
23
2019
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
Ed George:
I argue that they come from early teaching, repetition, feedback, reinforcement, indoctrination, reason, etc.
The early teaching was derived from the objective morals. The repetition allowed changes to creep in. We know this happens just by looking at the evolution of languages. The feedback and indoctrination reinforces the changes. Then you come along and "reason" it all just happened due to something.
All of the observable evidence and recorded human history much better supports my model than yours.
What model? That somethings happened and we subjectively contrived morals from the events? Then we used feedback and indoctrination to reinforce that farce? Really?ET
November 23, 2019
November
11
Nov
23
23
2019
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT
Ed George:
With respect to the claim for objective morality, this burden has not been met.
Of course there will always be the lunatic-fringe deniers. It's to be expected.ET
November 23, 2019
November
11
Nov
23
23
2019
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT
KF
EG, you still refuse to acknowledge that in every step of every argument you make, there are implicit, inescapable appeals to known first principles and first duties of reason.
You are really having a difficult time following along. I have never denied the existence of truth. NEVER. All I have ever done is question your claims of certain things that you claim to be truths. But rather than addressing these, you keep insisting that I don’t accept the fact that that truths exist. Frankly, I can’t see the point in me wasting my time trying to talk to you when you repeatedly misrepresent what I say. I think I will bow out of this discussion. You may take pleasure from receiving praise from, and supporting, homophobes like Joe, but I prefer not to give people like him any air. When you want to have a serious discussion, let me know. Until then, bye.Ed George
November 23, 2019
November
11
Nov
23
23
2019
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
EG, you still refuse to acknowledge that in every step of every argument you make, there are implicit, inescapable appeals to known first principles and first duties of reason. Which, are antecedent to all proofs, as the very act of trying to prove or demonstrate must use these very same first things. From this, as JCW aptly summarised, we see that these first truths must be acknowledged before we can do anything with our rational, responsible mental faculties. It is the strength of that refusal in the teeth of what is manifest that is diagnostic. The conclusion we may freely take, is that such first principles lead to an import that you are determined to avoid ever yielding to. Worldview level, ideological question begging in short; which is then projected to those who point out that there are first principles and duties of reason that are inescapable and antecedent to any attempt to prove. KFKFkairosfocus
November 23, 2019
November
11
Nov
23
23
2019
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
ET
Agreed. But there has to be a solid case made that the premises are wrong.
No, the burden of proof lies with the person using these premisses to support his claim. With respect to the claim for objective morality, this burden has not been met.Ed George
November 23, 2019
November
11
Nov
23
23
2019
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
KF
JCW (who is heavily influenced by Epictetus) has aptly pointed out that truth [that which says of what is, that it is etc . . . ] is undeniably real.
I don’t disagree with this. Truth exists.
Likewise, to deny the force of logic is instantly self-defeating and the duty of honesty is real,
I agree with the statement of logic. Properly used, logic can lead you to “truth”. The problem I have is with your use of logic to declare your self-evident truths. They rely on the factual truth of some premisses that have not been conclusively demonstrated.
i.e. we are undeniably morally governed as a first truth.
I agree that we all have something that we call a sense of morality. Where we disagree is where these rights and wrongs that fill this sense come from. You believe that they are objectively derived (come from God). I argue that they come from early teaching, repetition, feedback, reinforcement, indoctrination, reason, etc. All of the observable evidence and recorded human history much better supports my model than yours. Blaming all of this on human error is just denying the evidence before your eyes in favor of what you need to be true in order to continue to accept your worldview.Ed George
November 23, 2019
November
11
Nov
23
23
2019
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
KF, thx for the link :) simplified and yet full of wisdom.DATCG
November 23, 2019
November
11
Nov
23
23
2019
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
ET, just to argue implies the inescapable first truths and first duties of right reason. No person of significant understanding and awareness of conscience can be ignorant of such. Indeed, in objecting, whatever rhetorical force is deployed depends implicitly on our intuitive awareness of such principles and duties. They are inescapable first truths. KFkairosfocus
November 22, 2019
November
11
Nov
22
22
2019
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply