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

KF: Until you answer the following questions directly, there is no more to be said between us about "duties:" 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? 2. If your answer is yes, please give an example, even if hypothetical. If your answer is no, do such conditions necessarily exist in all possible worlds? If I was a betting man, I would bet my home, property and truck that you will not directly answer those questions.William J Murray_{June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

WJM, You insist on raising long since thoroughly answered matters (self evidence as a substantial matter was addressed here at UD in 2013 IIRC):
The shorter summary: if your proposition is not necessarily true in all possible worlds, or for all possible sentient beings, it cannot be a self-evidently true proposition.
False, and misdirected, see OP here for details. SETs in general are not necessary being entities though in some cases they are. For those too unwilling to click, a SET is a truth, it is intelligible to persons of adequate background to understand correctly, a constraint as some SETs are only accessible as such to experienced, educated persons of significant intellectual virtues and habits of thought. Yes, being warped and benumbed in conscience, hard hearted and darkened in mind as a result is an issue. I can never forget walking behind two young men, conversing, ah nuh nutten, 'im just cut a gal throat. Further, such persons will recognise that they are necessarily true . . . note, the going concern, actual world context . . . on pain of patent absurdity. As opposed to say, upon proof by reductio etc. Where, absurdities can be of several types, including obvious incoherence, self-referential destruction of intellectual credibility, and even self-referential destruction of moral credibility, etc. (Failure to recognise the gross injustice against Milada Horokova and how it was built up from disregard to duties to truth and honest fair mindedness in reasoning are a good enough example. A test, her judicial murderers failed.) More can be said, that's enough. What a SET is is sufficiently shown, the focus here is that the link between duties to truth and to honest reasoning thence to justice is plain. KF PS, giving yardstick examples as Cicero did is not fallacious cherry-picking. That level of rhetorical twisting speaks volumes.kairosfocus_{June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

The shorter summary: if your proposition is not necessarily true in all possible worlds, or for all possible sentient beings, it cannot be a self-evidently true proposition. If particular conditions are necessary for your proposition to be true, then if you can show the conditions to be self-evidently true (they must exist in all possible worlds,) then the case has been made that the proposition is necessarily true. If the conditions are not self-evidently true (must exist in all possible worlds,) then one must make the case that those conditions (ontology) exist in or are properties of this world and that the proposition is necessary from those conditions. Justice requires conditions that are not necessary in all possible worlds. Morality requires conditions that are not necessary in all possible worlds. Therefore, they cannot be "self-evidently" true.William J Murray_{June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

PS: For record,
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable . . . first duties of reason: "Inescapable," as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to their legitimate authority; inescapable, so first truths of reason, i.e. they are self-evidently true and binding. Namely, Ciceronian first duties,
1st - to truth, 2nd - to right reason, 3rd - to prudence [including warrant], 4th - to sound conscience, 5th - to neighbour; so also, 6th - to fairness and 7th - to justice [ . . .] xth - etc.
Likewise, we observe again, that objectors to such duties cannot but appeal to them to give their objections rhetorical traction (i.e. s/he must imply or acknowledge what we are, morally governed, duty-bound creatures to gain any persuasive effect). While also those who try to prove such cannot but appeal to the said principles too. So, these principles are a branch on which we all must sit, including objectors and those who imagine they are to be proved and try. That is, these are manifestly first principles of rational, responsible, honest, conscience guided liberty and so too a built-in framework of law; yes, core natural law of human nature. Reason, inescapably, is morally governed. Of course, there is a linked but not equivalent pattern: bounded, error-prone rationality often tied to ill will and stubbornness or even closed mindedness; that’s why the study of right reason has a sub-study on fallacies and errors. That we sometimes seek to evade duties or may make inadvertent errors does not overthrow such first duties of reason, which instead help us to detect and correct errors, as well as to expose our follies. Perhaps, a negative form will help to clarify, for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are utterly dangerous, destructive,or even ruthlessly, demonically lawless. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law, then, is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, "natural law," coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of "self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator" in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Likewise, Aristotle long since anticipated Pilate's cynical "what is truth?": truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. [Metaphysics, 1011b, C4 BC.] Simple in concept, but hard to establish on the ground; hence -- in key part -- the duties to right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.
kairosfocus_{June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

WJM, please. Very reluctantly, after much insistence on your part, I did a point by point comment on some of your worldviews claims, only to see an ever increasing spiral of rhetorical exchanges that frankly have very little profit. In the past few weeks, there are over a thousand comments in one exchange where there was an attrition, at the end of which it was clear that the fundamental point that pervasive thus self evident first duties of reason govern our rational behaviour stands; that should never have been in doubt but there is a tendency to privilege hyperskepticism. I will not go back there, the record is there. To clarify the link between first duties and first truths, I took time yesterday to show from literary prophecy and horrific history, how the structure of manifest injustice is built up from untruth and dishonest thinking, multiplied of course by ill willed behaviour. Mr Smith, what is 2+2 -- Winston already being on the rack -- aptly sums up the matter for those willing to heed. That suffices as telling demonstration of the basic point that self-evident, inescapably pervasive first truths, first principles AND first duties govern our rational behaviour. In that context it is also manifest that in a going concern world, as error prone, rational creatures needing knowledge, issues of epistemology are therefore first issues and they are trans-worldview in key relevant aspects. So no there will be no entertaining of undermining comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power. There have been enough toxic, needless tangents and they have failed to change the core issues one whit. KFkairosfocus_{June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

Well, I guess I can't even buy a straight answer from you, KF. Are you a politician? You answer every direct, simple question by reiterating talking points. It's something I've noticed politicians almost always do when they don't want to answer a question. Again, the question about whether or not God could have created a world where injustice cannot occur was largely rhetorical; the answer is yes, of course God could have done that. At least Jerry answered the question directly:
Yes, that is possible. But it would be a sterile meaningless world of automatons.
Kind of a side question to Jerry, considering his response: Do injustices occur in heaven? KM, there are indeed some very interesting phenomena going on here. So, of course a world where injustices cannot occur could exist. In other words, it is an available ontology that is not self-contradictory or impossible. The objection would be, "That is not the world we live in. There are obvious injustices, as described and shown." Are there? One of the interesting phenomena that is occurring is KF's and SB's insistence that emotional reactions represent self-evident truths. KF even gave it its own category: "moral absurdity." He believes that an extreme example demonstrates the self-evident nature of morality; in the case of this thread, he points to an example that everyone (well, pretty much) would agree represents an injustice, therefore, he believes, he has demonstrated the self-evident truth that universal justice and injustice actually exist. IOW, the evidence KF has presented leads him to the conclusion "the debate is over" because of the evidence he has provided, which ties duty, truth, honesty, and justice seamlessly together in a case (almost) everyone would agree on. (Or, when he refers to Cicero's argument, which he believes makes an irrefutable case.) What KF and SB apparently refuse to allow into their equation is the fact that there are people that simply do not see the world that way. They don't operate from any sense of duty, morality, or justice. They exclude those people (of which I am one) from their "self-evident" equation by conveniently labeling them as either defective or deceptive. IOW, there is either something wrong with them or they are lying (which are characterizations we see happening here.) They must do this because accepting those people into the equation reveals that he and Cicero cannot be talking about anything that is "self-evident" in "human nature." 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. When you exclude all of the evidence to the contrary of a proposition, then of course all the evidence (that remains) supports your proposition. So does justice and injustice exist or not? Let me answer it this way, from my perspective, by asking another question: do photonic particles and waves exist or not? In a particular case, is the thing we are looking at either a photon or a wave? Apparently, the answer is that what we are observing is neither a particle or a wave, but rather information potential that can be factually interpreted either way depending on the perspective of the observer. But, what is "actually" there is neither an energetic particle or an energetic wave; it's just abstract information. "Justice" is an interpretation of information. How one interprets any information entirely depends on one's perspective unless one interpretation represents the only possible interpretation to avoid logical absurdity across all possible interpretations. This is why A=A and 2+2=4 might be called non-interpretable informational absolutes. They are not open to variant, alternative interpretations or experiences from different perspectives; they are what they are in every possible situation. Morality, justice and duty are not immune to variant interpretations or experiences. They cannot be said to even necessarily exist in every possible world. There is no such thing as a self-evident "moral" truth. There is no such thing as "self-evident" justice or injustice: they are entirely dependent on perspective, conditions and interpretations relating to ontological commitments. 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. The fault in Cicero's argument is his cherry-picking of certain qualities in a subset of humans and excluding all other qualities of "human nature" via an a priori ontological commitment. When I argued that KF's epistemology flowed from his ontology, he bristled, telling me that I did not know his life or how he came to hold his views. I don't need to know his or anyone's life to know we all began thinking of these things with an a priori ontology. You cannot grow up in this world or function as a child without at least a subconscious or unconscious ontology of "what things are" and how those things relate to each other. By the time we even begin to question these things, we are asking these things from that ontological perspective. We might, at some point, find and question that deeply-rooted ontology; my experience is that this rarely ever happens. It usually takes a very profound, identity-shaking event. People usually spend their lives trying to make sense out of their original ontology, maybe shifting a few minor things around, or adding to it from a spiritual, mystical, supernatural or religious experience. They cobble together what is usually a Rube Goldberg epistemology that holds their ontology-with-modifications together. "Justice" cannot be revealed self-evidently true via even via large-scale emotional reaction. As at least Jerry would admit, a world where "justice" is an irrelevant concept could exist: the world where injustices cannot occur. This means that there is no "self-evident" justice or injustice; it depends on ontological conditions that do not necessarily exist in all possible worlds. You can make an argument from evidence that "justice" exists in this particular world, but as I said before, you don't get your ontological basis for free.William J Murray_{June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

MNY, again, for record the laws of logic and arithmetic [a subset, strictly] are inert, it is duties of right reason that teach us to use them aright. The OP documents how untruth and dishonest reasoning are part of the structure of injustice. KFkairosfocus_{June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT}

Mohammadnursyamsu It’s all a total lie. KF you are just illegitemately moralising logic, so that you can have feelings of certitude about what is right and wrong. That 2+3 = 5 = moral, and 2+3=4 = immoral....
Who taught you the ideas you wrote here? If you are serious (and not a troll like others here) you should throw away whatever book you've read about this subject or distance yourself from people who taught you this garbage. This is a good teacher for start with. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5RCmu-HuTgSandy_{June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

It's all a total lie. KF you are just illegitemately moralising logic, so that you can have feelings of certitude about what is right and wrong. That 2+3 = 5 = moral, and 2+3=4 = immoral. A similar way as to how a nazi refers to the scientific law of natural selection theory, to get certitude about what is right and wrong. Similar to how communists refer to the laws of societal evolution, to get certitude about what is right and wrong. All the bad guys throw out subjectivity. The nazi's the communists, they throw out ordinary personal opinion, and replace it with the scientific socialist formula. You cannot express your own subjective opinions in nazi or communist countries, yet KF would have you believe that nazi's and communism, are based on subjectivism. A total and utter lie. They are based on science, on objectivism, making morality objective. Again, total outrage, total rewriting of history, totally wrong, totally evil. People are just inclined to be total morons. They cannot see emotions or God as objects, so therefore they do not exist. And if emotions do exist, well then they must be objective. Then it must be a fact whether someone is good, loving, and beautiful. It must be some kind of fact of genetics, some fact of environment, some fact of nature, some fact of logic, whatever it is, it must be a fact. It is always, always, subjectivity which is the loser. Always subjectivity which is mangled, and thrown out. And that obviously leads to personal and societal catastrophy.mohammadnursyamsu_{June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

KM, there is no valid point in distracting from addressing our epistemological challenge as a first issue in its own right, where we need not tie key epistemological considerations to the beings and world-history etc of any given worldview. That is for example part of why I freely recognise the historical priority of Cicero, a pagan Roman statesman and Stoic philosopher. In this part of a now fairly lengthy series, I have laid out the reality of self-evident truth (a reality that is often derided by those who should know better, c'mon, 2 + 3 = 5 counts!), have pointed out that these are too rare to frame a worldview -- Sev, I am looking at you here -- but that these serve as plumblines to test yardsticks and walls alike, and have drawn out that these establish truth, knowable truth and truth knowable to certainty, not merely highly plausible and reliable claims. Thus, objective, knowable truth, with cases of certainty exists, devastating entire worldviews that pivot on relativism, subjectivism and emotivism. Reidian common sense answers to hyperskepticism's attempt to privilege dismissive doubt and the associated fallacies of grand delusion, opening the door to building credible, open-ended confidence in objective knowledge. Further to such, once we see that truths about oughtness or duty are the heart of moral truth, the denial of the possibility or actuality of moral truth falls to self-referential incoherence, it claims to be known moral truth but so if true it is false. Knowable moral truth exists, including self-evident yardstick cases such as the judicial torture-murder of Milada Horakova. Those who deny, evade, distract from or try to obfuscate such cases only manage to show their error, they do not break our recognition of yardstick cases. This particular case, joined to the literary prophecy in 1984, also shows that first truths, first principles and first duties of right reason as captured in the Ciceronian first duties list are in real life inextricably intertwined. Thus, those who would evade their pervasive legitimate authority . . . manifest even in their objections . . . fail. We must take heed to such premises as we move forward to the rescue and reformation of a civilisation recklessly dancing on a crumbling cliff edge. KFkairosfocus_{June 14, 2021
June
06
Jun
14
14
2021
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT}

EDTA, fair enough as a comment, however, Sev chose to resort to uncalled for associations, insinuations and distractions, which probably reflect intent to derail. He has some 'splain to do and we should not allow derailment. KF PS: He has also of course failed to recognise the significant contribution to modern liberty, civil rights and Constitutional democracy coming from Christians acting through gospel ethics and scriptural teachings. The tendency to make raillery at the real and imagined sins of Christendom through one sided litanies that ignore or suppress its blessings, is a saddening sign of our times. PPPS: That said, Christianity in general has nothing to do with the substance of this thread or the OP. This is a toxic distraction which we should not allow to draw us away from how the OP shows us the way untruth and dishonest reasoning backed by wicked intent are foundational to injustice. In that light, we see how the first principles and duties of responsible reason are inseparably intertwined. Which is a critical insight.kairosfocus_{June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT}

Sev, >"Religious conflicts have been equally if not more bloody and ruthless and they have been happening over a far longer timescale than just the twentieth-century." If we confine the window to the more recent past, Communism takes the cake for murder/democide. If we use the perspective of total deaths, Communism again steals the show. Yes, humanity has a murderous streak, across all belief systems. >"the real problem is summed up in the maxim that “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Minor quibble: power does not necessarily corrupt. The corruption is already present in those who seek the top spots. I.e., they're already corrupt when they get there. You are correct that in times of instability, people seek security, and make bad decisions. I agree completely. >"In my view, when you try to establish your version of Christianity as the Absolute Truth you obviously believe it to be you are falling into the same trap as before. I know you don’t intend it to lead to gulags or concentration camps or killing fields...it could eventually fall into the hands of people much more ruthless and violent than you." Possible. But I am aware of that, and prepared to oppose it strenuously if that happens. I won't be enough to stop it myself, of course. But I will oppose it.EDTA_{June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

SB: I was simply pointing out that only ontological realities can ground justice. Not controversial in this thread or the other. But that's not the point WJM was making. Read it again and see if you can figure it out. Hehe. Wow.Karen McMannus_{June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

A merciless, unemotional, judgement of immorality, for anyone who get's their sums wrong. Obviously swapping the feelings of certitude in matters of fact, to feelings of selfconfidence in matters of personal judgement. And no regard for the logic of subjectivity, the logic of personal opinion, the logic of choice. The whole of intelligent design theory hinges on choice. Only choice can deal with a zillion DNA configurations in one go, by having them all as possiblities in a decision on them. That's how intelligent design can surmount the mathematical improbabilities of obtaining a viable organism. Oh but you threw out choice, and threw out chosen opinions. For the sake of morality... Not really for morality, for the sake of feelings of certitude about what is moral.mohammadnursyamsu_{June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

Seversky, This is an utter disgrace and an outright slander:
In my view, when you try to establish your version of Christianity as the Absolute Truth you obviously believe it to be you are falling into the same trap as before. I know you don’t intend it to lead to gulags or concentration camps or killing fields any more than the authors of communism or socialism but, if it gains real traction, I believe it could eventually fall into the hands of people much more ruthless and violent than you
This, for cause, is unacceptable and is blatantly slanderous, take it back. If that is what your obvious cognitive dissonance leads you to project, you have some serious 'splainin to do. The issue on the table is the inextricable intertwining of duties to truth, honest reason and justice, in context of highlighting a case from the second worst crime against humanity of the past century, the still ongoing slaughter of living posterity in the womb being first at 800+ to 100+ million victims. That case shows that the structure of injustice is based on untruth and dishonest thinking -- underscoring the priority of first principles and duties of reason as antidote. You dragged a red herring across to a strawman soaked in slanderous ad hominems and set alight. That rhetorically works to cloud, poison and polarise atmosphere, frustrating serious discussion. Why are you so desperate as to make such invidious associations and projections? KFkairosfocus_{June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT}

Karen:
SB is so locked into his ontology (some version of Christian theology, I assume) that he conflates his opinions of justice (which are necessarily derived from the ontology he holds) with justice itself, whatever that might be. Does he realize what he is doing? Fascinating to watch.
Every claim that you just made is either false or irrelevant. I was simply pointing out that only ontological realities can ground justice. Ontological commitments cannot do that. So there is no question that I refuted WJM's claims to the contrary. Clearly, you have no counter argument or else you would have made it by now.StephenB_{June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

KM, keep spinning furiously, we were all present to see the switcheroo rhetoric that tried to sideline sound epistemology. The fact remains, in a going concern world with fallible human beings, epistemology and logic are first tier philosophical issues in their own right, and further to such, we need solid acknowledgement on epistemology and reasoning towards warrant before we can build a serious responsible discussion of comparative difficulties across worldviews. That is SB's key point and mine. For cause. KFkairosfocus_{June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

Sev, first you know better than to try to slip in the "Right Wing" national socialist german workers' party fallacy; right of Stalin, yes; left of just about anything else you care to name, it is time for that piece of agit prop to be permanently laid to rest. As for oh the structurally racist USA etc, my comment is simple, distractive, these matters are antecedent to such and allow us to see the point emphasised in say Ac 17, we are of one common blood, one common ancestry, one common race and that is a race that is rationally, responsibly free and en-conscienced, morally governed; until that is firmly acknowledged, sound reform is not going to happen, we end up in some newspeak word magic, agit prop narrative, lawfare driven tyranny, of which we here have a capital example. As for the snide suggestion, you fundy absolutist Chrisytofascist theocrat -- we can read subtext and invidious associations, thank you -- you will kindly note that worldviews are addressed on comparative difficulties so inference to best explanation, which is not a deductive system on certain universally agreed axioms, you are setting up a loaded, utterly inappropriate strawman. Especially as self evident issues on reason and government of reason are trans worldview questions. Did you notice, Cicero was a pagan Stoic? Next, the point I have emphasised is independent of such debates, it is about the inextricable intertwining of first principles and duties to truth, honest reasoning and justice at foundation of rational life and community. These are inseparable and pervasive, we need to face them. And that is the precise lesson of history I have emphasised, for cause. KFkairosfocus_{June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

KF @31, Do you even bother to read what I write? Or are you employing a bot that makes random comments? The only switch that occur was on SB's side. I beseech you in the bowels of the Big Lebowski to carefully re-read what I wrote @30. All the best.Karen McMannus_{June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

if it gains real traction, I believe it could eventually fall into the hands of people much more ruthless and violent than you because
:)) oh no ...the moral atheist...hahaha!Sandy_{June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus/23
In the events in Czechoslovakia two years later, people were unjustly framed, tortured into confessions in a show trial, sentenced and put to death to advance a Communist coup. Dr Milada Horakova, courageously publicly denounced the process during her trial and was hanged by a deliberately dragged out strangulation execution process — details are sickening — despite worldwide protest and pleas, including that of Einstein. Her family were never allowed to even receive her ashes. We see here how injustice builds on dishonest reasoning and action, culminating in judicial torture-murder to advance the power agenda of a ruthless Party. Orwell’s literary prophecy built on his experiences in Spain and the track records of Hitler and Stalin. KF
Yes, what happened to Dr Horakova was a terrible injustice but you are missing the lesson from history that is staring you in the face. The atrocities committed under the Communist regimes of Russia, China or right-wing regimes such Nazi Germany are just the most prominent. Look at the history of massacres and lynchings against blacks in the US and, if you think they were bad, they occurred mostly after the North had won. Just imagine what would have happened if the South had won. And you can find similar atrocities in the histories of most countries around the world albeit not on the same scale. Nor is this just an issue of political ideologies. Religious conflicts have been equally if not more bloody and ruthless and they have been happening over a far longer timescale than just the twentieth-century. No, the real problem is summed up in the maxim that "absolute power corrupts absolutely". People are unsettled by doubt and insecurity and crave certainty. When they are offered some sort of Absolute Truth, be it political ideology or religion, they will be drawn to it, especially in times of heightened instability. And if it's espoused by some glib and charismatic demagogue then the lure is even stronger. 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. In my view, when you try to establish your version of Christianity as the Absolute Truth you obviously believe it to be you are falling into the same trap as before. I know you don't intend it to lead to gulags or concentration camps or killing fields any more than the authors of communism or socialism but, if it gains real traction, I believe it could eventually fall into the hands of people much more ruthless and violent than you because, as WJM has rightly pointed out, the 'bad guys' are just as much a part of human nature as the 'good guys'. Until we find a way of coming to terms with that reality, we are going to continue making the same old mistake, time after time. And we know that's a definition of insanity. As Oliver Cromwell wrote, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.?”Seversky_{June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

F/N: The Czech film https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nJOuvRygrw KF PS: A documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vMZrJhlpXc and another https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF8G1BTAg7wkairosfocus_{June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

“What is truth?” said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.Belfast_{June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

PPS: Would it surprise you to learn that according to historical hints, Pilate ended as a suicide?kairosfocus_{June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

Blastus, yes, issues of judicial murder for expedience and cynicism about truth and right to sustain injustice are as old as the hills. These considerations should be a commonplace with every educated person. They are not and this points to calculatedly dumbed down education systems serving the interests of Stalin's heirs. They are not quite at the level of tortured confession show trials leading to judicial murder yet, but that is the foot of the crumbling cliff we are dancing on. KF PS: more from Wiki:
On 11 September 2008, aged 86, Ludmila Brožová-Polednová, the sole surviving member of the prosecution in the Horáková trial, was sentenced to six years in prison for assisting in the judicial murder of Milada Horáková. Brožová-Polednová was released from detention in December 2010, due to her age and health, and died on 15 January 2015.[11][16]
The trial documents from that case would make interesting reading. And, tell us why this case isn't a major Hollywood blockbuster? [Yes, there is a Czech movie, but who speaks that language? There is an English trailer, just maybe there is a dubbed version out there? We really need this movie, today.] Or, is it that it doesn't fit the favoured narrative? We really need to ask some very pointed questions and demand answers.kairosfocus_{June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

KM, more bait and switch. From many long previous exchanges you know or should know that in a going concern world, epistemic issues come first for us to have confidence in knowledge claims. World source and world constituents questions come later; when we have confident reason for warranted knowledge. The rhetorical pattern becomes plain, you resort to cart before horse fallacies despite repeated correction in order to try to reduce the impact of epistemological considerations. Fair comment, that betrays cognitive dissonance reflecting want of good warrant for preferred views on your part. KFkairosfocus_{June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

WJM: Here’s the problem: all of that 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. SB: Absolutely not. The existence of an objective truth, such as justice, depends on (not “derives from”) ontological REALITIES as they exist, not on our ontological COMMITMENTS to those realities. And right before your very eyes, folks, SB shifts the subject and confirms what WJM is arguing. SB is so locked into his ontology (some version of Christian theology, I assume) that he conflates his opinions of justice (which are necessarily derived from the ontology he holds) with justice itself, whatever that might be. Does he realize what he is doing? Fascinating to watch. WJM scores again.Karen McMannus_{June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

Not good enough. Nowhere do you acknowledge the ordinary human spirit, on a properly subjective basis. And your acknowledgement of God, is only on the basis of a neccessary being, not on a subjective basis. In socialism, the socialistic formula replaces ordinary common sense subjective judgement. As like critical race theory. It replaces the common sense subjective judgement, with some obscure calculations about race. And then all the socialists have their own formula's. They do not support common personal opinion. In fact free speech, personal opinion, is generally outlawed in socialist countries. So for you to pretend that subjectivity is the evil of socialism, is a total lie. Socialism is the political application of materialism, and in materialism there is no validation for subjectivity whatsoever. You always make snide remarks about subjectivism, and emotivism. The obvious solution is to accept both subjectivity and objectivity, each in their own right. Everything in it's proper place, matters of personal opinion, and matters of fact. And your solution of making objectivity superior to subjectivity, is anti-human and anti-God.mohammadnursyamsu_{June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

John 18:38 KJV Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?Blastus_{June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

John 11:49-50 KJV And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.Blastus_{June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply