The 10 Commandments of Logic

[dust]

Hmm. I really don't get it. If I've understood you correctly.

 

For most of human history, most people have believed in the silliest nonsense imaginable. Reason is barely touched upon by the believers of every religion, the unquestioning patriots of every nation, the adulating lovers of most monarchs, the proponents of most cultures... These people all still exist today, yes, but in times gone by they were far more common, and science and reason were available only to the few.

 

As far as I can tell, it is in this very time, right now, that everyone has the opportunity to learn -- the poorest and most oppressed people have a chance to learn, if they want to -- and many of us do. A significant number of people today don't believe in nonsense. I'd say now more than ever, the scientific community has a large sway over public opinion and government decision-making.

 

I don't know why you (seem to) think that right now is one of those times of ignorance & mysticism...? (though I'd agree that there is almost as much slavery, fear, and death as there ever was)

[Karl]

Hmm. I really don't get it. If I've understood you correctly.

 

For most of human history, most people have believed in the silliest nonsense imaginable. Reason is barely touched upon by the believers of every religion, the unquestioning patriots of every nation, the adulating lovers of most monarchs, the proponents of most cultures... These people all still exist today, yes, but in times gone by they were far more common, and science and reason were available only to the few.

 

As far as I can tell, it is in this very time, right now, that everyone has the opportunity to learn -- the poorest and most oppressed people have a chance to learn, if they want to -- and many of us do. A significant number of people today don't believe in nonsense. I'd say now more than ever, the scientific community has a large sway over public opinion and government decision-making.

 

I don't know why you (seem to) think that right now is one of those times of ignorance & mysticism...? (though I'd agree that there is almost as much slavery, fear, and death as there ever was)

 

Because reason and logic has been kicked out, the prevailing philosophy is subjectivist and therefore pragmatic. What you see as 'science' is the ousting of religious mysticism in the West, but it has been replaced with the muscle mysticism of Descartes, Kant, Hegel and Marx. One kind of mysticism has been replaced by another kind. God was replaced by state.

 

This pragmatism is now endemic. It's not about learning as much as being able to learn to learn with discrimination. In another thread there is a discussion on ethics. It is assumed that absolutist ethics-the Christian kind of intrinsic morality as handed down in the Ten Commandments or by the priesthood-is the only alternative to relative ethics or ethical pragmatism. The same situation exist philosophically and hence politically and economically. Reason has given way to rank pragmatism of the kind that means that we just do whatever it is that seems right at the time and change it if it's unacceptable.

 

The adoption of this philosophy means that reality is held to be completely malleable. There is no need to stick to reality because-according to Kant-reality cannot be known and therefore we must do whatever duty is given at whatever time it is given. This is what people are learning today as a way of living. I'm not implying that learning a skill in a subject is problematic, it's the philosophy of learning which has gone astray. So wether it's Keynesian economics, Global warming consensus scientism, or building a family, this pervasive philosophy blights everything.

[dust]

Can't one hold to the notion of an objective if not entirely knowable reality and a pragmatic system of ethics?

 

Reality is a certain way. It is 'objectively' that way. But we experience it in our species-specific way, and we are continually learning more about it, both individually and as a species.

 

Morality is our tool for regulating our own behaviour. It is based on our understanding of reality. As we learn new things, doesn't it follow that we will update our morality accordingly?

[Karl]

Can't one hold to the notion of an objective if not entirely knowable reality and a pragmatic system of ethics?

 

Reality is a certain way. It is 'objectively' that way. But we experience it in our species-specific way, and we are continually learning more about it, both individually and as a species.

 

Morality is our tool for regulating our own behaviour. It is based on our understanding of reality. As we learn new things, doesn't it follow that we will update our morality accordingly?

 

No, that isn't true from an objectivist perspective. We can know reality directly and we must.

 

if you are talking about a young child then it is true that this is where the learning begins, but past a certain age (12-14) we must have completed that education. Our moral code is about our relationship with reality and the attainment and holding of values we pursue. Any attempt to evade will result in conflict and, at the least a feeling of unhappiness/guilt/mental problems, or at the worst our own injury/death.

 

Our ethics cannot be pragmatic. We have to create principles that give us the best outcome, the attainment of earned values and our own happiness.

 

Of course ethics and morals are for us to choose, they are not absolutes. To get them wrong and then continually manipulate them creates error.

 

We need a philosophy to guide those ethics or we are groping in the dark. If that philosophy is intricisist then it will tell you to follow Gods ethical rules-which are really man made rules created by those who wish you to follow their ideology and not your own.

 

If the philosophy is subjectivist it will tell you that ethics are unnecessary, that no rules are needed and that the state will set the laws and policies it wishes you to follow and enforce them with a big club. Again, this is one group of men wanting other men to follow their ideology.

 

 

[dust]

No, that isn't true from an objectivist perspective. We can know reality directly and we must. if you are talking about a young child then it is true that this is where the learning begins, but past a certain age (12-14) we must have completed that education.

 

Well, regardless of whether or not one agrees that we know reality directly (it's a bit controversial and I make no claim either way), we can say that we experience reality as fully as we are able to by the time we hit a certain age. I will never experience reality more fully than I do now.

 

 

Our moral code is about our relationship with reality and the attainment and holding of values we pursue. Any attempt to evade will result in conflict and, at the least a feeling of unhappiness/guilt/mental problems, or at the worst our own injury/death. Our ethics cannot be pragmatic. We have to create principles that give us the best outcome, the attainment of earned values and our own happiness. Of course ethics and morals are for us to choose, they are not absolutes. To get them wrong and then continually manipulate them creates error. We need a philosophy to guide those ethics or we are groping in the dark. If that philosophy is intricisist then it will tell you to follow Gods ethical rules-which are really man made rules created by those who wish you to follow their ideology and not your own. If the philosophy is subjectivist it will tell you that ethics are unnecessary, that no rules are needed and that the state will set the laws and policies it wishes you to follow and enforce them with a big club. Again, this is one group of men wanting other men to follow their ideology.

 

We can then hold to a basic moral 'code' or understanding whilst still updating our behaviour and more specific rules when necessary.

 

For example, a few hundred years ago most people would have agreed in 'do unto others', and that all men should be allowed the same basic freedoms. Most, at the same time, were fairly satisfied with slavery, bizarrely unequal voting rights (or indeed no voting rights), etc. Morality had to be updated to include all humans being allowed the same freedoms. In another hundred or so years, we will have recognized that all sentient life should then logically be allowed the same basic freedoms (life, freedom from unnecessary suffering, freedom from persecution, whatever..).

 

I do think that our general moral code is following a recognizable progression based on these ideas (do unto others, basic rights/freedoms).

Edited April 11, 2016 by dustybeijing

[Karl]

In objectivist philosophy we begin with ones own life as the individuals chosen primary value. Therefore it isn't an arbitrary starting point. Then we need to learn to sustain that life, the values it requires and the virtues needed to obtain those values-all by choice.

 

Morality is a code of values accepted by choice in order to survive. Moral laws, in objectivism, are the principles that define how to nourish and sustain human life. It is the science of human self preservation. So, moral principles are not luxuries reserved for nobler beings, they are a practical necessity.

 

Man has to live long range-unlike an animal. Man therefore must excessive reason in order to survive. The standard then is not to stay alive by any means, because that would mean there is only one price to pay and that is reason itself.

 

To be, for a man, is to be a man.

 

As Rand observes "since life requires a specific course of action, any other course will destroy it". Countries over the centuries have tried some version of non-life as their standard with the resultant horror. "

 

"To live, man must hold three things as supreme and ruling values of his life: reason-purpose-self esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge-purpose, as his choice of happiness which the tool must proceed to achieve-self esteem, as the inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of mans virtues.

 

Ethics draws the practical conclusion: if one chooses to live, one must hold reason as value. Rationality is to accept reason as an absolute, as a principle of human survival.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Karl