L&FP 44a: What is 2 + 2, Mr Smith? (1984 as demonstration of how first duties and first truths are inextricably intertwined)

_{kairosfocus

June 13, 2021

Academic Freedom, Control vs Anarchy, Defending our Civilization, Epistemology, Ethics, Lessons of History, Logic and Reason, rhetoric}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

1984 is a classic satirical novel on the nature of tyranny in the mass media driven, information age, totalitarian surveillance state. Accordingly, it is vital to appreciate the force of the Winston Smith on the Rack scene — yes, taken from the related movie — where the issue of the self-evident truth 2 + 2 = 4 comes up:

First truths, in short, are inextricably intertwined with first duties, and both are equally self-evident. As one clear manifestation, gross injustice is always rooted in false, unreasonable, unwarranted, dishonest thinking.

In case one is tempted to imagine that this is a dismissible satirical exaggeration, kindly ponder the sickening judicial torture-murder of Czech national hero and martyr, Milada Horakova and others on trumped up treason charges, only two years after 1984 was published:

When traitors are in power, patriots are deemed traitors and are judicially murdered. (See more details at Wikipedia.)

In defence of civilisation, we must never allow clever rhetoric or confused thinking to obfuscate lessons written in blood and tears regarding self-evident first truths and duties of reason, the first steps of honest, sound reason highlighted by Cicero and many others across the ages. Even to object (much less to misguidedly attempt to prove), one is forced to appeal to the legitimate, pervasive, first principle authority of duties

to truth,
to right reason,
to prudence [including, warrant],
to sound conscience,
to neighbour, so too
to fairness and justice, etc.

The attempted denial becomes self-defeatingly absurd and the evasion (often, without realising it) becomes an enabling of injustice.

Those who neglect, ignore, dismiss or despise the hard bought lessons of sound history (paid for in blood and tears), doom themselves to pay the same coin over and over and over again. END

F/N Jun 15, a reminder on the challenge of a slide back into lawless oligarchy, what overtook formerly constitutionally democratic Czeckoslovakia, once the Nazi German State, then Stalin’s Communists took over:

It helps, to also ponder dirty-form, McFaul Colour Revolution, as compared to the SOCOM state subversion model, which I have termed the insurgency escalator:

Comments

Bolded insertions into some of KF's commentary above:
Try, I have no rights. What was done to Ms Horakova violated no rights regarding justice, life, liberty, dignity of the person, as long as powers decided it was automatically “right.” Then, extend to the community at large; community collapses. [No, the community is just based on and operates under different assumptions.] Absurd by inspection. [Because you do not prefer that kind of community does not make it "absurd."] Rights [a rhetorical use of the term] inhere [rhetorical use] in our dignity as humans [vague, unspecific, unaccounted-for, thus rhetorical] and are foundational to justice.[what specifically determines when justice has been served or not? What specific, non-arbitrary, universal criteria establish that "justice" has occurred at all wrt the consequences of a verdict? Absent this information, "justice" here is pure rhetoric built up from prior rhetoric.] I have no freedoms includes failure of freedom to reason, collapse.[conflation of a existentially necessary condition for a being to be considered sentient with a "right" to be free beyond what is existentially required to be sentient] And of course, a key rights pattern is demand to recognise freedoms. [pure rhetoric] Then, duties, you owe me no duties collapses community again.[no, it changes the nature of the community. "Collapsing" here is rhetoric.] More can be said; no, self-evidence engages things that can be abstract, e.g. deny knowledge exists, implies directly a knowledge claim, Self-refuting instantly. But knowledge is a state of affairs, an abstract intangible relationship, often regarding abstracta such as in mathematics, ask, what are 2, 3, +, =, 5?[Nobody is arguing otherwise about these self-evident truths. ]
William J Murray_{June 17, 2021
June
06
Jun
17
17
2021
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

SB: You can stand by it all you like, but you have not made a case for it. WJM:
I made the challenge for someone to provide a duty without including a reference to the necessary conditions.
I have already dealt with that by explaining that the moral law, BY DEFINITION, is binding. The binding element is part of its essence, which means that the duty to follow it is built into the moral framework. If the moral code against murder (unjustified killing) )really exists, then we are again, by definition, morally obliged to follow it. To say that the moral code exists is the same as saying that it ought to be followed. This is what the moral code says about its own essence. It has nothing to do with authority or consequences and your claims to the contrary do not make it so. You have not made your case.StephenB_{June 17, 2021
June
06
Jun
17
17
2021
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

This is why a moral "should" (duty, in the universal and objective sense) is not and cannot be "self-evidently true:" duties cannot be identified or apprehended absent the conditions that are necessary to identify an actual duty as actually being in effect. If one has not identified those conditions, then all we can be talking about is strong, common emotions, personal intuition, subjective or relative conscience, or some other subjective "sense of duty." Whatever KF and SB personal experience, it is rhetoric to label that experience "of a duty" absent identifying the necessary conditions.William J Murray_{June 17, 2021
June
06
Jun
17
17
2021
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

Saying that you can directly know a duty absent information about the conditions that make a thing a duty is like saying you can directly know someone you just met is the long-lost sibling your parents gave up for adoption before you were born absent any information that identifies that person as such. You might have a strong intuitive feeling; they may look just like one of your parents, but you cannot identify that person as your actual sibling absent knowledge of the conditions or contextual information.William J Murray_{June 17, 2021
June
06
Jun
17
17
2021
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

Let's examine what SB said @130:
I know, as a self-evident truth, for example, that there are some things that are “good” for humans, such as life, procreation, knowledge, society, and reasonable conduct and that the corresponding evils, death, sterility, ignorance, isolation, and unreasonable conduct are bad for humans. I don’t suspect or guess about these things; I know that they are true (even if you claim not to know it).
"Good" or "evil" in what sense? From what perspective? According to what criteria or who's judgement? In every case? In every situation, regardless of the conditions? Good grief, this statement is incredibly vague and general. Let's look at one example: SB said death is an "evil." That entirely depends on the conditions that the person experiences after they die, not to mention that the criteria that identifies what evil means in the first place is left entirely out. If I die and it releases me from of life of intense suffering into a glorious, enjoyable experience afterwards, in what sense is "death" an "evil," much self-evidently true that death is an evil? KF's and SB's use of the terms "self-evident" and "morally absurd" up to this point are rhetorical devices when they extend beyond that which is either necessarily true in all possible worlds, or in other words present a self-negating, inescapable logical contradiction where one cannot make their case against that truth without employing or referring to it. When KF says that I am operating under a duty to truth by the way I argue (beyond what is inescapably necessary,) he is making another error that is revealed by how he consistently characterizes other people's comments: he is projecting his own perspective onto the behavior of others. This comes across as what I call attempts to read minds. He and SB characterize what others are doing "evading, avoiding, ignoring, rejecting, being deceptive, being in denial," etc. IOW, they think they know what others must be thinking or feeling, or know what their intent or motivations are. I can only be aware of actual duties I actually have by knowing the conditions required for any duty to either be apprehended or to be said to exist. I can only be operating out of "duty" if I know what the conditions are that make certain behaviors dutiful in nature.William J Murray_{June 17, 2021
June
06
Jun
17
17
2021
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

Upon thinking about it for a couple of days now, I realize that both KF and SB (and those who make these kinds of arguments for the kinds of things they are arguing about) are applying certain terms rhetorically, even though they are probably unaware of it. I've identified some of these terms: duty, rights, justice, right & wrong, good & evil. By rhetorical, I mean they are (probably unconsciously) banking on the fact that people will agree to the use of those terms where they cannot apply by removing them from necessary contextual conditions that identify the presence of those things, or give them their recognizable value. They succeed in doing this by comparing sensations or appealing to widespread sensations that people agree to identify with those words absent the required context. IOW, yes, error exists, but any particular error is identified by the context (conditions.) Duties exist, but they are identified by the context. Etc. This is why these things are not "self-evidently" true; such as the statement "I have a duty to not lie." That cannot be a self-evidently true statement by itself because the conditions that make thing a duty have not been identified. These terms are being applied by KF and SB et al rhetorically by removing them from necessary contextual identifiers and asserting them as being something that can be directly "experienced" or "apprehended" on their own. I don't doubt that they are feeling or experiencing something, but whatever they are feeling or experiencing cannot be said non-rhetorically to be a "duty" without providing the necessary conditions. They may be labeling whatever they are experiencing or apprehending with the term "duty," but until the conditions are shown, it is an entirely rhetorical label and use of that term.William J Murray_{June 17, 2021
June
06
Jun
17
17
2021
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

SB said:
You can stand by it all you like, but you have not made a case for it.
Sure I did. I made the challenge for someone to provide a duty without including a reference to the necessary conditions. Jerry tried, but included the very conditions he claimed were not necessary to identify a duty. You can directly apprehend a thing, but it's nature as a duty cannot be understood absent conditions. It can be a very strong urge, and that urge or direction of consciousness might feel to you like other duties you know by the conditions present, but there's simply no way to identify a feeling or a sensation as "a duty" absent information about the conditions that make for a duty. But, you and KF have given me some very interesting things to consider going forward.William J Murray_{June 17, 2021
June
06
Jun
17
17
2021
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

Try, I have no rights. What was done to Ms Horakova violated no rights regarding justice, life, liberty, dignity of the person, as long as powers decided it was automatically "right." Then, extend to the community at large; community collapses. Absurd by inspection. Rights inhere in our dignity as humans and are foundational to justice. I have no freedoms includes failure of freedom to reason, collapse. And of course, a key rights pattern is demand to recognise freedoms. Then, duties, you owe me no duties collapses community again. More can be said; no, self-evidence engages things that can be abstract, e.g. deny knowledge exists, implies directly a knowledge claim, Self-refuting instantly. But knowledge is a state of affairs, an abstract intangible relationship, often regarding abstracta such as in mathematics, ask, what are 2, 3, +, =, 5? Warranted, credibly true, reliable belief. Where, don't get us started on the self-refuting verificationist frame. Tangibility does not become a requisite for self-evidence. And all of this is manifest. KFkairosfocus_{June 17, 2021
June
06
Jun
17
17
2021
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT}

PS: Let me note another endorsement, here from 1 Cor 14, in addressing confusion in the church at Corinth:
1 Cor 14: 7 Yet even lifeless things, whether flute or harp, when producing a sound, if they do not produce distinct [musical] tones, how will anyone [listening] know what is piped or played? 8 And if the [war] bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? 9 So it is with you, if you speak words [in an unknown tongue] that are not intelligible and clear, how will anyone understand what you are saying? You will be talking into the air [wasting your breath]! 10 There are, I suppose, a great many kinds of languages in the world [unknown to us], and none is lacking in meaning. 11 But if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will [appear to] be a [c]foreigner to the one who is speaking [since he knows exactly what he is saying], and the one who is speaking will [appear to] be a foreigner to me.
Here, we see St Paul using what was likely a Logic 101 example, illustrating distinct identity and extending to non contradiction and excluded middle. Does the fact that he uses this, and in the next chapter addresses a chain of hypothetical if then inferences then upends the lot by contrasting a fact with the conclusion of the chain, make these ideas automatically suspect of worldview level question-begging when stated by a Christian? That would be abusive and stigmatising. Instead, we see here common ground, self-evident, pervasive first principles that by their inescapable legitimate authority are self-evident, antecedent to proofs, start points for reasoning. (And you cannot get more pervasive than something embedded in the structure of rational communication itself, intelligibility in music, much less speech, depends on distinction of states and patterns.) We are in a going concern world, there are observable, intelligible, pervasive first principles, we have a birthright right to point to them and use them freely. So it is with first principles regarding the first duties of reason, which of course embeds LOI, LNC and LEM under "highest reason," as core to right reason. We therefore freely point to the pervasive, legitimate authority of Ciceronian first duties of reason [thus by the highest reason standard, first law], and hold them undeniably self-evident on pain of having to implicitly appeal to said duties that one would try to deny.kairosfocus_{June 17, 2021
June
06
Jun
17
17
2021
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT}

WJM,
There’s no way to “apprehend” any actual duty by anyone with zero thought about, ideas about, knowledge of or belief in (1)some sort of authority that holds you accountable for doing your duty, and (2) consequences for both doing and not doing your duty.
First, the vast majority of us are in no position to work through details of worldview commitments. But we recognise duties, routinely; as we are rational, responsible, significantly free and conscience-guided creatures. So, immediately, we are in self-referentiality. Conscience is a major, pervasive aspect of our interior life. While, as with any other faculty, it can become defective or err, we cannot view it as delusional without facing grand delusion and undermining rationality. Which is self-defeating. Indeed, we find it a generally useful witness, as opposed to authority. So, we trust it, both when it accuses and when it vindicates. We also can readily recognise that it attests the first duties, especially when we see how we cannot but appeal to same, even to object. (Your objections are consistently pivoting on appeal to our duties to truth, right reason, warrant, etc. You clearly hold that we are duty bound, which by reciprocity of equals extends to you.) So, by inescapable, pervasive first principles and on pain of grand delusion, self-evident. This is the branch on which we all sit and to try to saw it off undermines rationality, rendering every discussion including this one moot. The pivot is to recognise that moral government by built in oughtness or duty coeval with our humanity. In the OP above, demonstrated in action through a literary prophecy and sadly real world case that happened only two years after 1984 was written. The case shows how injustice is built up from untruth, dishonest reasoning, faked false evidence, ill-will and intimidation etc, corrupting the courts. The span of first duties cannot be truncated, as we see through studying injustice in action. Notice, all of this is on the base of a going-concern world we inhabit together. We may then address the onward question, what worldview explanation best accounts for, best explains such a world with such creatures. That onward question does point to the roots of reality and a world founded by the inherently good and utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of loyalty and of the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature, is the explanation to beat. We thus see that the going concern world is enough to establish that we are duty-governed creatures, i.e. that we are responsibly, rationally, significantly free and conscience guided. Of course, this is a discussion on in common facts, it is not an appeal to any particular religious tradition or its traditions, teachings and texts. Though of course, it is obviously and understandably a part of such traditions. For example, from the New Testament Ep Rom, we readily see:
Rom 2:1 Therefore you have no excuse or justification, everyone of you who [hypocritically] [a]judges and condemns others; for in passing judgment on another person, you condemn yourself, because you who judge [from a position of arrogance or self-righteousness] are habitually practicing the very same things [which you denounce]. 2 And we know that the judgment of God falls justly and in accordance with truth on those who practice such things . . . 14 When Gentiles, who do not have the Law [since it was given only to Jews], do [c]instinctively the things the Law requires [guided only by their conscience], they are a law to themselves, though they do not have the Law. 15 They show that the [d]essential requirements of the Law are written in their hearts; and their conscience [their sense of right and wrong, their moral choices] bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or perhaps defending them . . . . 13:8 [b]Owe nothing to anyone except to [c]love and seek the best for one another; for he who [unselfishly] loves his neighbor has fulfilled the [essence of the] law [relating to one’s fellowman]. 9 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 statement: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor [it never hurts anyone]. Therefore [unselfish] love is the fulfillment of the Law.
Similarly, Ep Eph counsels:
Eph 4:17 17 So this I say, and solemnly affirm together with the Lord [as in His presence], that you must no longer live as the [unbelieving] Gentiles live, in the futility of their minds [and in the foolishness and emptiness of their souls], 18 for their [moral] understanding is darkened and their reasoning is clouded; [they are] alienated and self-banished from the life of God [with no share in it; this is] because of the [willful] ignorance and spiritual blindness that is [deep-seated] within them, because of the hardness and insensitivity of their heart. 19 And they, [the ungodly in their spiritual apathy], having become callous and unfeeling, have given themselves over [as prey] to unbridled sensuality, eagerly craving the practice of every kind of impurity [that their desires may demand]. 20 But you did not learn Christ in this way! 21 If in fact you have [really] heard Him and have been taught by Him, just as truth is in Jesus [revealed in His life and personified in Him], 22 that, regarding your previous way of life, you put off your old self [completely discard your former nature], which is being corrupted through deceitful desires, 23 and be continually renewed in the spirit of your mind [having a fresh, untarnished mental and spiritual attitude], 24 and put on the new self [the regenerated and renewed nature], created in God’s image, [godlike] in the righteousness and holiness of the truth [living in a way that expresses to God your gratitude for your salvation].
We see here, reciprocity, that our finger-pointing implies that we too are under the weight of the duties we exact of others. Similarly, we find built-in law testified to by conscience which leads to that inner voice we term conscience. Thus, there is an endorsement of core longstanding thought and general observations that we are morally guided, duty-bound creatures, with duties to self, to neighbour, to civilisation as collective neighbourhood. At the same time, we are seen as too often crumbling into sociopath ways, with benumbed conscience and endarkened minds, precisely because minds are morally regulated so if we harden hearts in defence of or as consequence of habituation in wrongful conduct, we will undermine our ability to see, hear, think and understand straight. The sort of injustice in the OP is a natural extension. In that context, gospel truth with its integral ethics pivoting on the truth in Jesus, is envisioned as means of building a reformed counter-culture. That counter-culture then has potential to positively impact the wider community. Of which, albeit the story is sadly mixed, there is clear historical and contemporary record. So, we see that the relevant religious tradition endorses the reasoning on our experiences of ourselves, while warning on how it can be warped and subverted. In that context the fact of Jesus is seen as pivotal, transformational truth. Does this mean that the arguments made are thinly veiled Bible Study? No, the actual facts regarding my own developing views have been shared. Cicero sparked thought and this connected to policy issues to be engaged, having to deal with dangers of legal positivism. The natural law tradition began to stand out in powerful ways, and it was clear that while Aquinas is a key expositor, the rich roots are far deeper. Cicero provoked deeper and deeper thought as moral prudence is a law, conscience is a law and law is the highest reason [applied to judging conduct] began to bite home with inexorable force. Nor was it just striking eloquence (Cicero is a master of style) but sheer power and profundity. The upshot is as noted, we are inescapably, pervasively governed by the Ciceronian first duties and these lay out the core of law coeval with our humanity. Such also draws out that this law governs our reasoning, especially highest reasoning on the biggest issues. Thus, duty to truth and to right reason are integral. Duty to warrant and wider prudence are obvious as we are readily misguided. Duty to neighbour governs conduct and instantly entails fairness and justice. The etc points to onward articulation and elaboration of law, government, principles, disciplines and so forth. Coherence, with each key point as a facet interacting with and contributing to the whole. We see here not mere accidental compatibility but the deep integration pointed to by the microcosm- holographic- facets principle. Which is a strong sign we are dealing with first principles of rationality. KFkairosfocus_{June 17, 2021
June
06
Jun
17
17
2021
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT}

For cause, sadly, KM is no longer with us. KF, thread ownerkairosfocus_{June 17, 2021
June
06
Jun
17
17
2021
12:27 AM
12
12
27
AM
PDT}

There’s no way or reason to identify anything as a duty without those conditions present that define that thing as a duty. I stand by that.
You can stand by it all you like, but you have not made a case for it.StephenB_{June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT}

SB: Even if you don’t believe me, you have to allow for the possibility that I am being accurate and truthful, which means that my idea about the existence of goodness could have preceded my ontological commitment to it, which also means that it was not, as you falsely claim, *necessarily* derived from a previous ontological commitment. WJM:
I think we can both agree that even if we have previous ontological commitments, from new information or experiences we can change our ontological commitments or views.
That is hardly the point. I was hoping that you would acknowledge a simple fact. My convictions about the existence of goodness or justice are not, as you claimed, "necessarily" derived from an ontological commitment since they might, as a logical possibility, have been derived from a prior observation of a self-evident truth. Pay close attention to your word "necessarily," which is inappropriate in this case because it rules out all other logical possibilities.
IOW, a duty, a right, “good,” justice, etc, are not things that can be directly apprehended; they are identified and defined by the conditions necessary for their identification.
Your claim that goodness, justice etc, are not things that can be directly apprehended does not make it so.
You might apprehend something; you might call it a “duty,” but unless you have also apprehended the authority & consequence conditions that define your duty, you have mislabeled what your apprehension is about. A thing cannot be correctly identified as an actual duty without providing, knowing, thinking about or believing those two conditions.
This is yet another example of an unsupported claim. I have explained why I think that those two conditions are not required. So far, you have not provided any semblance of a counter argument.StephenB_{June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT}

IOW, a duty, a right, "good," justice, etc, are not things that can be directly apprehended; they are identified and defined by the conditions necessary for their identification. Rights are not self-evident. Justice is not self-evident. What is "good" is not self-evident. And "duties" are certainly not self-evident.William J Murray_{June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT}

Let me put it this way: There's no way to "apprehend" any actual duty by anyone with zero thought about, ideas about, knowledge of or belief in (1)some sort of authority that holds you accountable for doing your duty, and (2) consequences for both doing and not doing your duty. The authority might be gravity, and the consequences might be rocks at the bottom of the cliff; the authority might be your boss, and the consequences keeping or losing your job; the authority might be evidence about "what happens in most peoples lives" and the consequences are "what generally happens if people do this set of things or that set of things; the authority may be your conscience and the consequences guilt; the authority may be God and the consequences heaven vs hell. You might apprehend something; you might call it a "duty," but unless you have also apprehended the authority & consequence conditions that define your duty, you have mislabeled what your apprehension is about. A thing cannot be correctly identified as an actual duty without providing, knowing, thinking about or believing those two conditions. There's no way or reason to identify anything as a duty without those conditions present that define that thing as a duty. I stand by that.William J Murray_{June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

SB,
I know, as a self-evident truth, for example, that there are some things that are “good” for humans, such as life, procreation, knowledge, society, and reasonable conduct and that the corresponding evils, death, sterility, ignorance, isolation, and unreasonable conduct are bad for humans.
Calling something a self-evident truth doesn't make the case that it is one.
Even if you don’t believe me, you have to allow for the possibility that I am being accurate and truthful, which means that my idea about the existence of goodness could have preceded my ontological commitment to it, which also means that it was not, as you falsely claim, *necessarily* derived from a previous ontological commitment.
I think we can both agree that even if we have previous ontological commitments, from new information or experiences we can change our ontological commitments or views. SB said:
I know that you are offended when I say ...
Please stop trying to read my mind.William J Murray_{June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

WJM:
Thank you for agreeing with me that conditions are necessary, even if we disagree on what those conditions are.
We need to aim for a little more precision here. Certain ontological conditions are necessary for the existence of justice and human rights, not the idea of justice and rights. One can have an idea about justice even if it doesn’t exist.
You explained your objection. You and I differ on whether or not it showed my argument about the necessary conditions “wrong.” (requirements that involve authority and consequences)
Feel free to respond to those objections. As I recall, you have not yet done that.
Why are you using using the pejorative “evading?” I’m doing my best to understand you and answer you as directly as possible.
OK. Consider the word withdrawn.
I’ve argued that the idea or concept of those things necessarily refers to, or is derived from, ontological commitments, whether conscious, subconscious or unconscious.
Yes, and that is an error. These ideas or concepts are not “necessarily” derived from ontological commitments if those same ontological commitments were derived from a prior observation (of a self evident truth). If our apprehension (KF and I) of a self evident truth precedes, defines, and shapes our ontological commitments, then the ontological commitments were derived from the self evident truths and not the other way around. I know, as a self-evident truth, for example, that there are some things that are “good” for humans, such as life, procreation, knowledge, society, and reasonable conduct and that the corresponding evils, death, sterility, ignorance, isolation, and unreasonable conduct are bad for humans. I don’t suspect or guess about these things; I know that they are true (even if you claim not to know it). Again, in this case, my apprehension of a self evident truth preceded my ontological commitment. You can deny the substance of my observation all day long, but that doesn’t change anything. If my apprehension of a self evident truth precedes, defines, and shapes my ontological commitments, then the ontological commitments were derived from my observations and not the other way around. Even if you don’t believe me, you have to allow for the possibility that I am being accurate and truthful, which means that my idea about the existence of goodness could have preceded my ontological commitment to it, which also means that it was not, as you falsely claim, *necessarily* derived from a previous ontological commitment. I know that you are offended when I say you are making a false statement, but if your statement isn’t true, which it isn’t, then it must be false. That is not the same as accusing you of being dishonest. Anyone can make a false statement without meaning to do so.StephenB_{June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

FURTHER DOUBLING DOWN. Karen McMannus_{June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

KF: APOLOGY DUE Annnnnd, here we have brazen censorship. For those watching, there was no profanity in the post that KF censored. It's simply criticism of his hypocrisy. Stalin would be proud of you, KF. Evil in the service of "higher truth." Doubling down, wrong move. Especially given what was done above, esp 80 ff. KF, Thread ownerKaren McMannus_{June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

KF, we are still not really communicating. So you are saying, it is not true that people reject subjectivity? Reason it out, look at the evidence. What about communism, as it is based on materialism? Materialism validates objectivity, facts, it does not validate subjectivity. How is that not rejection of subjectivity, on the intellectual level? Or what about nazi's, who assert personal character of people can be established as a matter of fact of biology. Personal character is properly a subjective issue. So then the nazi's replaced what is subjective, with objectivity. How is that not throwing out subjectivity? The actual cause of what happened to Horakova is by and large the rejection of subjectivity in communism, as it is based on materialism. It was not the case of some individual mean rotten apples, but a whole rotten culture in which subjectivity was sidelined intellectually. Personal opinion, is obviously thrown out in communism, it's not allowed. In the present, creationism is generally thrown out from academics. Subjectivity is an exclusively creationist concept. Therefore, if you throw creationism out, you have defacto thrown out subjectivity. The creationist conceptual scheme proves that subjectivity is an exclusively creationist concept. On facebook, all the atheists say, if there is no evidence for it, then it must be thrown out. Which means implicitly, all subjective things must be thrown out, because there is no evidence for them. etc. etc. Widespread rejection of subjectivity everywhere. So your statement that subjectivity cannot be thrown out, is wrong.mohammadnursyamsu_{June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

APOLOGY DUE (Above, 90, there is a first outline response to the God is a murderer accusation, for any who are perplexed. KM has been directed to sources where more substantial engagement is in the remit.)Karen McMannus_{June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

APOLOGY DUEKaren McMannus_{June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

No, you have not been arguing that duties, rights, etc. require that certain actual conditions exist, which is self evident.
That's exactly what I've been arguing. I've stated it flat out several times. I've asked the question flat out several times, challenging people to respond as to whether or not a duty can be said to exist absent the conditions I listed. Thank you for agreeing with me that conditions are necessary, even if we disagree on what those conditions are.
That is incorrect and I explained why in an earlier post.
You explained your objection. You and I differ on whether or not it showed my argument about the necessary conditions "wrong."
In any case, you are still evading my point.
Why are you using using the pejorative "evading?" I'm doing my best to understand you and answer you as directly as possible.
The existence of justice or human rights as “things” is NOT the product of KF’s (or my) “ontological COMMITMENTS or PERCEPTIONS, as you have falsely stated dozens of times.
I think I can safely say I've never argued or said that justice and human rights (as premised ontological things) are the existentially existent product of commitments or perceptions (unless we were discussing things under my IRT worldview, which we were not at the time.) I've argued that the idea or concept of those things necessarily refers to, or is derived from, ontological commitments, whether conscious, subconscious or unconscious. I think I've said that several times. IOW, to believe that moral duties actually exist, whether one accepts or is aware of it or not, those moral duties logically require ontological conditions. IOW, as you have agreed, justice, duties etc. rely on ontologically existent conditions (even if you do not agree with the conditions I've listed.) You can walk around believing in those universal justice or moral duties without ever really considering the necessary ontological conditions, but they still necessarily refer to those necessary conditions, whether you are aware of it or not. It's what happens when you ask someone if they agree that extreme behavior X example is wrong. If they say yes, they have committed themselves to the ontological conditions necessary to make that statement, whether they know it or not. It's why it's such a useful rhetorical device in an argument about morality. People will say "yes, that is wrong behavior in every case, in every culture" and never even realize they've just committed themselves to the ontologically conditions necessary to be able to say such behavior is "wrong" in every case.
Please stop making false statements to the contrary.
You might want to stop thinking you can mind-read me, It seems to be a repeating problem for you and KF.William J Murray_{June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

MNY, one cannot reasonably, responsibly reject our subjectivity, which is directly self evident through self awareness, as well as because without agent freedom to be selfmoved, we cannot be rational. At the same time we are prone to error and need to use that freedom to be rational to provide adequate warrant for knowledge. More can be said. KFkairosfocus_{June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

Poll: It's okay to murder innocent babies in the service of "higher truth." [ ] Yes [ ] No [KM, as you know murder is wrong, war is hell, you have already had sufficient engagement on misunderstandings and issues [cf 90 above and previous responses you obviously ignored the better to use Internet Atheist tactics] with references to where such are more thoroughly dealt with. Within this thread, you went well out of the zone of civility and an apology is due. However, I elect to let this comment stand with an editorial note. KF, owner.]Karen McMannus_{June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

Again KF, not the point. You are supposed to actually evaluate which is the better explanation of the problems in society. Either it is rejection of subjectivity, or it is not paying attention to duties of reasoning. I have the evidence, I am right, it is obvious. There is widespread rejection of subjectivity in society / academics. That is the main problem.mohammadnursyamsu_{June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

WJM
I agree that if these things (justice and human rights) actually exist, it means the required conditions that provide for them must exist, such as God. That’s the point I’ve been making for a while now. Duties, rights, etc. require that certain actual conditions exist.
No, you have not been arguing that duties, rights, etc. require that certain actual conditions exist, which is self evident. You have been arguing that duties and rights require YOUR unique set of circumstances (an authority that holds you responsible for the fulfillment of a duty, and consequences for whether or not you fulfill said duty). That is incorrect and I explained why in an earlier post. In any case, you are still evading my point. The existence of justice or human rights as “things” is NOT the product of KF’s (or my) “ontological COMMITMENTS or PERCEPTIONS, as you have falsely stated dozens of times. If justice and human rights do exist, they are the product of ontological REALITIES that elevate humans over animals – such as the ontological capacity of human intelligence, conscience, and free will, which are necessary for making moral judgments, or the ontological status of being endowed by one/s Creator with certain unalienable rights, which is based on the principle of “inherent human dignity.” If there is no God, and if His creatures are not made in His image, then there is no such thing as justice or human rights. It’s as simple as that. Contrary to your claim, my (or Kf’s) ontological perceptions or commitments play no role whatsoever in establishing justice or human rights as “things.” Only ontological realities can do that. Please stop making false statements to the contrary.StephenB_{June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

It is not mine.
your’s is incoherent.jerry_{June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

MNY, did you notice your words, "You are supposed to actually do reasoning about an issue"? That's an example of the inescapability of first duties of reason. Yes, we are made to reason and should do so through right approaches. That is part of the framework that governs reasoning. And this is an illustration. KF PS: I full well agree there is a huge and indeed itself transfinite span of transfinites. R* captures that.kairosfocus_{June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

KF @114, I understand that is your perspective. It is not mine. I'm explaining my perspective. I'm not debating you about yours or advancing mine as the correct perspective everyone should have.William J Murray_{June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply