Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

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
Karen McMannus, who says that killing-babies for fun is self evidently wrong, also says that there are no self-evident moral truths (yes, she said both of those things). When I called her out on it, she descended into a name calling rant. To me, she says:
You really are a dimwit.
Nobody is fooled except the other weirdos that agree with you.
And you’re a sociopath for worshiping such a sociopathic character (The God of the Old Testament)
You’re no better than a Nazi goose-stepper.
My new term for you, SB, and lesser nincompoops here: Goosesteppers Yep, that’s what you are.
To KF, she is a little kinder
It’s over, weirdo.
Why couldn't she just say something like this: "You know, you have a point. I did contradict myself. Here is the way I would try to resolve this apparent inconsistency."StephenB
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT
KM, you are doubling down on setting up and knocking over a toxic, false accusation laced strawman caricature, in obvious hope to derail the thread; a strong sign that you have no cogent answer on merits. It is enough in response to note that you have evidently refused to take back words you tried to put in my mouth that do not belong there and have continued to try to drag discussion off track by raising accusations and issues that you have long since been advised are not reasonably within UD's remit and which are in fact ably addressed elsewhere. You have been given summary counsel and links for balancing information but have chosen to double down instead. That is sadly revealing. That said, nothing in your derailing attempt changes how the OP documents that first truths and first duties of reason are inextricably intertwined, not least through showing how the structure of injustice is built up from untruth, dishonest reasoning and worse behaviour, in the key case ending in judicial torture-murder at hands of Marxist totalitarians; probably on instruction from Stalin or his minions. Thus, we see from actual cases how significant first duties to truth, honest reason and justice are. Those, stand established. KFkairosfocus
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
KF, you have utterly discredited yourself in any moral judgements whatsoever... You believe killing innocent babies is okay in the service of a (so-called) Higher Truth It's over, weirdo.Karen McMannus
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
F/N: Onlookers seeking a 101 may find here on helpful. KFkairosfocus
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
KM, you just put words in my mouth. It is Seversky who wrote what you attributed to me and I called him on some of it that especially caught my attention. You make onward ill-considered projections, accusations and invidious associations that are, again, telling. Lets just say that my first personal conflict with real live totalitarians was 35 years ago, Marxists. You have continued to assert a train of ill-advised things you have been counselled about, and it is sadly significant to see your agenda of claims. Indeed, diagnostic, on cognitive dissonance. KFkairosfocus
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT
KF: Then, once they are convinced that they are in possession of this Absolute Truth, it’s but a short step to believing that it justifies almost anything to bring its benefits to others, whether they want it or not. What about justifying the murder of innocent babies? Just like the Jews who killed innocent Cannanite babies. YOU assent to that. And you and SB have said it is "justified." Oh. The hypocracy. Anything in the name of what you think is Higher Truth is okay when it justifies murder of babies. Hitler thought he was justified in killing innocents for Higher Truth. Stalin thought he was justified in killing innocents for Higher Truth. Mao thought he was justified in killing innocents for Higher Truth. The imaginary god you worship was justified (as you say) in killing innocents for Higher Truth. (But at least that is fiction.) This is not a "toxic diversion." This is the poison is baked into the core of your worldview. Without compunction you assent that killing innocent babies is justified in the name of a Higher Purpose! And then turn around without the slightest bit of self-awareness, cast blame on others for doing the same thing. Your naked hypocritical butt stands out for all to see. Nobody is fooled except the other weirdos that agree with you. P.S. the real Creator has never demanded the murder of innocent babies. That's your twisted, unsupported delusion. And you're a sociopath for worshiping such a sociopathic character. You're no better than a Nazi goose-stepper. My new term for you, SB, and lesser nincompoops here: Goosesteppers Yep, that's what you are. Assenters to child killing in the name of..... Higher Truth! (P.P.S Barry and BA77 have been oh so quiet on these threads. Barry popped in for a second, only because he hasn't really been paying close attention, I suspect. Then popped out when I corrected his misunderstanding. It's been interesting.) Ban me if you want, but everyone except your psychopathic toadies can see the psychopathic core of your worldview. And abject hypocracy. Shame on you.Karen McMannus
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT
SB: KF, their philosophy of life (WJM and KM) You really are a dimwit. (Well, I already knew that. Sorry, this old bird calls as she see's 'em.) You don't even know what my philosophy of life is. Let us be clear: this idiotic thread, and the last one, is not about that. It's about "self-evident duties" (as KF sees them, and others, I assume you.) Hehe. Gawd you people are dumb. We already got you to admit that your version of Christianity is what's ground this, and what you're really promoting. Again, why don't you just say, "we want you to accept our version of Christianity." That would at least be honest. The rest is just a thin coat of sophomoric pseudo-philosophy. At any rate, thanks for the entertainment.Karen McMannus
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
It doesn't add up. It's all objectivity up front, and then oh yeah subjectivity somewhat. It sounds the same as socialist appeasement of subjectivity. The marxists have some acknowledgement of subjectivity that people are to go for personal subjective pursuits, after marxism won. The nazi's have some acknowledgement of subjectivity mentioning the spirit, soul, God. But up front the socialists have all facts based on materialism. It is not rule based validation of subjectivity what you do. It feels like just throwing a bone. Chemistry, physics, mathematics, logic, they all fall under the header objectivity. Now you want to put morality under objectivity too. Doesn't make any sense, it is obviously a category error. Morality belongs in the subjective box, case closed But as I said, I have no room to move, because the creationist conceptual scheme is tightly logically defined. Basically it's like 2+2=4, I have no room for any alternative views. If you don't pretty much 100 percent agree with the creationist conceptual scheme, then your views are wrong. So from where I am sitting you are the one saying 2+2=5, because you don't follow the logic that categorizes between matters of opinion and matters of fact. Subjectivity also has a logic of it's own. The rules are that a personal opinion must be chosen, and must express what it is that makes a choice. And therefore any statement of fact about something that is on the side of what makes a choice, is a category error, because that's where subjectivity applies. You see, I follow rules. While you just assume subjectivity, without apparent rules. There's lots of things to do with subjectivity, just as there is with objectivity. For instance, how to organize the decisionmaking, in choosing a personal opinion. You can choose from the heart, which is choosing in a way that the emotions are unified. Or choose as a whimsy, which is more choosing from a partial interest. Lots of different ways to decide, lots and lots of things to do with subjectivity. While you seem to just assume subjectivity, as if it would take care of itself, as if it is all the same.mohammadnursyamsu
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
KF, their philosophy of life (WJM and KM) would change quickly if it was they who had to endure the evil slave labor camps of the past or the cruel "re-education" centers that exist even to this day in the Communist world. If they were beaten, starved, and tortured on a routine basis, they would cry out for justice like anyone else. But they probably live a sheltered life, protected by people who often give their own lives to keep everyone else safe. Meanwhile, WJM and KM have been spared from all the major horrors and that is all that matters to them. They have no compassion for their fellow humans or they would not trivialize their plight by saying that evil and injustice do not exist. It really is an outrage.StephenB
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT
SB, I should add that justice can be understood as a state off affairs in which there is civil peace manifesting due balance of rights, freedoms and duties. In which context the officers who tortured, subjected to show trial then horrifically executed Milada Horakova on trumped up evidence and a false charge of treason were guilty of a chain of breaches of the civil peace amounting to judicial murder. By contrast, had they had regard even just to her defence statement that came out in 2005, in which freedom of opinion and political views are rights not treason, there would not have been judicial murder. Actual justice would have respected the rights and freedoms as expressing being a human being, an end in oneself. We could say more but the analysis on states of affairs speaks for itself. A Stoic could have said this, a responsible secularist, etc; I say it and NOWHERE is there a question-begging ontological commitment that reduces this to empty ideological noise; much less . . . looking at you Sev, reckless statements likely to invite Christofascist tyranny as seems to be an imagined bogeyman threat. KFkairosfocus
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
SB, KM is trying to follow WJM's attempt to redefine self-evidence to things that are necessary, trans-world entities. This is of course flawed. For instance, distinct identity is self-evident by inescapability, but its extension across possible, distinct worlds is not self-evident, being a fairly complex argument. Similarly, from this and von Neuman's construction then various operations we can construct N,Z,Q,R,C,R* and ground that they are framework to any possible world, supporting wide applicability of Math. Further, C is isomorphic to the Cartesian Plane, thus defining an abstract Euclidean space in any world, leading to say Pythagoras' Theorem, the Appolonius Theorem and incommensurateness of sides and diagonals of squares etc, but these are by no means seen as true on understanding the statement. By contrast, to be self-aware, aware of error-proneness and to experience as part of that conscience are directly self-evident and unconnected to whether such obtain in any possible world. Such was not so in ours until we came along. Then of course, kidnapping, sexually torturing and murdering a child for one's pleasure or torturing or murdering someone under false colour of law are both self-evidently unjust on pain of absurdity on attempted denial. By contrast, catching, killing, cooking and eating a fish for dinner is not self-evidently unjust and most would find it a reasonable thing to do. One key error leads to many others, in short. KFkairosfocus
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
Karen McMannus:
There is no such thing as a self-evident “moral” truth… They do not necessarily apply to all possible sentient beings in all possible worlds; they thus cannot be self-evidently true statements.
That doesn't follow at all.StephenB
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
Karen McMannus on June 13 :
There is no such thing as a self-evident “moral” truth…
Let's check the record: On May 14, 2021 at 11:15 pm, BA77 says, "If WJM can’t bring himself to honestly admit that ***it is self evidently true that it is wrong to torture babies…"*** To which Karen responds,
He does. You do. *I DO.* We all do.
So on May 14, Karen says that it is self evidently true that we should not torture babies for fun, but on June 13, she says there is no such thing as a self-evident moral truth. Will the real Karen McMannus please stand up.StephenB
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
KM, Kindly note:
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference A key difference between a psychopath and a sociopath is whether he has a conscience, the little voice inside that lets us know when we’re doing something wrong, says L. Michael Tompkins, EdD. He's a psychologist at the Sacramento County Mental Health Treatment Center. A psychopath doesn’t have a conscience. If he lies to you so he can steal your money, he won’t feel any moral qualms, though he may pretend to. He may observe others and then act the way they do so he’s not “found out,” Tompkins says. A sociopath typically has a conscience, but it’s weak. They may know that taking your money is wrong, and they might feel some guilt or remorse, but that won’t stop their behavior. Both lack empathy, the ability to stand in someone else’s shoes and understand how they feel. But a psychopath has less regard for others, says Aaron Kipnis, PhD, author of The Midas Complex. Someone with this personality type sees others as objects he can use for his own benefit.
See why I noted, damaged conscience? KFkairosfocus
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
William J. Murray to Kairosfocus:
Here’s the problem: all of that (the idea that justice exists as a thing) is a perspective derived from ontological commitments. In my experience, these ontological presuppositions are so deep they are rarely, if ever, recognized as such, much less examined critically.
If justice exists as an abstract thing it is because there are ontological realities that ground it, not because KF or I have made an ontological commitment to those realities. One has nothing to do with the other. Let’s take a specific example: Do human rights really exist as (things)? If they do, it is NOT because I believe that God grants rights to humans who were made in the Divine image." Such a commitment cannot in any way explain how a right could be an abstract reality. On the contrary, human rights can exist as things only if God really does grant them and only if humans are entitled to them because they have been made special in some way. Only on the ontological grounds that humans have “inherent dignity” can a case be made that they deserve to be treated fairly or that such a thing as justice actually exists. It is the ontological grounding that explains the existence of justice as a thing, not the epistemological process by which KF and I arrive at our ontological commitments.StephenB
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
KF: That one may have a badly damaged conscience Anything contrafactual to your worldview is "damaged" apparently. P.S. Scientific research does not support the claim that most sociopaths are "damaged" or became such though trauma.Karen McMannus
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
KM, irrelevant. That one may have a badly damaged conscience does not change that we are duty-bound to sound conscience or to truth or to right and honest reason or to justice. Ask the ghosts of those who judicially murdered Milada Horakova. KFkairosfocus
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
Because people are inclined to objectivity, people see the objective things.
:) You don't know what you are talking about. That's why you have a dialogue with clowns like WJM.Sandy
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
WJM, attn MNY, we are subjects, everything is experienced as such. For the particular purpose of reliable knowledge, we need warrant adequate to provide objectivity, as we are error prone. Without being self aware responsible significantly free agents we could not be rational. Which is precious, but as we are finite, bounded, error prone, we need such warrant. None of this is hard to understand, none of it is false or a lie or a denigration of our ensoulment -- i.e. that we are self-moved agents that are not simply mechanically, dynamically-stochastically determined. Which would make us into GIGO-constrained, non-rational computational substrates, at best. KFkairosfocus
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
WJM: This is also revealed when KF makes his argument by referring to “common human behavior,” he cannot make his argument if he refers to all human behavior... There is no such thing as a self-evident “moral” truth... They do not necessarily apply to all possible sentient beings in all possible worlds; they thus cannot be self-evidently true statements. Good grief, they don’t even apply to all known human beings. Psychologist academics estimate that about 4% of the population are "sociopaths." In the USA the number is about 14 million people. Worldwide that number is a staggering 280 million. Those numbers represent no mere anomaly. (Sidebar: One wonders why the creator made so many of them from the ontological/theological perspective of KF et al. To borrow a quip from P.T. Barnum, "God must have loved sociopaths- he made so darn many of them." One purpose may be that they make effective warriors: they can kill a village, sleep like babies, get up and do it again the next day without batting a proverbial eyelash. Of course, that leaves the question as to why war is necessary in this world in the first place. I'm sure these questions are "toxic distractions." I suspect anything that challenges KF's ontology/theology is a toxic distraction. The cog-dis is palpable.)Karen McMannus
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
Mohammadnursyamsu said:
Basically I’m just banging my fist on the table that there has got to be straightforward and unequivocal acceptance of the validity of subjectivity.
I think the problem is that "objectivists" have intellectually disqualified subjective experience as "not real," or as you said, not valid. Keep in mind that when I argue about morality being an emotional reaction, I'm arguing from KF's worldview where emotion is not considered valid or real in the objective sense. From my perspective, emotions, thoughts, and imagination are as real as any objective thing, they just are not objective. Some time ago I pointed out that all experience - even of objective things - is subjective in nature; that's all any of us have to work with. Subjective experiences, subjective feelings, subjective thoughts, etc. If one is going to dismiss subjective experience as "not real" or "not valid," then nothing can be called real. What we call "the objective" and "the subjective" are two entirely real things. I do not doubt that KF and SB and others personally, subjectively experience the things they say they are experiencing - such as, moral duty - but to claim I experience the same thing is just nonsense. KF's attempt to objectify morality, the sense of right and wrong, moral duty ,etc. logically by objective conditions that require similar emotional, subjective reactions is, to say the least, highly problematic, if not impossible.William J Murray
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
WJM,again, no, you are not re-setting the agenda by a train of toxic tangents. The OP has set the issue and our responsiveness or lack thereof speaks for itself. Injustice is built up from untruth and from dishonest ill willed thinking and action as is crystal clear from both the literary prophecy and the horrific judicial murder. This shows by case the pervasive significance of first truths, first principles and first duties. You have not in any way managed to alter that balance on merits, no, what a SET is was hammered out centuries before you were born and you do not get to conveniently redefine it.It is still the case that logic and epistemology are first tier issues and so are the key principles, some of which [e.g. LOI-LNC-LEM, need for regard to truth and honesty etc] are self-evident, are not fatally biased by any one particular worldview. In particular, it still remains that every one of your objections, e.g. by wanting to suggest failure to warrant by right use of reason resting on representative true facts, is implicitly appealing to first duties of reason, and more. KFkairosfocus
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
If the logic is inert, and the logical errors are inert, then how did you get to objective morality? What is the duty to reason logically based on then? And all that other stuff that you proved that error is real, and then went to talk about what ought. And your rejection of subjectivism, emotivism. Morality is in regards to the human spirit, and God the holy spirit, who are both inherently subjective. That is why it is called faith, which is subjective. Not because we just momentarily haven't got all the objective evidence yet, but because logic dictates that it is inherently subjective. Basically I'm just banging my fist on the table that there has got to be straightforward and unequivocal acceptance of the validity of subjectivity. And everything that goes against that, whether it be materialism, atheism, natural selection theory, or objectified God, it must all be destroyed. And there must be acceptance of objectivity also, but in my opinion that isn't really much of a problem. Because people are inclined to objectivity, people see the objective things. 2 separate categories, 1 for subjectivity, and 1 for objectivity. The perfect solution. 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / factmohammadnursyamsu
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
Jerry @62 said
That called human nature. It’s built into humans. Every species has something similar built into it.
Yes, they are the physical conditions that require consuming some sort of physically compatible energy source to sustain life. What difference does that make? Any kind of duty requires the in-kind conditions I have listed. An existential, inescapable duty requires and existential, inescapable authority and consequence, whether categorized as "physical commodities and conditions" or "intelligent-agent supplied commodities and conditions." Is the argument for moral duties one of physical commodities and conditions? That's not a rhetorical question. In some ontologies, "morality" is regarded as a kind of higher-physics, cause-and-effect commodity (a version of karma), and has nothing to do with the authority of any intelligent judging agency, like a god.William J Murray
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
In your example, the authoritative entity holding us responsible to a duty to eat and drink is our body
That called human nature. It’s built into humans. Every species has something similar built into it. Kf wrote an OP on this. I didn’t see you agreeing with him. The duties flow from our nature just as you are now saying You do realize you are posting gobbledygook in defense of what you say.
The authority? Gravity. The consequence? Smashing against the rocks below.
There was a recent joke photograph with caption
Man: you are being charged with killing your husband Woman: it was a natural death Man: you pushed him off the cliff Woman: gravity is natural Man: we will list the death as due to COVID
jerry
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
BTW, Jerry, as before, I respect the fact that you are willing to give direct answers to direct questions. Not that I expect that means much if anything to you, but still.William J Murray
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
Ah, Jerry. Okay. If we're going to extend the concept of a "duties" to include physical conditions and commodities, I'm happy to play your game. In your example, the authoritative entity holding us responsible to a duty to eat and drink is our body. The consequence for not doing our duty? Death. Let's use another example. The "duty" of not throwing myself off a cliff. The authority? Gravity. The consequence? Smashing against the rocks below. In every single case, if we are talking about intelligent-agency commodities or physical condition commodities, there are in-kind authority/consequence conditions that must exist in order for it to be said that any "duty" exists.William J Murray
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
1. Can a duty be said to exist absent the following conditions: (1)an authority that holds you responsible for the fulfillment of a duty, and (2) consequences for whether or not you fulfill said duty?
Most definitely yes! Do you ever eat or drink? They are required for staying alive. No one is monitoring you or ensuring you comply. There are hundreds of similar examples that require one to stay alive and their family’s survival as well.
If I was a betting man, I would bet my home, property and truck that you will not directly answer those questions.
Because they have been answered several times. Can we agree that the external world is alive and well and all your nonsense about mental world being paramount is just that, nonsense. The real question is anything you have proposed not nonsense?jerry
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
I guess I should have made that bet :)William J Murray
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
WJM, no, you are not re-setting the agenda by a train of toxic tangents. The OP has set the issue and our responsiveness or lack thereof speaks for itself. Injustice is built up from untruth and from dishonest ill willed thinking and action as is crystal clear from both the literary prophecy and the horrific judicial murder. This shows by case the pervasive significance of first truths, first principles and first duties. KFkairosfocus
June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply