>>ALL morals that we have, regardless of the source, regardless of whether they are objective or subjective, are filtered through humans. As such, we can never be absolutely sure that they are free from error. All of your “moral governance”, “reasoning and responsibility“, “self referential”, “IS-OUGHT” talking points are just that. Talking points. They are not arguments against what I have said about the fact that ALL purported moral actions are open to be questioned. Unless, of course, you suggest that we shouldn’t use the reasoning capabilities that we were given. >>
This is of course reflective of common views and agendas in our civilisation and so it is appropriate to reply, taking time to address key issues at worldviews level:
KF, 32: >>Pardon, but it is now further evident that you have not seen the significance of self-evident truth in general.
Could you be in error that you are conscious?
If so, what is there that is aware to regard the possibility of error? (And this is about the bare fact of consciousness, you could be a brain in a vat manipulated by electrified probes to imagine yourself a man in the world and you would still be undeniably certain of the bare fact of your own consciousness.)
Speaking of, that error exists is also undeniably true. Let E be that claim, then put up the attempted denial ~E. In other words ~E means it is an error to say that error exists. So, E is undeniable.
2 + 3 = 5 is also self-evident and undeniable:
|| + ||| –> |||||
In general, SET’s are truths that — once we are able to understand i/l/o our experience of the world — are seen to be so, and to be necessarily so on pain of patent absurdity on the attempted denial.
Such lie at the heart of rationality, through the manifest fact of distinct identity. Take some distinct A like a bright red ball on a table, so the world W is:
W = {A|~A}
From this world partition, we instantly see that A is itself, and no x can be (A AND ~A), also that any x is (A X-OR ~A). That is, from distinct identity, the three first principles of right reason are immediately present: Laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle.
Likewise from distinct identity two-ness is a direct corollary and from that the natural counting numbers and much of the logic of structure and quantity follows — i.e. Mathematics (which is NOT primarily an empirical discipline). As a start, I use the von Neumann construction:
Much more can be said, but the above is sufficient to show that there are literally infinitely many things that we may know with utter certainty, starting from a few that are self-evident. But also, such SET’s are insufficient to construct a worldview; they serve as plumbline tests for worldviews.
In particular, that something like E is knowable to utter certainty on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial means, truth exists as what says of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not. Similarly, this is warranted to utter certainty and so some things can be known to utterly, absolutely cretain degree. Therefore any worldview that imagines that such knowledge is impossible collapses in fatal, central error. Subjectivism, relativism and post modernism, I am looking straight at you.
Going further, following the Kantians, many have been induced to imagine that there is an ugly gulch blocking us from knowledge on the external world of things in themselves. Ever since F H Bradley over 100 years ago, this is known to be false. For, the claim to know of such an ignorance gap is to claim to know something of the outside world, i.e. the claim is self referential and incoherent.
A plumbline
We may then infer freely, that we may and do know things about reality external to our interior lives. Though, as error exists is equally certain, we must be careful in warrant. As a first test, plumbline truths will help us. And for many things a lesser degree of warrant is more than good enough. For example on serious matters, we may have moral certainty, that it would be irresponsible to act as though some A were false, on the evidence to hand or reasonably accessible. For yet other things — including science by and large — plausibly or possibly so and reliable i/l/o the balance of evidence is good enough. And so forth.
I am taking a little time to show you that I am not just talking from empty talking points, there are grounds of warrant for what I have to say. And, speaking for this blog, on worldview matters we have spent years thinking through such core matters. As, they lie at the heart of how our civilisation is in the state it is.
Now, too, you will notice that in speaking of moral certainty, I highlighted responsibility, moral government. We intuitively know that we have duties to truth, care in reasoning, fairness, justice, neighbour who is as we are, and more.
All of this reflects how our life of reason is inextricably entangled with responsibility, duty, moral government. And, dismissive hyperskepticism seeking to sweep that away is manifestly a failure of such duties.
Were our rational faculty utterly unrestrained by responsibility, duty, moral government, it would fall into the cynical nihilism of utter manipulativeness and imposition by force: might and/or manipulation make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘knowledge,’ ‘justice’ and more. That is suicidally absurd. And you know better, as you know that the very force that energises dispute such as in this thread is duty to truth, sound reason and more.
Yes, the mere fact that we inescapably find ourselves trying to justify ourselves and show others in the wrong immediately reveals the massive fact of moral government, and that this is critical to governing ourselves in community. On pain of mutual ruin.
But then, that surfaces another point you wished to brush off with dismissive talking points: the IS-OUGHT gap. That IS and OUGHT are categorically distinct and hard to resolve and unify. That has been known since Plato and beyond. Since Hume, we have known it can only be resolved at world-root level, or else we fall under the guillotine of ungrounded ought. Reasoning IS-IS, then suddenly from nowhere OUGHT-OUGHT. Where, if OUGH-ness is delusion, it instantly entails grand delusion, including of the life of responsible reason itself.
Your root challenge is, there is only one serious candidate that can soundly bridge the gap: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being; worthy of loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature.
This is not an arbitrary imposition, we are dealing with worldviews analysis on comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory adequacy (neither simplistic nor an ad hoc patchwork). If you doubt what I just said, simply put up a successful atlernative: ________ . (Prediction: v. hard to do.)
So, we are at world-root level, looking at generic ethical theism and the central importance of moral government in our life of reason.
The easy hyperskepticism that sweeps all before it on sheer rhetorical audacity is not good enough.
And, it is interesting that so far you have not readily found significant fault with the central Christian ethical teaching (which is of course profoundly Hebraic in its roots). It is there above, laid out in full. Kindly, tell us why those who acknowledge themselves to be under its government and will readily acknowledge that it is a stiff life-challenge are to be instantly, deeply suspect with but few exceptions.
And, tell us why a civilisation deeply influenced by such a teaching is to be branded with a scarlet letter instead of found to be in the sort of struggle to rise to excellence in the face of our finitude, prone-ness to error, moral struggle and too often our ill-will that are the anchor-points of genuine progress for our world.>>
I should add an earlier remark on two example of self-evident moral truth:
KF, 15: >>[I]mplicit in any contested argument is the premise that we have duties to truth, right and soundness in reasoning. On pain of twisting our intellectual powers into nihilistic weapons of cynical deception. In short X objects to Y, on the confident knowledge of in-common duties of intellectual, rational and epistemic virtue. The attempt to challenge ALL moral obligation would be self-referential and incoherent, undermining good faith reasoning itself.
I would go so far as to say this duty of care to truth, right and sound reasoning is self-evident and is typically implicitly accepted.
So, no, we cannot challenge ALL moral claims without undermining even the process of argument itself. No, we cannot dismiss general moral reasoning as suspect of being a blind appeal to authorities. No, mere consequences we happen to imagine (ever heard of the doctrine of unintended consequences?) or motives we think we read in the hearts of others (you are the same who seemingly views Christianity in general as though we are automatically suspect . . .) cannot ground such a broad-brush skepticism about moral reasoning.
We are already at self-referential incoherence.
Infinite regress comes out of the insisted on ALL and the inextricable entanglement of reasoning and moral duties as were outlined. Claim A is suspect so B must be advanced but implies another ought, so B requires C, and oops, we are on to infinity and absurdity.
General hyperskepticism about the moral brings down the proud edifice of reason too by fatally undermining its own self.
Selective hyperskepticism ends in inconsistency, exerting a double standard: stiff rules for thee, but not for me when such are not convenient to where I want to go . . . .
we need plumbline, naturally straight test cases.
One of these, as I outlined, is the inextricable entanglement of reason and duty to truth, right and soundness of logic.
In that light, we can then look at sound yardstick cases and clear the rubble of the modernist collapse of rationality and responsibility away.
For example,it is self-evidently wrong, wicked, evil to kidnap, bind, torture, sexually violate and murder a young child for one’s sick pleasure. (And, sadly, this is NOT a hypothetical case.)
Probe this case and you will see that such a child hath neither strength nor eloquence to fight or plead for himself or herself. And yet, were we to chance on such a demonic act in progress we are duty bound to try to rescue or at least bawl for help.
We are inescapably under moral government.
Which implies that IS and OUGHT must be bridged in the root of reality, on pain of reducing moral government to grand delusion that takes down rationality itself in its collapse.>>
Food for thought. END
Comments
CR: My point was and has continues to be: how does a proposition obtain the status of being “already true” before reason has its say?
Origenes: No, that is not your point at all. Your “point” is that every proposition is fallible. According to you, it can never be settled whether a proposition is true or false — “no proposition is immune to criticism.” One problem with this is that certain propositions are obviously immune to criticism.
Every proposition is fallible because there are no infallible sources that we can defer to by which to prevent us from falling in error. Reason has its say first.
But, again, feel free to provide an example where reason doesn't come first.
Here you apply a little trick: by not making a distinction between successful and failing criticism (‘criticism is criticism’) you claim that there is criticism nonetheless — irrespective of the fact that there is no criticism of e.g. ‘error exists’ which makes any sense whatsoever.
Again, to claim there is no criticism of ‘error exists’ that makes any sense is to say we lack any good criticisms of the idea that "error exists" is false. We have bad criticisms that "don't make any sense" so they fail. And our conclusion that they do not "make sense" comes though fallible reasoning.
To repeat yet again, I'm saying the idea that there is a dichotomy between non-basic beliefs and basic beliefs is false. What you call basic beliefs are just beliefs that we currently lack good criticisms of. You still have yet to contradict that.
From the article.....
Paradoxes seem to appear when one considers the implications of one’s own fallibility: A fallibilist cannot claim to be infallible even about fallibilism itself. And so, one is forced to doubt that fallibilism is universally true. Which is the same as wondering whether one might be somehow infallible—at least about some things. For instance, can it be true that absolutely anything that you think is true, no matter how certain you are, might be false?
If we find one example where we're infallible, about at least some things, then its not universality true.
Perhaps you'll respond when KF will not...
Is the Bible a science book? Should we defer to it on matters of mathematics, biology or cosmology? If not, why?
Which aspects of the Bible are literal and with are metaphorical? Which knowledge do we have that is perfectly written on our hearts so we have no excuse when we run astray? The answers to those questions are decided by reason. You use it to decide when to defer to the supposedly infallible source. At which point, reason has had its say first.
From the article...
Fallibilism, correctly understood, implies the possibility, not the impossibility, of knowledge, because the very concept of error, if taken seriously, implies that truth exists and can be found. The inherent limitation on human reason, that it can never find solid foundations for ideas, does not constitute any sort of limit on the creation of objective knowledge nor, therefore, on progress. The absence of foundation, whether infallible or probable, is no loss to anyone except tyrants and charlatans, because what the rest of us want from ideas is their content, not their provenance: If your disease has been cured by medical science, and you then become aware that science never proves anything but only disproves theories (and then only tentatively), you do not respond “oh dear, I’ll just have to die, then.”
CR: Criticisms failing and continuing to fail as we develop new ones are all we have.
This is yet another self-defeating statement, as can be easily demonstrated:
1. We only have criticism.
2. Objects of criticism are not criticism.
...
"All we have" is in reference to the false dichotomy listed above. But, surely you knew that already because it must be obvious what I meant, right?
CR: No one has addressed #207.
Origenes: A blatant lie — see #217.
Apparently, you homed in on "2+2=4", then ignored the fact that the rest of #207 comment is directed at other people's actions, not whether 2 + 2 = 4 is a hard to vary explanation.
What you responded to is #213 by calling the criticism presented as "crazy". But that's yet another example of pointing out how we lack a good criticism of 2 + 2 = 4.
The analogy between the theory of evolution and the 2+2 theory is in fact closer than the mere difficulty of imagining a good explanation to the contrary.
That's exactly what that means. We have no good explanations of how 2 + 2 = 4 might be false. And, apparently, you agree with him.
I hold that fallibilism is a self-defeating and incoherent idea, which is not quite the same as being a ‘fallibilist about fallibilism.’
Yet, you keep effectively arguing that we lack good criticism of those ideas. What gives?
Did you arbitrarily pick 2 + 2 = 4, in that it had nothing to do with evaluating how obviously and unambiguously true you thought it was in relation to other possible propositions you considered? Are you claiming you didn't present it, due to quickly considering reasons or ways they might be conceivably false, then concluding that specific propositions best make your point?
What is that if not criticism?critical rationalist
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
JS, do you actually hold that LOI, LNC and LEM are self-evident? Why or why not? KFkairosfocus
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
SB
Let me make sure I understand you. Forget about morality for the moment. I want to discuss logic and nothing else. Are you saying that the law of non-contradiction and the law of identity are not self evident–that they require proof by reason and evidence?
No.JSmith
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT
JS
And presupposes that what you consider to be self-evident truths are actually self-evident truths. OK. Let’s play this game. I claim that subjective morality is a self-evident truth. Since it is a self-evident truth, I don’t have to provide arguments for it. I think I like this game.
Let me make sure I understand you. Forget about morality for the moment. I want to discuss logic and nothing else. Are you saying that the law of non-contradiction and the law of identity are not self evident--that they require proof by reason and evidence?StephenB
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
PS: Let's continue with his parable of the mutinous ship of state:
It is not too hard to figure out that our civilisation is in deep trouble and is most likely headed for shipwreck. (And of course, that sort of concern is dismissed as “apocalyptic,” or neurotic pessimism that refuses to pause and smell the roses.)
Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:
>>[Soc.] I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures.
Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain [–> often interpreted, ship’s owner] who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. [= The people own the community and in the mass are overwhelmingly strong, but are ill equipped on the whole to guide, guard and lead it]
The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering – every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer [= selfish ambition to rule and dominate], though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them [–> kubernetes, steersman, from which both cybernetics and government come in English]; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard [ = ruthless contest for domination of the community], and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug [ = manipulation and befuddlement, cf. the parable of the cave], they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them [–> Cf here Luke’s subtle case study in Ac 27].
Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling.
Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing?
[Ad.] Of course, said Adeimantus.
[Soc.] Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State[ --> here we see Plato's philosoppher-king emerging]; for you understand already.
[Ad.] Certainly.
[Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary.
[Ad.] I will.
[Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ --> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers.
[Ad.] Precisely so, he said.
[Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [--> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical].
[Ad.] Yes.
[Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained?
[Ad.] True.
[Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable, and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other?
[Ad.] By all means.
[Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ -- > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ --> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [--> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>
(There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)
Again, this is anchored in the history of the collapse of Athens.kairosfocus
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
JS,
Your empty turnabout assertion was long since answered in Plato's warnings.
Let's try, first, The Laws, Bk X:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .
[Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
See where such radical relativism and subjectivism end up? As a matter of history?
KFkairosfocus
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
SB
Your answers are becoming progressively irrational. Self evident truths cannot be argued for because they are the means by which we argue for everything else. The law of non-contradiction, for example, cannot be argued FOR.
And presupposes that what you consider to be self-evident truths are actually self-evident truths. OK. Let’s play this game. I claim that subjective morality is a self-evident truth. Since it is a self-evident truth, I don’t have to provide arguments for it. I think I like this game.JSmith
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
JS, SET's are understood and acknowledged not proved, but we also see that their denial quickly goes over the brink into patent absurdity. One form is self-referential incoherence. One form is, that one smuggles in the thing being denied to try to disprove it. Another, is that the denial ends in grand delusion that undermines rationality. I forgot: the alternative claim or scenario may be far more open to serious doubt or challenge than the first claim, to a degree that gives pause: patently, maximally implausible. (A good example is, we live in a Plato's cave world of shadow shows confused for reality.) There are many more ways to be absurd. On moral truths, a key first SET is the moral government of reason itself through duties to truth, sound logic, fairness etc; so if one undermines moral government as delusional, one eats up rationality. Likewise, one finds oneself in hypocrisy or inconsistency, parasiting off the fact that people in community do not normally act that way, or the community we need to thrive will be undermined. Likewise, we find that we cannot evade the concept that we have rights, which are binding moral expectations that we be respected, first and foremost our lives. If something then implies a lack of reciprocity with others of like morally governed nature and/or potential, that is absurd. (That is the sense in what seems to be Franklin's markup to the original draft DoI: self-evident, not sacred and undeniable. A key deep idea source here is Rom 1:20 "clearly perceived . . . in the things that have been made. So [men] are without excuse.") The nihilism of might or manipulation makes right, truth, justice etc is its own refutation. And much more again. No, it is not merely imposition and trickery -- where rhetorical "disproof" by sneering, suspicion, empty accusation, stereotyping, scapegoating and hyperskepticism are all absurd too. KFkairosfocus
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT
SB, aye, the Angelic Doctor was wise, the "dumb ox" whose bellowing has filled the world. The challenge of sufficient familiarity to understand accurately what is being claimed is there, the challenge to have enough vision to see a patent absurdity (of the many kinds!) is there. Then we have the cognitive dissonance-triggered panic attack that can happen when a favourite -- but crooked -- yardstick is put up against a plumb-line and oops, there's daylight. So, which report do you believe, why . . . and that in a po mo age that suspects "Aristotelian logic" and "black and white" thinking or "authoritarianism," etc etc are there. And it sure looks suspicious that you argue that you have to start FROM SET's to reason and argue successfully in a domain. And, first plausibles that do a lot of work that is unwelcome will be challenged by vested interests that do not want to go that way. RIGHT to life that exists for the defenceless and voiceless . . . sounds good, but but but muh fetus that is so inconvenient! So, better challenge that suspect notion of self evidence and keep moral values comfortably subjective and relative. What, might makes might nihilism; perish the thought! KFkairosfocus
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
kairosfocus:
I do think that one needs to be brought to the point of recognition of the power and legitimacy of a claim to self-evidence.
That is, one may be in the position that s/he lacks tools to understand a SET, or may even fall afoul of a pons asinorum. Certainly, the Angelic Doctor contemplated this case.
Yes. This is what St. Thomas meant when he said that a thing can be self evident in two ways, in itself, and to others. The latter often, though not always, requires some familiarity with the subject matter.StephenB
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
J Smith
We are disagreeing and discussing whether or not self-evident moral truths exist and you say that you can’t defend them because they are self-evident?
Your answers are becoming progressively irrational. Self evident truths cannot be argued for because they are the means by which we argue for everything else. The law of non-contradiction, for example, cannot be argued FOR. It can only be argued FROM. To argue for it one would need a more basic principle and there are no more basic principles than that. So it is with all other self evident truths. You can't use "evidence" to prove them. Evidence does not inform self evident truths; self evident truths inform evidence.StephenB
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
SB,
I do think that one needs to be brought to the point of recognition of the power and legitimacy of a claim to self-evidence.
That is, one may be in the position that s/he lacks tools to understand a SET, or may even fall afoul of a pons asinorum. Certainly, the Angelic Doctor contemplated this case.
So, learning experiences conducive to enabling understanding of what is claimed are in order. But, if the horse is unwilling to drink, that may be a bit of a challenge.
Then, one may be invited to contemplate the next issue: what happens were one to try to deny the SET. The patent absurdity should help that aha moment.
Though of course when we look at the significance of distinct identity, just to object one already must use the LOI, LNC and LEM. Attempted denial refutes itself, but also we see that these things cannot be proved as any proof must start there.
Indeed, I think we can see that grudgingly, JS is being forced to realise that he cannot simply brush aside SET's, in the face of cases such as error exists. Of course, the concession is grudging and has a line of retreat built in.
So far, JS is not realising how he sounds by being evasive, dismissive and obviously irritated when he is confronted with a particularly horrific sexual assault and murder of a young child. However, he is so locked into there being no objective moral truths that he cannot concede that the attempted denial is patently absurd.
Such consistently evasive tactics are in the end telling.
KF
PS: I sometimes find this analogy helpful. Is it possible to stand at one and the same spot on the Earth and be due north of London, Bridgetown Barbados and Los Angeles? We tend to think in 2-d terms and so it seems odd. the answer is obvious once we are led to think in 3 dimensions: the North Pole, where all lines of longitude converge to a point.kairosfocus
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
JS, keep up your excuses, they reveal how self-deception works. Maybe, eventually it will reach a level where we can help you. Meanwhile, I'll take SB's "good answer" over your "obtuse" I don't bother to read any day. KF
PS: Let's see the very thing you specifically dismissed:
the first right: life. Without which you have no other rights or freedoms or capabilities such as to reason. A right, being a binding moral claim and expectation that one be respected in a relevant way due to the dignity of being human. Now, are you prepared to argue that you have no right to your life above what force you can exert to deter attacks? Do you see the absurdities that follow on denying right to life?
Now, kindly explain to us just what about the above is so "obtuse" that you can neither understand nor bother to read.
(Or, is the real issue that you have been programmed with an agenda, and have chosen a handy excuse to brush off something that does not fit the crooked yardstick you are using as a standard of straightness, accuracy and uprightness? As in, if your standard of "straight" is crooked, then what is really straight will seem to be absurdly out of alignment. Hence, BTW, the importance of plumb-line, patently naturally straight references. In this case, self-evident truths. And, I do recall your impatient brushing aside of the kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of a child as an illustrative case on Moral SETs, as nonsense. That did seem really over the top; but the over-wrought and disrespectful , irritated reaction may well be a sign of what is going on deep within. I also recall your declared attitude of hyperskeptical suspicion to Christians and the Christian faith, which could go a long way to explain your behaviour in recent weeks here at UD.)kairosfocus
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
SB
kairosfocus provided a good answer. I suggest that you read it carefully. Meanwhile, I will add something very important.
Sorry, but his writing is so obtuse that I can't be bother reading his comments. However, feel free to paraphrase in a way that can be easily understood.
<One does not argue *for* self-evident truths, one argues *from* self evident truths. That you would ask for an argument to prove that murder is objectively bad or that not murdering is objectively good indicates that you are either not rational or not sincere.
We are disagreeing and discussing whether or not self-evident moral truths exist and you say that you can't defend them because they are self-evident? Forgive me if I call that what it is. Nonsense. It is circular reasoning at its best. If a self-evident moral truth cannot be supported with evidence, rational argument and logic, then it is nothing more than an unsupported opinion no better than a preference for ice cream.JSmith
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
JS
OK, let’s stick with how you would argue that not murdering is objectively good.
kairosfocus provided a good answer. I suggest that you read it carefully. Meanwhile, I will add something very important.
One does not argue *for* self-evident truths, one argues *from* self evident truths. That you would ask for an argument to prove that murder is objectively bad or that not murdering is objectively good indicates that you are either not rational or not sincere.StephenB
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
JS, the first right: life. Without which you have no other rights or freedoms or capabilities such as to reason. A right, being a binding moral claim and expectation that one be respected in a relevant way due to the dignity of being human. Now, are you prepared to argue that you have no right to your life above what force you can exert to deter attacks? Do you see the absurdities that follow on denying right to life? KFkairosfocus
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
SB
No one ever said that not killing is objectively good. Don’t be misled by dubious translations and misleading interpretations. The proposition is that not murdering is objectively good.
OK, let's stick with how you would argue that not murdering is objectively good.JSmith
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
JSmith
Let’s try the “not killing” is objectively good. One of the moral values that is almost universally held by people.
No one ever said that not killing is objectively good. Don't be misled by dubious translations and misleading interpretations. The proposition is that not murdering is objectively good. Do you have any other examples where something was once understood as self evidently good and is not now so understood?StephenB
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
BA,
while I am not happy with your phrasing, you have indeed raised a highly significant point. Those who undermine the objectivity of morals undermine rights and therefore the basis for sound reforms. They also routinely do so by dehumanising the targetted victims. This does not just affect women and blacks or Jews or Arabs, but in the end, everyone.
And, I think per fair comment that the 3/5 compromise in the US Constitution requires a further thought or two, as there is a common perception that I do not think bears up, on inspection:
Art 1 Sec 2, 3rd para: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
There is no actual 3/5 of a person implication. There is a 3/5 of population count rule, which was a compromise to "solve" a dilemma. Those against slavery did not want slaves counted as they had no vote and would over-weight the representation of the slave-holding states. Slave holders actually wanted the slaves counted without pro-rating for this very reason as it would give them serious leverage in the Congress. The underlying challenge was a union was seen as necessary for viability and the long term good.
As it was, the 3/5 count seems to have shifted the numbers of seats from 33 to 47 at the first. that gave the South effective control and set up many sorrows to come. But, as time went on, immigration to the North -- yes immigration -- shifted the balance away from the South.
The other ticking clock was the 20-year stop-line on the slave trade, which was matched by the UK's own abolition of the trade.
So, the root issue was refusal to accord to the slaves the natural right to be free, enforced by a power bloc with an effective veto through a nuclear option. So destructive was that option, secession, that in the end it triggered civil war.
A lesson on how stubborn we can be in clinging to advantageous absurdities.
So, now, let me turn to the far worse asp we are playing with.
Many have sought to dehumanise our posterity in the womb and this is a material factor in the enabling of the ongoing abortion holocaust at a rate of a million more victims per week, on the Guttmacher-UN numbers. Over 40+ years, that is more than 800 million, and I have seen numbers that are up to nearly double that.
It matters not, this is the worst holocaust ever.
It is going on on our watch, it turns on dehumanising the victims and asserting an alleged right to choose to kill posterity in the womb.
In support of this, medicine, nursing, health professions, law, law enforcement, courts, parliaments, politics, the media, education and more are increasingly tainted with corruption and blood guilt.
The issues of moral truth are of the utmost significance for the future of our civilisation, and right now, our generation does not look good at all.
KF
PS: This is one time wiki is reasonable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromisekairosfocus
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
JSmith,
You have admitted to not being certain that it is wrong to treat women as if they are not persons. You have admitted to not being certain it is wrong to treat black persons as if they are inferior to white persons.
You are evil. Everything you say is tainted by evil. Therefore, everything you say should be disregarded.Barry Arrington
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
BA, it actually starts with typing, which depends on distinct identity in order to communicate using text. That is how absurd -- and too often, stubbornly unreasonable -- the objections are. KFkairosfocus
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
F/N: After all the clouds of rhetoric, it is helpful to hear again Canon Hooker as cited by Locke in the 2nd treatise on civil govt, Ch 2 sec 5:
[2nd Treatise on Civil Gov't, Ch 2 sec. 5:] . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [This directly echoes St. Paul in Rom 2: "14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . " and 13: "9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law . . . " Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity ,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.] [Augmented citation, Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch 2 Sect. 5. ]
A warning on the fire we are playing with.
KFkairosfocus
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
JS, it has not passed our notice, too, that "I never claimed that there were n[o] self evident truths" is not at all equivalent to a clear acknowledgement that there in fact are SET's. Given your evident moral stance, prudence already dictates that we must view your claims with much closer scrutiny, for cause. Do you see how corrosive the attitude you have been projecting is to sound community? and yes, I have in mind the Categorical Imperative as was already discussed. KF
PS: The rhetorical trick of substituting a lesser word also does not escape notice. You used a synonym for opinions, one that is often walled off from possibility of truth: moral VALUES. Yes, we may prize moral truths, such as our unalienable rights to life, liberty, untrammelled innocent pursuit of life-purpose, innocent reputation (remember your blanket suspicion?), innocently acquired property, innocent association, conscience and worship, and more, but that does not remove the claim that there are rights held by virtue of being morally governed responsible and rational creatures from the realm of being truth-claims and indeed well warranted ones. Where, core rights-claims such as right to life are in fact self-evidently true. Without the right to life, nothing else stands. Including, when the holder of that life is defenceless and voiceless like that schoolboy.kairosfocus
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
CR: "A proposition is either true or false."
WJM: "Is this self-evidently true?"
Game, set, match.
It is amusing to watch fools such as CR employ self-evident truths to argue for the proposition that there are no self-evident truths.Barry Arrington
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
JS, strawman. Murder is the issue. Those who quote KJV, use an older usage where slay would be closer to what kill means now. You also keep oscillating and giving mixed messages on SET's in general. That's why I have emphasised getting that right. In that context, the life of reason is pervaded by duties to truth, sound reasoning, fairness, justice, equity etc. If the sense of being governed by moral law that we are aware of is delusional, then it creates grand delusion pervading the life of the mind. And, it is infinitely regressive, the act of doubt or critique is an act of mind itself, so the chain races off. In short, either rationality boils down to manipulation and general lying, enmeshed with grand delusion or we are in fact under the government of ought, of duty, and as a result can have genuine rights beyond might and manipulation. So, the point is, the first is patently absurd, we are under moral government if we are to be rationally, responsibly free. Then, in that context, I have put up a case, sadly, real world. I suggest to you that you ponder very carefully before dismissing its force with terms you have used such as "nonsense." For, it is absurd to deny that what was done to that child was wrong, evil, wicked. Robbed of liberty, robbed of safety in innocent passage home from school, robbed of a voice to plead his case, robbed of innocence and the inviolability of his body, robbed of the right to say no, robbed of his life. Robbed of justice. Plese ponder the fire you are playing with. KFkairosfocus
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
SB
I notice that you provided no examples. What self evident truths have been found not to be self evident? Please be specific. Surely, you understand that scientific claims do not count.
Yes, I realize that scientific claims don't count. Science does not conclude truth.
Let's try the "not killing" is objectively good. One of the moral values that is almost universally held by people.
Who is reluctant? We shout if from the rooftops. The most important ones are law of non contradiction, law of identity, Principle of sufficient reason, Law of causality, and natural moral law. All those principles are self evident. They can be self-evident in two ways: In themselves or to someone else.
Please remember that I never claimed that there were n self evident truths. Only that moral values don't fall into this category.JSmith
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
CR said:
A proposition is either true or false.
Is this self-evidently true?
However, a claim that a proposition is self evidently true is to claim that it is immune to criticism, in principle, not that it was somehow found false.
Self-evidently true statements are those without which reasoning, or reasoning about a thing, cannot ensue, like "a proposition is either true or false" (which I would change to "a properly worded proposition is either true or false"). If we do not accept that "a properly worded proposition is either true or false", reasoning cannot proceed.
If there is no self-evident moral truth, there is nothing to reason about morality from other than personal preferences. Now, you can state your personal preference, and there may be reasoning as to what the best way is for you to be moral within that framework, but such an argument (if rational) cannot decide what morality should be about in the first place, because that is just a matter of personal preference.William J Murray
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
268 by Origenes has been headlined: https://uncommondescent.com/culture/origenes-vs-cr-on-the-challenge-of-criticism/kairosfocus
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT
CR,
I see your, for example:
My point was and has continues to be: how does a proposition obtain the status of being “already true” before reason has its say? The application of reason, being a form of criticism . . . .
For example, Is the proposition that some propositions are self evident itself a self evident proposition? If one thinks so, wouldn’t they just keep claiming it’s immune, in principle, to be criticized, and keep ignoring criticisms of it?
This wouldn’t be just any kind of mistake. it would be a mistake that actively thwarts itself from being found as a mistake. It perpetuates itself
Do you realise that to say the above you had to rely on distinct identity? That to "criticise" the first principles of right reason you would have to rely on the same? Not to mention, on your conscious rationality and our recognition that error exists. And so forth?
Second, it needs not be self-evident that there are SET's for there to be SET's, this is no example. You have set up a strawman rhetorical target.
You have from the OP on, several examples of real SET's.
At no point have you showed a serious attention to the fact that just to argue you have to rely on distinct identity. Thus, your last claim seems to be a turnabout projection. It seems you need to take a look in the mirror.
As for your projection, if you are being responsibly critical, you should be looking at what is being actually claimed, both by cases given and by definitions given. We already have cases in point here, so let me lastly highlight definition from the OP:
In general, SET’s are truths that — once we are able to understand i/l/o our experience of the world — are seen to be so, and to be necessarily so on pain of patent absurdity on the attempted denial.
Do you see why such truths, once duly and properly recognised -- in key cases such as first principles of right reason they cannot be proved (they are the base for proofs, and for thought and communication) though in some other cases a SET may be provable relative to some framework, separate from its self-evidence -- are certain?
As in, instant, patent reduction to absurdity on the attempted denial.
So, onward "criticism" reflects a hyperskeptical, irresponsible mentality that wishes to cling to absurdities, not healthy reason. Healthy reason is willing to accept what is well-warranted i/l/o responsible means of support, it is not forever harping on doubting and dismissing or sidelining and ignoring without good reason.
I trust we will see a more cogent response from you going forward.
KF
PS: Let me highlight an example from you to show just how supercilious your approach has been:
[KF:] Likewise, you and I are aware of ourselves, we are conscious. So, if we doubt this, WHO is there to doubt?
[CR:] Thank Zeus we’re not limited to what criticisms you can conceive of. And we supposedly don’t have any imagination?
This has already been addressed.
CR/Zeus's alter ego, kindly explain to us how you are aware enough to criticise without being certain of the bare fact of your conscious existence. In short, reflexively pondering WHO is there doing the criticising is highly relevant and exposes the patent absurdity of allowing one's doubts that one is conscious to undermine one's certainty of that bare fact. And if you bothered to look at the OP, you would see that even gross delusion at brain in a vat being led to imagine a false reality level does not overturn the bare fact of being conscious.
As for "This has already been addressed" that reminds me of the force of a point by UD Blog's president when he has had to hold you up as an example of the utter difference between making cogent argument and merely stubbornly continuing to type out talking points. The latter is little more than obscurantism.
I repeat: WHO is "criticising," other than a conscious entity, even at the remove of say an AI that was programmed to spew forth talking points?kairosfocus
January 3, 2018
January
01
Jan
3
03
2018
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT
CR @
CR: My point was and has continues to be: how does a proposition obtain the status of being “already true” before reason has its say?
No, that is not your point at all. Your “point” is that every proposition is fallible. According to you, it can never be settled whether a proposition is true or false — “no proposition is immune to criticism.” One problem with this is that certain propositions are obviously immune to criticism. Here you apply a little trick: by not making a distinction between successful and failing criticism (‘criticism is criticism’) you claim that there is criticism nonetheless — irrespective of the fact that there is no criticism of e.g. ‘error exists’ which makes any sense whatsoever.
You then go on to claim that:
CR: Criticisms failing and continuing to fail as we develop new ones are all we have.
This is yet another self-defeating statement, as can be easily demonstrated:
1. We only have criticism.
2. Objects of criticism are not criticism.
Therefore, from (1) and (2)
3. We do not have objects of criticism.
4. We do not have criticism.
If we only have criticism then there is nothing to criticize. And if we have nothing to criticize then we do not have criticism.
CR: No one has addressed #207.
A blatant lie — see #217.
CR: It’s particularly humorous that you yourself are a fallibilist about fallibilism, and apparently didn’t recognize it.
I hold that fallibilism is a self-defeating and incoherent idea, which is not quite the same as being a 'fallibilist about fallibilism.’Origenes
KF, 32: >>Pardon, but it is now further evident that you have not seen the significance of self-evident truth in general.
From this world partition, we instantly see that A is itself, and no x can be (A AND ~A), also that any x is (A X-OR ~A). That is, from distinct identity, the three first principles of right reason are immediately present: Laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle.
Much more can be said, but the above is sufficient to show that there are literally infinitely many things that we may know with utter certainty, starting from a few that are self-evident. But also, such SET’s are insufficient to construct a worldview; they serve as plumbline tests for worldviews.
