US AG Barr on the importance of religious liberty

_{kairosfocus
October 14, 2019

Academic Freedom, Atheism, Defending our Civilization, News Highlights, Religion

1}_{Categories
Academic Freedom
Atheism
Defending our Civilization
News Highlights
Religion}

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

Here (as updated):

Money clip:

The imperative of protecting religious freedom was not just a nod in the direction of piety. It reflects the framers’ belief that religion was indispensable to sustaining our free system of government . . . ”

Food for thought. END

F/N, U/D: Prepared text, found. I think he mostly read the speech, let us clip and discuss below.

PS: First, a different view on political spectra (than where one sat in the French legislature 200 years ago or thereabouts):

Next, Aquinas on law, as summarised:

Third, Schaeffer’s line of despair analysis, as adjusted and extended:

Let’s add on straight vs spin

Comments

Ed George:
Let’s stick with the kidnapping, torture, rape and killing of a child example. 1) I think we all agree, with the exception of the killer, that this is abhorrent and can never be justified or accepted in society.
If we have a chimp as a common ancestor that point doesn't make any sense.
14) What all this points to is the likelihood that our moral values are subjectively derived, based on reasoning, observation, feedback, repetition, indoctrination, early learning, etc. And, sadly, I think that the biggest influencers on our moral values are early learning, indoctrination and repetition.
If they are subjectively derived they are so derived from the original, objective values.ET_{November 2, 2019
November
11
Nov
2
02
2019
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

KF
There is revulsion yes, but that emotion or perception reflects an underlying cognitive judgement.
Judgements are all subjective, informed by objective and subjective input.
That judgement can be seen as driven by a self-evident truth.
Yes, it is driven by the self-evident truth that torture causes pain and suffering. But “torturing is wrong” is not a self-evident truth. It is a subjective decision based on objective evidence. “Torturing is wrong because I don’t want it imposed on me”.
For cause, only a monster would imagine such an act is not evil and one who says such is immediately recognised as grossly morally defective or corrupt.
Since I don’t believe in “evil”, at least not as you see it, I don’t see it as evil. I see it as something that the vast majority of society do not accept as acceptable practice (wrong) and not in the best interest of society to tolerate.
There are those who are sick enough to delight in evil, especially by despoiling the innocent.
True. But even the most sociopathic amongst us have a conscience and morals. Moral values come in greatly varied fashions. Some are almost universally held in common and others come in many shades.Ed George_{November 2, 2019
November
11
Nov
2
02
2019
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

Ed George@ 510
Let’s stick with the kidnapping, torture, rape and killing of a child example. […] 14) What all this points to is the likelihood that our moral values are subjectively derived, based on reasoning, observation, feedback, repetition, indoctrination, early learning, etc. And, sadly, I think that the biggest influencers on our moral values are early learning, indoctrination and repetition.
I couldn't have put it better myself, EG. I would only add that the Ethical Subjectivism that kf cited is closest to what I hold and that it both accounts for what we observe in human cultures and where moral principles are those agreed and are a consensus of the community to which they apply, then that is sufficient warrant for them. How could it be argued that the views of another single being, no matter how powerful and knowledgeable, should take precedence over the views of the community?Seversky_{November 2, 2019
November
11
Nov
2
02
2019
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

DDM
Ed George, you are definitely the clearest thinker here on these subjects, and the one most grounded in reality.
Thank you. I think it has to do with numbering the sentences. It adds credibility to the points. :)Ed George_{November 2, 2019
November
11
Nov
2
02
2019
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

EG, nope, the meaning of words counts, as do the consequences that logically follow; here, clearly reducing to indefensible absurdity. In the 33 years ago case -- it is real world -- there is a reason for the general agreement of the sane and sound on this being utter wickedness. There is revulsion yes, but that emotion or perception reflects an underlying cognitive judgement. That judgement can be seen as driven by a self-evident truth. For cause, only a monster would imagine such an act is not evil and one who says such is immediately recognised as grossly morally defective or corrupt. And one suspects that dragging away into bushes nearby an aqueduct, binding and gagging reflect a bit more than mere fear of discovery. There are those who are sick enough to delight in evil, especially by despoiling the innocent. KFkairosfocus_{November 2, 2019
November
11
Nov
2
02
2019
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

Ed George, you are definitely the clearest thinker here on these subjects, and the one most grounded in reality.DerekDiMarco_{November 2, 2019
November
11
Nov
2
02
2019
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

Let’s stick with the kidnapping, torture, rape and killing of a child example. 1) I think we all agree, with the exception of the killer, that this is abhorrent and can never be justified or accepted in society. 2) But just because we all agree on this does not make it an objectively true moral value, or self-evident-truth. It just means that we all agree. 3) This doesn’t mean that our feelings on this are not strongly informed by objective truths. 4) It is objectively true that this act causes physical and mental suffering for the child. 5) It is an objective truth that this act causes suffering for the parents and family of the child. 6) But it is a subjective decision I make to conclude that causing unnecessary suffering to others is “wrong”. 7) This belief is so strong that I also believe that I have the “right” and obligation to attempt to make others follow my belief. This is a subjective decision. 8) KF May call it delusion, I call it an informed subjective decision. 9) History and present day is full of examples of variation in moral values. 10) Moral values become enshrined in law when an overwhelming majority of people in the society believe in them (eg. Not killing, not stealing, same sex marriage etc), and we as a society impose these values/rules on everyone even if they do not believe in them. 11) Some remain culturally or religiously based because they do not enjoy majority support (eg. abortion, no premarital sex, no contraceptives, no blasphemy, etc), and these are fine as long as they are not imposed on others that do not have the same values. 12) And finally, there are moral values that do not enjoy majority support yet become enshrined in law (eg. oppression of women). 13) What KF calls “might and manipulation makes right”. 14) What all this points to is the likelihood that our moral values are subjectively derived, based on reasoning, observation, feedback, repetition, indoctrination, early learning, etc. And, sadly, I think that the biggest influencers on our moral values are early learning, indoctrination and repetition.Ed George_{November 2, 2019
November
11
Nov
2
02
2019
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

EG, you keep playing the turnabout tactic. I have provided sufficient warrant for a discussion above and I have linked a much fuller discussion. KF PS: For the further information of those wishing to understand the balance on merits (and to notice that I am not erecting idiosyncratic definitions of strawmannish character), I again clip a textbook:
Excerpted chapter summary, on Subjectivism, Relativism, and Emotivism, in Doing Ethics 3rd Edn, by Lewis Vaughn, W W Norton, 2012. [Also see here and here.] Clipping: . . . Subjective relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one approves of it. A person’s approval makes the action right. This doctrine (as well as cultural relativism) is in stark contrast to moral objectivism, the view that some moral principles are valid for everyone. Subjective relativism, though, has some troubling implications. It implies that each person is morally infallible and that individuals can never have a genuine moral disagreement [--> that is, there is no objective referent that can serve as a yardstick between persons] Cultural relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one’s culture approves of it. The argument for this doctrine is based on the diversity of moral judgments among cultures: because people’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, right and wrong must be relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles. This argument is defective, however, because the diversity of moral views does not imply that morality is relative to cultures. In addition, the alleged diversity of basic moral standards among cultures may be only apparent, not real. Societies whose moral judgments conflict may be differing not over moral principles but over nonmoral facts. [--> as anthropologists often report] Some think that tolerance is entailed by cultural relativism. But there is no necessary connection between tolerance and the doctrine. Indeed, the cultural relativist cannot consistently advocate tolerance while maintaining his relativist standpoint. To advocate tolerance is to advocate an objective moral value. But if tolerance is an objective moral value, then cultural relativism must be false, because it says that there are no objective moral values. Like subjective relativism, cultural relativism has some disturbing consequences. It implies that cultures are morally infallible, that social reformers can never be morally right, that moral disagreements between individuals in the same culture amount to arguments over whether they disagree with their culture, that other cultures cannot be legitimately criticized, and that moral progress is impossible. Emotivism is the view that moral utterances are neither true nor false but are expressions of emotions or attitudes. It leads to the conclusion that people can disagree only in attitude, not in beliefs. People cannot disagree over the moral facts, because there are no moral facts. Emotivism also implies that presenting reasons in support of a moral utterance is a matter of offering nonmoral facts that can influence someone’s attitude. It seems that any nonmoral facts will do, as long as they affect attitudes. Perhaps the most far-reaching implication of emotivism is that nothing is actually good or bad. There simply are no properties of goodness and badness. There is only the expression of favorable or unfavorable emotions or attitudes toward something.
You and others busily complained and piled on about oh you repeat clips, but have evidently paid the substantial matters so presented scant heed. PPS: Another summary:
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_ethical_subjectivism.html Ethical Subjectivism holds that there are no objective moral properties and that ethical statements are in fact arbitrary because they do not express immutable truths. Instead, moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes and/or conventions of the observers, and any ethical sentence just implies an attitude, opinion, personal preference or feeling held by someone. Thus, for a statement to be considered morally right merely means that it is met with approval by the person of interest. Another way of looking at this is that judgments about human conduct are shaped by, and in many ways limited to, perception. An Ethical Subjectivist would argue that the statement "Stalin was evil" expresses a strong dislike for the sorts of things that Stalin did, but it does not follow that it is true (or false) that Stalin was in fact evil. Another person who disagrees with the statement on purely moral grounds (while in agreement with all non-evaluative facts about Stalin) is not making an intellectual error, but simply has a different attitude . . .
kairosfocus_{November 2, 2019
November
11
Nov
2
02
2019
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

KF
subjectivity that excludes objectivity — subjectivism — is inherently arbitrary and delusional;
You keep erecting and knocking down strawmen. Who has said that subjectively derived morality does not involve objective/factual inputs?Ed George_{November 1, 2019
November
11
Nov
1
01
2019
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

EG, subjectivity that excludes objectivity -- subjectivism -- is inherently arbitrary and delusional; shaped by the nihilistic might makes right principle. The deliberate undermining of the law of our morally governed nature, the cultural marxist long march through institutions, the agit prop, the lawfare and the willful topsy-turvy inversion of good and evil, sound and unsound, right and wrong, what is in order and what is perverse, truth and falsehood all point to what has gone wrong and where it is headed. Indeed, above we see even the undermining of logic and mathematics. But no, everything is fine say those who are leading us to ruin and those who enable it. It will not ultimately stand but we are going to pay a needless, ruinous, horrific price. The enabling of an inevitably bloody and massively destructive ruin is demonic misanthropy of the worst order. (If you doubt me, scroll up and look at the Amazon page linked for the first book just above. Here https://www.amazon.com/American-Fascists-Christian-Right-America/dp/0743284461 Only misanthropy could motivate the sort of venomous slander with obvious intent to ruin that is laid out there for all to see. If you doubt me that the USA is already in low kinetic stages of a 4th gen civil war, the outright hate and willingness to believe slanders that feed that hate speak volumes. The implication of such deliberate moral inversion feeding hate is war, bloody, horrific civil war and those who stoked this were responsible to know better. Just Plato alone would have been enough.) Never mind the moral inversion that wishes to present ruin as progress, we are being willfully, needlessly, malice aforethought pushed to the crumbling edge of a cliff. ______________ Vivid, The issue of substantial thinking is pivotal. The cases exposed by Lapin tie it all together. Misanthropy aiming to slander and ruin our civilisation in pursuit of a destructive utopian fantasy. And already 800+ millions of our living posterity in the womb have paid a first price in shed innocent blood. No scheme of claimed morality and law that establishes holocaust can rise above the level of nihilistic absurdity. Its fruit expose it as demonic. Where, blood guilt is the most corrupting influence of all. KFkairosfocus_{November 1, 2019
November
11
Nov
1
01
2019
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

KF Re: 5012,502,503. All I hear is crickets, telling. Vividvividbleau_{November 1, 2019
November
11
Nov
1
01
2019
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

KF
Or, that there is a game called morality that we arbitrarily choose rules...
There is nothing arbitrary about subjectively derived and agreed to moral values. A couple decades ago a small majority of people thought it was the morally right thing to do to extend marriage to same sex couple. What convinced the majority that the minority was correct was the inability of those who vehemently oppose it to present a logically sound reason for their beliefs. Personally, I don’t need a God or any objective value to reason why kidnapping a child, torturing it and killing it is not something that a society should accept. The fact that you think we do need some being to tell us this says more about you than me.Ed George_{November 1, 2019
November
11
Nov
1
01
2019
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

F/N: As a further note echoing US AG Barr's concerns, here is Rabbi DANIEL LAPIN, dating to 2007 [ --> yes, a dozen years ago], who is probably parallelling the radical Islamist strategy against the global Judaeo-Christian heritage in the ME (first Saturday then Sunday . . . think here, the late, unlamented al Baghdadi) with the emerging radical secularist one in the West (First Sunday then Saturday):
A rabbi's warning to U.S. Christians RABBI DANIEL LAPIN I am certainly not a Churchill. I am not even a Revel. I am having enough trouble just trying to be a Lapin. But I am issuing a very serious warning about deep consequences, just as they did. It is a warning about the earliest stages of what could become a cataract of disasters if not resisted now. [ . . . ] During the 1930s, Winston Churchill desperately tried to persuade the English people and their government to see that Hitler meant to end their way of life. The British ignored Churchill, which gave Hitler nearly 10 years to build up his military forces. It wasn't until Hitler actually drew blood that the British realized they had a war on their hands. It turned out to be a far longer and more destructive war than it needed to be had Churchill's early warning been heeded. In 1983, a brave French writer, Jean-Francois Revel, wrote a book called How Democracies Perish. In this remarkable volume, he described how communism's aim is world conquest. For decades he had been trying to warn of communism's very real threat. Yet in January 1982, a high State Department official said: "We Americans are not solving problems, we are the problem." (Some things never change.) A good portion of the planet fell to communism, which brought misery and death to millions because we failed to recognize in time that others meant to harm us. Heaven knows there was enough warning during the 1980s of the intention of part of the Islamic world to take yet another crack at world domination. Yet instead of seeing each deadly assault on our interests around the world as a test of our resolve, we ignored it. We failed the test and lost 3,000 Americans in two unforgettable hours. I am not going to argue that what is happening now is on the same scale as the examples I cite above, but a serious war is being waged against a group of Americans. I am certain that if we lose this war, the consequences for American civilization will be dire. Phase one of this war I describe is a propaganda blitzkrieg that is eerily reminiscent of how effectively the Goebbels propaganda machine softened up the German people for what was to come. There is no better term than propaganda blitzkrieg to describe what has been unleashed against Christian conservatives recently. Consider the long list of anti-Christian books that have been published in recent months. Here are just a few samples of more than 30 similar titles, all from mainstream publishers:
American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right's Plans for the Rest of Us The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason Piety & Politics: The Right-wing Assault on Religious Freedom Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America Religion Gone Bad: The Hidden Dangers of the Christian Right
What is truly alarming is that there are more of these books for sale at your local large book store warning against the perils of fervent Christianity than those warning against the perils of fervent Islam. Does anyone seriously think America is more seriously jeopardized by Christian conservatives than by Islamic zealots? I fear that many Americans believe just that in the same way that many pre-World War II Westerners considered Churchill a bigger threat than Hitler. Some may say that today's proliferation of anti-Christian print propaganda is nothing to become worried about. To them I ask two questions: First, would you be so sanguine if the target of this loathsome library were Jewish? Just try changing the titles in some of the books I mention above to reflect anti-Semitism instead of rampant anti-Christianism and you'll see what I mean. Second, major movements that changed the way Americans felt and acted came about through books, often only one book. Think of Rachel Carson's 1962 error-filled Silent Spring that resulted in the pointless banning of the insecticide DDT and many unnecessary deaths. Other books that caused upheavals in our nation were Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, many of Ayn Rand's books and of course Uncle Tom's Cabin. No, I would advise you not to underestimate the power of books to alter the behavior of the American public, and I fear for an America influenced to detest Christianity by this hate-filled catalog.
We need to be thinking again, very carefully indeed, even as the thread shows how the radical secularism afoot undermines recognition of the first principles and duties of right reason, thence core inbuilt moral government of our responsible freedom that is the heart of the natural law perspective. That perspective is the bulwark for the rights based reformation of government pioneered in the US DoI of 1776 and the Constitution 11+ years later that sought to deliver on its vision. KF PS: The ill-founded but commonplace notion that fascism and national socialism [= nazism] are ideologies of the right is also present in the above. Such statist, nietzschean superman above law idolatrous statist political messianism with disastrous imposition of cartelisation under state control backed by secret police [= the deep state swamp and its hungry dragons] is actually part of the socialist-marxist tradition; strictly, a heresy of marxism. Yes, such is to the "right" of Stalin, but it is a version on socialist thought, as the very name of the Nazi party tells us: National Socialist German Workers Party. PPS: Amazon's editorial reviews and author description for the first book in Rabbi Lapin's list as linked:
Editorial Reviews Review "Chris Hedges may be the most credible figure yet to detect real-life fascism in the Red America of megachurches, gay-marriage bans and Left Behind books. American Facists is at its most daring when it enunciates...the perversities that are obvious to those of us not beholden to political exigencies." -- New York Observer "Throughout, Hedges documents, and reflects on, what he feels is the bigotry, the homophobia, the fanaticism -- and the deeply un-Christian ideology -- that pose clear and present danger in our previous and fragile republic." -- O, the Oprah magazine "This is a powerful book that looks inside some of the darkest movements on American soil." -- Time Out New York About the Author Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who was a foreign correspondent for fifteen years for The New York Times, where he served as the Middle East Bureau Chief and Balkan Bureau Chief for the paper. He previously worked overseas for The Dallas Morning News, The Christian Science Monitor, and NPR. He writes a weekly column for the online magazine Truthdig out of Los Angeles and is host of the Emmy Award–winning RT America show On Contact. Hedges, who holds a Master of Divinity from Harvard University, is the author of the bestsellers American Fascists, Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt, and was a National Book Critics Circle finalist for War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. He has taught at Columbia University, New York University, Princeton University, and the University of Toronto. He currently teaches college credit courses in the New Jersey prison system.
The implied agenda reflected in those reviews speaks volumes. Indeed, such are reminiscent of the classic Goebbels agit prop tactic of turnabout projection that seeks to blame the targeted victim for his victimisation.kairosfocus_{October 31, 2019
October
10
Oct
31
31
2019
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PDT}

“One wonders how the authors might have modified them had they been aware of quantum systems which can exist in a superposition of states” One wonders how we could have been made aware of quantum systems if they had modified them before becoming aware of these systems. Vividvividbleau_{October 31, 2019
October
10
Oct
31
31
2019
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

“which enable us to synthesize models of the objective reality we assume to exist beyond us.” To assume a reality thats exists beyond US we must first recognize our distinct identity, to quote KF “Distinct identity is antecedent to our contemplation there of” “One wonders how the authors might have modified them had they been aware of quantum systems which can exist in a superposition of states” This one does not wonder, furthermore given quantum systems how should they be modified now? Vividvividbleau_{October 31, 2019
October
10
Oct
31
31
2019
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

Sev, could you empirically, observationally confirm for me that the number of prime numbers is without finite limit, or that the side and diagonal of a square are incommensurate, or that the number of counting numbers is transfinite AND less than that of reals? Are any of these results simply subjective or a matter of arbitrarily chosen rules for games we agree to play called logic and mathematics? Or, that there is a game called morality that we arbitrarily choose rules for such that it is less than absurd to hold that to kidnap, bind, gag, sexually assault and murder a young child for pleasure is not an unspeakable, undeniable evil? KFkairosfocus_{October 31, 2019
October
10
Oct
31
31
2019
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Seversky, I clip and comment on points: >>Should a self-evident claim be such regardless of the knowledge or information available to the observer or is it contingent on contextual information in the mind of said observer? But if it is contingent can it be self-evident?>> 1: Following up to my earlier, I think this should be fairly obvious. Aquinas has answered the problem long since. Our ability to understand the self evidence depends on our background, the self evidence stands on its own merits, and this has been clear from the outset. >>I refer . . . >> 2: In short, your objection pivots on our acknowledging the first principles and duties of right reason, demonstrating the point, as was said at the outset. The problem, clearly, is not clarity or explanation but the consequences of admitting the fact. >>If most people acknowledge an obligation to respect the rights of others>> 3: See the appeal to the subjective, emotional and cultural relativism? Those have been shown absurd. 4: My right to my life, person, liberty, innocent reputation etc does not depend on your opinion or those of others in any given community. >> you could describe it as a “generally binding force”>> 5: Strawman, there is no serious argument that rights are a matter of community or individual opinion. Down that road lies the patent absurdity of might and/or manipulation make 'right' 'rights' 'truth' 'justice' etc. >> but that doesn’t make it any the less subjective in the case of each individual who so acknowledges.>> 6: We are subjects so we have subjective responses. It is subjects who reason, warrant, know etc. But that is besides the point, the warrant is not opinion or whim or might and manipulation but warrant. >>Modeling tools can be used to create any number of models.>> 7: Irrelevant. Modelling is not reasoning responsibly on first principles and duties of reason. Yes, using such tools we may make models or the like, including say axiomatic systems, but such only amount to we can construct possible worlds by chaining propositions. 8: It has been shown that we may analysise logic of being, identifying that certain candidates are impossible of being in any PW. Others are possible of being, i.e. they would be if the specific world were actualised. Of these some are contingent (and caused) so they would be in some worlds and would not be in others. Others, are necessary, present in any PW as part of the framework for a world to be at all. This has been drawn out and explained any number of times here at UD and elsewhere. 9: If we identify a necessary being, it will be present in any world, and so the one we inhabit. This is for instance an answer to the power of mathematics. >>If we are concerned with their utility as descriptions and explanations of facets of objective reality then we compare them with what we can observe of that reality to see how closely they align with it.>> 10: You are here casting the shadow of the error of identifying reality with the physical world. That may reflect the evolutionary materialistic worldview, but that view is already self referentially incoherent and absurd. Going beyond, start with necessary structures and quantities of abstract nature such as numbers. These can be shown to lead to consequences and to identifying other entities that are equally necessary and part of reality. 11: This seems to be a root error on your part. If your scheme undermines mathematics as a real facet of whatever exoswts, it is hopeless. >>Doesn’t the significance of the three laws of thought lie in the extent to which, as abstractions and formalizations, they nonetheless correspond to what we observe, at least in the classical world? >> 12: Error carried forward. The acts of observing [which is not just sensing but rationally organising, cf Gestalt Psychology as an example] already turns on these laws, they are inescapable and are necessary framework truths about reality. have a look at Epictetus again, it might help. >>“Objective” to me, means that which continues to exist regardless of whether it is being observed by or modeled in the mind of a subjective consciousness.>> 13: Existence is not equal to physical existence, and observation is already replete with rational functions. >>Objective reality is at least the material, physical world. Whether abstractions such as mathematics, logic are objective is debatable.>> 14: Nope, the very concepts of that world are full of rational preconceptions turning on the first principles and duties of right reason. 15: You are now forced to undermine the very means of warrant that are required to establish objectivity. You are now reduced to absurdity. Mathematics and logic deliver the most certain, objective results. Was it Berlinsky who said that there are no arguments against God that are not also arguments against Mathematics [thus logic]? The proud rationalist now discredits the central citadel of rationality. >>They certainly can open up windows on aspects of reality that are not directly observable but we can only know whether any entailments or implications that are inferred from the models might be true is by somehow testing them against observable reality. >> 16: Refer to logic of being. >>They certainly can open up windows on aspects of reality that are not directly observable but we can only know whether any entailments or implications that are inferred from the models might be true is by somehow testing them against observable reality. >> 17: Notice that phrase, aspects of reality that are not directly observable? That is the telltale sign of the failure of your worldview. 18: The whole praxis of mathematics shows that empirical observation -- which is itself riddled with rational processing -- is not the only or even gold standard of warrant. 19: Moreover, empirical reliability is important, but in fact it is demonstrably not capable of delivering absolutely certain support of truth in many cases. Compare the rise of Modern Physics from 1880 - 1930 or so as a case in point. >>All normal human beings regard the kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of a child with abhorrence but the offenders apparently do not.>> 20: Actually many offenders do recognise this. 21: Again, notice your shift to oh a cultural consensus is. This is not decisive and opens the door to the absurdities of nihilism as highlighted. >> The majority reaction is not based on a rational, cost/benefit analysis.>> 22: Cost-benefit analysis is not a criterion of right vs wrong; categorical error. >> It is, just like yours, an emotional revulsion against such a depraved act.>> 23: You set up and knocled over a strawman, oh it's an emotion. 24: Nope, we recognise the human being as inherently valuable and endowed with rights, owed duties of justice. Kidnapping, sexual assault and murder are violations of the person. >>So how can it be characterized as anything other then a subjective response?>> 25: Question begged based on assertions that set up and knock over a strawman. >>Nobody is denying that error exists, at least in the analytic sense.>> 26: Deflective. What was shown is that error necessarily and undeniably exists. >>If I say 1+1=3 that is wrong according to the rules of arithmetic and I can be said to have committed an error in so doing.>> 27: The rules of arithmetic that we list are after the facts of structure and quantity that yield that | + | --> || not |||. >>But is a genetic mutation, even one that is detrimental to the host organism’ chances of survival, an error?>> 28: Irrelevant to the main point, so distractive. Many such mutations demonstrably break down functions, sometimes up to being fatal. >>Doesn’t the significance of the three laws of thought lie in the extent to which, as abstractions and formalizations, they nonetheless correspond to what we observe, at least in the classical world? >> 29: Distinct identity is antecedent to our contemplation thereof. Immediately, LoI, LNC, LEM follow as may be readily seen. >>One wonders how the authors might have modified them had they been aware of quantum systems which can exist in a superposition of states.>> 30: the laws and phenomena of Quantum theory are subsequent to distinct identity; there is a discussion on this in the UD correctives. This really is inescapable. >>I remember dreams that were very “real” as I was dreaming them. When I woke up and realized I had been dreaming then they became unreal. So we have an experience that can be both real and unreal depending on perspective. So what does “real” actually mean? >> 31: The dream was a dream, that is real as such. Waking up allowed perceptions to be correctly assigned to dream states not waking experience. That has not made them unreal, just allowed us to identify what their reality consisted of. 32: That which is, is. Reality is the collection of whatever is, concrete, abstract etc. >>Returning to my tree-ring example, we could say that the history of the tree is self-evident to the dendrochronologist but not to me because they have background knowledge that I lack. But that just means that self-evidence is a measure of the contextual knowledge of one observer as compared with another.>> 33: The subjectivist error again. 34: History of a tree is NOT self evident; self evidence is not equal to obvious. 35: Self evidence can be unrecognised because of the deficits of a given agent, but that does not mean that they are not self evident only that there is a defect. A truly blind person cannot see, that does not mean that light is only real because one can perceive it. >>I deny that you have demonstrated an error that requires correction. An “ought” claim is not the same as an “is” claim.>> 36: You again repeat the corrected error. >>Yes, as I have argued before, a claim about the observable world . . .>> 37: And yet again, repetition of corrected errors. But by now the basic absurdity of what is being done should be plain, especially as you expect your objections to have rhetorical effect precisely because you know that we are inescapably bound to first principles and duties of right reason. KFkairosfocus_{October 31, 2019
October
10
Oct
31
31
2019
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

Seversky, Again, I continue to be busy. I will DV get back to other points but will pick up on warrant as catching my eye. Warrant, of course, is not equal to self evidence; nor is it equal to proof. It is a question of having done due intellectual duties [here we go again, they are truly inescapable] so that what one accepts as knowledge etc is credibly true and reliable to relevant degree of certainty, but modified for the Gettier problem and Grue vs Bleen etc. That is, not merely internally justified but externally so. In the case of self-evidence, the definition in a nutshell gives criteria of that high degree of warrant. Let me pick up from six years ago, which expands what is in the thread above:
of course, self-evident does not merely mean perceived as obvious to oneself, which could indeed be a manifestation of a delusion. Nay, a self evident truth [SET] is best summarised as one known to be so and to be necessarily so without further proof from other things. That is, a SET is:
a: actually true — it accurately reports some relevant feature of reality (e.g.: error exists) b: immediately recognised as true once one actually understands what is being asserted, in light of our conscious experience of the world (as in, no reasonable person would but recognise the reality that error exists) c: further seen as something that must be true, on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial. (E.g. try denying “error exists” . . . the absurdity is rapidly, forcefully manifest) . . . .[I skip the Aquinas clip]
[W]e have two facets here, First, standing by itself a SET has an objective character and is a first principle, a point of certain knowledge. But, that brings up the second aspect: we need to understand it, that we may grasp it. And, that may well fail, primarily by way of ignorance, secondarily by way of commitment to a contrary ideology that makes it difficult or even nearly impossible to acknowledge that which on the actual merits is self-evident. How can we address the problem? By understanding the significance of how rejecting a SET ends in absurdity. Which may be by outright obvious logical contradiction, or by undermining rationality or by being chaotically destructive and/or senseless. Moral SETs are usually seen as self evident in this latter sense.
So, we can be warranted to hold certain truths to be self-evident, even those which are inescapably so on pain of absurd collapse of the credibility of domains of reliable experience or knowledge. First principles and first duties of right reason are of this order, to maximal degree, on pain of collapse of credibility of our senses, judgements, reasoning powers, sense of being in an actual world rather than a Plato's Cave regress of deceitful or utterly chaotic shadow shows. The problem in the contemporary era is that because of triumphalistic and domineering evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow traveller ideologies [including, increasingly, what may justly be termed cultural marxism] we lack good formal education on roots of rationality and this is reinforced in the media, institutions of influence and the wider culture. That is why something that should be unexceptional is treated with such suspicion or resistance. Too often, to the point of clinging to absurdities. But if one has made a crooked yardstick his/her standard of straight, accurate and upright, what is genuinely such will seem dubious and can never pass the imposed test of crookedness. Worse, even something that is naturally straight and upright, a plumb-line, can then be doubted and dismissed. And yes, the illustration is absurd. Only an absurdity [cf. the Emperor's new clothes are imaginary!] can capture the magnitude of our civilisation's insistent voyage of folly. Let us wake up now. And, I cannot even say "before it is too late." We may have to go through a terrible storm and shipwreck before we will be willing to turn back from a voyage of folly. But someone needs to be the good man in the storm, and credibility to be that has to be bought before the storm. Storm warning! KFkairosfocus_{October 31, 2019
October
10
Oct
31
31
2019
12:34 AM
12
12
34
AM
PDT}

Vivid, precisely -- and as Epictetus highlighted in Discourses XXV (as was already cited, but there is a resistance to any and everything put on the table reflecting the wider polarisation in the civilisation). KFkairosfocus_{October 31, 2019
October
10
Oct
31
31
2019
12:05 AM
12
12
05
AM
PDT}

Sev “Objective reality is at least the material, physical world. Whether abstractions such as mathematics, logic are objective is debatable.” How would you go about debating whether logic is objective without using logic? Vividvividbleau_{October 30, 2019
October
10
Oct
30
30
2019
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus@ 471
1: Already shown as strawman fallacy. Disagreement does not imply that a claim disagreed with is false or undecidable or unknown. Warrant is different from consensus (which latter can be agreement in eror).
Warranted is not equivalent to self-evident. It is at least debatable whether there are claims that are self-evident as distinct from obvious. Should a self-evident claim be such regardless of the knowledge or information available to the observer or is it contingent on contextual information in the mind of said observer? But if it is contingent can it be self-evident?
1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought
I refer the honorable gentleman to my previous statement:
First, as I wrote before, the first sentence of that quote is a claim about what is. It asserts that we are “inescapably under the government of ought”, a claim that is capable of being true or false. It does not say we ought to be – even though I’m sure that is what you believe – so it is not making a moral claim which may be neither true nor false by the correspondence theory of truth.
Referring to my denial of self-referential absurdity you comment:
4: Denial of what has been actually shown does not change the reality. At every turn you have appealed to the general binding force of what you try to project as emotional or subjective or relative.
If most people acknowledge an obligation to respect the rights of others you could describe it as a "generally binding force" but that doesn't make it any the less subjective in the case of each individual who so acknowledges.
7: In short, language, symbols and so forth insofar as they express propositional claims [truth/falsity bearers] are generally structured to “model” — thus, more accurately, represent — reality. In other cases, they are used to mislead others to imagine the same. 8: Why is that? Precisely because we are governed by first duties of reason, starting with truth. 9: Reference to objective reality implies possibilities and undesirability of errors and delusions, again, reflecting duty to truth.
Modeling tools can be used to create any number of models. If we are concerned with their utility as descriptions and explanations of facets of objective reality then we compare them with what we can observe of that reality to see how closely they align with it. If we are only concerned with the entertainment value of a model such as in the case of a video game then we are not seeking truth.
10: Objective also implies warrant leading to credible reliability of the claimed or implied accuracy of description. That is, it pivots on duties to right reason and prudence. Again and again you exemplify what you wish to overturn.
"Objective" to me, means that which continues to exist regardless of whether it is being observed by or modeled in the mind of a subjective consciousness.
11: I note that objective reality is not equal to the material, physical world but includes abstract realities and relationships, including Mathematics and Logic etc.
Objective reality is at least the material, physical world. Whether abstractions such as mathematics, logic are objective is debatable.
15: Logic and Mathematics are also extremely valuable as opening up for us reliable windows on the world of things that are not physically observable. For example, implication and entailment are abstract relationships. Likewise, the infinitesimal and transfinite quantitative realms are unobservable but per logic of being, real
They certainly can open up windows on aspects of reality that are not directly observable but we can only know whether any entailments or implications that are inferred from the models might be true is by somehow testing them against observable reality.
Moral obligations are also very real as the test case of a kidnapped, sexually assaulted and murdered child amply demonstrates.
All normal human beings regard the kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of a child with abhorrence but the offenders apparently do not. The majority reaction is not based on a rational, cost/benefit analysis. It is, just like yours, an emotional revulsion against such a depraved act. So how can it be characterized as anything other then a subjective response?
19: As a typical case, try Josiah Royce’s proposition, E = error exists. Generally, readily understood to be true. Not so much seen as necessarily and self evidently true.
Nobody is denying that error exists, at least in the analytic sense. If I say 1+1=3 that is wrong according to the rules of arithmetic and I can be said to have committed an error in so doing. But is a genetic mutation, even one that is detrimental to the host organism' chances of survival, an error?
22: The first duties of reason are inevitably involved in logic and are inescapable just like LOI, LNC, LEM. Taking all of these as inescapably true is not a failure to be rational or a case of closed-mindedness but is instead the first step to reasoning soundly.
Doesn't the significance of the three laws of thought lie in the extent to which, as abstractions and formalizations, they nonetheless correspond to what we observe, at least in the classical world? One wonders how the authors might have modified them had they been aware of quantum systems which can exist in a superposition of states.
25: I notice the unacknowledged retreat from trying to confine reality to the empirical world. I repeat, abstract realities are still realities, whether entities or relationships.
I remember dreams that were very "real" as I was dreaming them. When I woke up and realized I had been dreaming then they became unreal. So we have an experience that can be both real and unreal depending on perspective. So what does "real" actually mean?
26: Our ability to recognise, understand and acknowledge SET’s will indeed pivot on our background experience and insight but our failure to understand does not entail that SETs are not just that, actually self-evident and true. True meaning, accurately describing relevant aspects of reality.
Returning to my tree-ring example, we could say that the history of the tree is self-evident to the dendrochronologist but not to me because they have background knowledge that I lack. But that just means that self-evidence is a measure of the contextual knowledge of one observer as compared with another. It does not necessarily mean that the self-evident information provides foundational certainty.
as we have noted before, if you accept the correspondence theory of truth then moral claims are neither true nor false because they are not claims about what is but about what ought to be.
27: Your repeating an already corrected error does not transmute it into truth.
I deny that you have demonstrated an error that requires correction. An "ought" claim is not the same as an "is" claim.
28: First, truth describes what is, but what is so, reality, includes not only material tangible or physically observable entities but abstract entities, structures and relationships of many kinds. Such include, mathematical and logical abstracta, thus too the first duties of reason.
Yes, as I have argued before, a claim about the observable world is true to the extent that corresponds to what it purports to describe. We say "one and one is two" not "one and one ought to be two". We say the speed of light in a vacuum is 299792458m/s not that it should be. But when we say it is utterly wrong to rape and murder a child, is that "wrongness" a property of the objective world or is it a measure of the horror we experience when confronted with such an act? Isn't the revulsion we feel a very real but nonetheless subjective response? We can sat that such an act is self-evidently evil but we can also envisage an alien race who do not know what it is to be human and who not regard it as self-evidently wrong. We, as human beings, all agree that it is abhorrent. Why isn't that enough? What does it add to call it "self evidently" wrong?Seversky_{October 30, 2019
October
10
Oct
30
30
2019
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT}

PS Six years ago https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/understanding-self-evidence-with-a-bit-of-help-from-aquinas/ In this, there is a clip:
[Aquinas:] Now a thing is said to be self-evident in two ways: first, in itself; secondly, in relation to us. Any proposition is said to be self-evident in itself, if its predicate is contained in the notion of the subject: although, to one who knows not the definition of the subject, it happens that such a proposition is not self-evident. For instance, this proposition, “Man is a rational being,” is, in its very nature, self-evident, since who says “man,” says “a rational being”: and yet to one who knows not what a man is, this proposition is not self-evident. Hence it is that, as Boethius says (De Hebdom.), certain axioms or propositions are universally self-evident to all; and such are those propositions whose terms are known to all, as, “Every whole is greater than its part,” and, “Things equal to one and the same are equal to one another.” But some propositions are self-evident only to the wise, who understand the meaning of the terms of such propositions . . . . Now a certain order is to be found in those things that are apprehended universally. For that which, before aught else, falls under apprehension, is “being,” the notion of which is included in all things whatsoever a man apprehends. Wherefore the first indemonstrable principle is that “the same thing cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time,” which is based on the notion of “being” and “not-being”: and on this principle all others are based, as is stated in Metaph. iv, text. 9.
kairosfocus_{October 30, 2019
October
10
Oct
30
30
2019
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

Vivid, SET is a short way to say that. Many other truths are necessary but take a lot to show that. These are antecedent to any proof. That is part of what is being missed, any attempted proof uses the first principles and duties of reason. They are inescapable and prior to any proofs, they cannot rest on "assumptions," assumptions rest on them. KFkairosfocus_{October 30, 2019
October
10
Oct
30
30
2019
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

EG Is this one of the assumptions you are referring to? KF “PPPS: A SET is true, is seen as such, as necessarily such by those in a position to understand, and so holds on pain of patent absurdity on the attempted denial.” Vividvividbleau_{October 30, 2019
October
10
Oct
30
30
2019
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

F/N: It seems relevant to again point out on popular notions regarding ethics, as follows -- in hope that these observations will at long last be heard:
Excerpted chapter summary, on Subjectivism, Relativism, and Emotivism, in Doing Ethics 3rd Edn, by Lewis Vaughn, W W Norton, 2012. [Also see here and here.] Clipping: . . . Subjective relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one approves of it. A person’s approval makes the action right. This doctrine (as well as cultural relativism) is in stark contrast to moral objectivism, the view that some moral principles are valid for everyone.. Subjective relativism, though, has some troubling implications. It implies that each person is morally infallible and that individuals can never have a genuine moral disagreement Cultural relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one’s culture approves of it. The argument for this doctrine is based on the diversity of moral judgments among cultures: because people’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, right and wrong must be relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles. This argument is defective, however, because the diversity of moral views does not imply that morality is relative to cultures. In addition, the alleged diversity of basic moral standards among cultures may be only apparent, not real. Societies whose moral judgments conflict may be differing not over moral principles but over nonmoral facts. Some think that tolerance is entailed by cultural relativism. But there is no necessary connection between tolerance and the doctrine. Indeed, the cultural relativist cannot consistently advocate tolerance while maintaining his relativist standpoint. To advocate tolerance is to advocate an objective moral value. But if tolerance is an objective moral value, then cultural relativism must be false, because it says that there are no objective moral values. Like subjective relativism, cultural relativism has some disturbing consequences. It implies that cultures are morally infallible, that social reformers can never be morally right, that moral disagreements between individuals in the same culture amount to arguments over whether they disagree with their culture, that other cultures cannot be legitimately criticized, and that moral progress is impossible. Emotivism is the view that moral utterances are neither true nor false but are expressions of emotions or attitudes. It leads to the conclusion that people can disagree only in attitude, not in beliefs. People cannot disagree over the moral facts, because there are no moral facts. Emotivism also implies that presenting reasons in support of a moral utterance is a matter of offering nonmoral facts that can influence someone’s attitude. It seems that any nonmoral facts will do, as long as they affect attitudes. Perhaps the most far-reaching implication of emotivism is that nothing is actually good or bad. There simply are no properties of goodness and badness. There is only the expression of favorable or unfavorable emotions or attitudes toward something.
KFkairosfocus_{October 30, 2019
October
10
Oct
30
30
2019
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

EG & BO'H: If you had attended to the thread, you will see how that was explained all along, and indeed the clip itself has a more than adequate explanation or outline for someone with reasonable awareness of how s/he and others reason and argue. The pretence that such is not the case is in fact a warning flag. Those with a deadened conscience will not be responsive to truth, right reason, prudence [including warrant], justice etc. I recall here a response of judges at Nuremberg to those who were playing at legal positivism games on their implication in mass murder: do you really need an explicit ruling by competent authority to know that murder is wrong? This is not an empty rhetorical game. KF PS: As noted above to EG, Dictionary.com is highly suggestive:
conscience noun the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one’s conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience. the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual. an inhibiting sense of what is prudent: I’d eat another piece of pie but my conscience would bother me.
This reflects the general experience of mankind across the centuries. No wonder, Cicero, in summing up law and its roots, pointed to the consensus view of his time: law is . . . highest reason, teaching us to do the right and avoid the wrong . . .conscience is a law . . . prudence is a law, etc. The notions that such are simply matters of subjective impression without objective referent, or that they reflect the power factions of a culture or that they are simply emotions, as also pointed out several times above, collapse in absurdity. For, such would imply grand delusion, as these first duties of reason are pervasive in our rational behaviour. In short, self referential absurdity. But then, moral government is not force, it is the voice of responsible reason and right conduct. It needs not be heeded, and notoriously, conscience can be blinded, warped or benumbed. Let me add, just what is being claimed to be self-evident in the first three points:
1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought. (This is manifest in even an objector's implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right . . . ) . . . 2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force . . .) . . . 3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding . . .
I am astonished that someone at at least the level of an intelligent 12 year old would find such to be in any significant doubt. The first can be seen from observing how we quarrel, the second is a familiar inner life experience and observation, the third points out that if one dismisses what is inescapable and pervasive in our rational life, then one discredits the very processes one has to rely on to reason. I suspect that there is an interference form the views of subjectivism, emotivism and cultural relativism. However, these three views though popular are utterly ill founded and self referentially incoherent.kairosfocus_{October 30, 2019
October
10
Oct
30
30
2019
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H:
to be fair, kf’s SETs don’t make an appearance until comment 25. So it’s only 460 comments (and counting).
And many of those are from the 3 of the anti-ID/anti- reality resident losers who are only upping the comment count.ET_{October 30, 2019
October
10
Oct
30
30
2019
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT}

Ed George:
485 comments and nobody has been able to explain how KF’s top three SETs can be SETs if they are dependent on assumptions that have not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
You are willfully ignorant so your words are meaningless. Just because some loser(s) can make questions does not invalidate those SETsET_{October 30, 2019
October
10
Oct
30
30
2019
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT}

Ed George - to be fair, kf's SETs don't make an appearance until comment 25. So it's only 460 comments (and counting).Bob O'H_{October 30, 2019
October
10
Oct
30
30
2019
01:53 AM
1
01
53
AM
PDT}

EG, Your say-so of dismissal does not make it so. Notice, you pivot on the commonplace that we have duties towards truth, right reason prudence, justice -- or your arguments fall flat; this is inescapability. Notice, this has been pointed out to you any number of times and you just refuse to acknowledge major commonplace facts of our inner lives. Let me add a for instance from Dictionary dot com, definition of:
conscience [ kon-shuh?ns ] || SEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR conscience ON THESAURUS.COM noun the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience. the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual. an inhibiting sense of what is prudent: I'd eat another piece of pie but my conscience would bother me.
It is undeniable that the sense that serves as a compass about such things is termed the conscience. It is equally clear that such are major features of our rational life (and indeed serve to govern it) where there are no firewalls in our minds. So, if these senses and sensed, governing duties we routinely and inescapably appeal to in argument are delusional, that would be a grand delusion. Once a level 1 grand delusion is present or likely, even that perception is now under that issue; it is self-referential. Thus, the infinite regress and absurdity beckon to us. So, your hyperskeptical objections and attempts to use "assumptions" as a talking point fall flat. (Especially i/l/o the wider worldviews issues cf. here on in context http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_bld_wvu Going forward, kindly take that as further background for any argument from me.) What becomes interesting at this stage, is to ponder what is at stake ideologically that so impels you and others of like ilk to so stridently object to commonplace, unavoidable facts. You can argue that conscience etc are influenced or warped by experiences and accidents of community and history. Yes, and that's why error exists is key and it is part of why we need to acknowledge and consciously attend to how our reason is governed by first duties as well as first principles of right reason that are true and self-evident through inescapability. True on pain of utter self-referential discredit of mind, its functioning and findings. Radical subjectivism, emotivism and relativism fail . . . as has been pointed out again and again; just, studiously ignored or even considered a feature not a bug. KF PS: Above and elsewhere, some do doubt or dismiss SETs, that's why I have highlighted test cases of general and moral SETs. As for you, if you wish to deny or dismiss that "we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought" -- especially as depending on dubious "assumptions" -- that itself speaks volumes. FYI, conscience is a generally observed phenomenon. Those who have dulled or defective consciences are generally seen and diagnosed as pathological. Try, sociopaths, dark triad, psychopath.kairosfocus_{October 29, 2019
October
10
Oct
29
29
2019
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 25 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply