But the rebellion is couched in moral terms, based on underlying moral principles that are felt to be the principles that the ecclesiast transgressors have betrayed, principles that are valid and moral and important according to the rebel. The rebel holds the ecclesiasts to their own underlying principles, principles betrayed, as if those principles were his own.
Yet the rebel, in the final analysis, does not hold to all these principles either. The rebel rejects the basis for absolutism, and outwardly rejects absolutes as a category, paradoxically holding this rejection as an absolute. But for most rebels there is a bedrock of moral considerations that is purloined from the ecclesiast's absolutes, even while denying their existence as absolutes, as well as the source, and claiming them as his own derivation.
One of the historical figures most vehemently involved in the war on ecclesiastics was Voltaire (brought to my mind by a recent commenter). Voltaire lived through and helped create one of the most turbulent passages in western history, the French Revolution.
France was, indeed, in the thrall of a symbiotic tyranny of monarchy cum ecclesiasts. Voltaire committed himself to the intellectual war against, primarily, the ecclesiasts. Yet, unlike Rousseau and the Encyclopedists, Voltaire never lost his connection with the First Cause, despite the physical and intellectual turmoil, and peer pressure from the radical "intellectuals".
Robespierre, who led the Committee of Public Safety which created and directed the Reign of Terror which, in turn, bloodied France from end to end, slept at night with Rousseau’s book under his pillow. He would have done better to have listened to Voltaire. The murderous Reign of Terror was created and perpetrated by Atheists, based on a perceived need, a need which justified any means - a Consequentialist ethic. The need was to bring about the "Republic of Virtue", which was threatened by civil war; the solution was to kill the opposition [a solution openly endorsed decades later by Lenin].
Voltaire, who fought against the tyranny of the ecclesiasts, decried the barbary brought about by Rousseau's philosophy. He remained a theist, and for that obtained Rousseau's hatred.
Voltaire:
“The theist is a man firmly persuaded of the existence of a supreme being as good as he is powerful, who has formed all things…; who punishes, without cruelty, all crimes, and recompenses with goodness all virtuous actions… Reunited in this principle with the rest of the universe, he does not join any of the sects which all contradict one another. His religion is the most ancient and the most widespread; for the simple worship of a God preceded all the systems of the world. He speaks a language which all peoples understand while they do not understand one another. He has brothers from Pekin to Cayenne, and he counts all the sages for his fellows. He believes that religion consists neither in the opinions of an unintelligible metaphysic, not in vain shows, but in worship and in justice. To do good is his worship, to submit to God is his creed. The Mohammedan cries out to him, “Beware if you fail to make the pilgrimage to Mecca!” – The priest says to him, “Curses on you if you do not make the trip to Notre Dame de Lorette!” He laughs at Lorette and Mecca: but he succors the indigent and defends the oppressed.” Voltaire; Correspondence, Sept 11, 1738; The Story of Philosophy; Will Durant; p 184.Voltaire drew up his own dying statement, after rejecting one cleric and being rejected by another, both Catholic:
“I die adoring God, loving my friends, not hating my enemies, and detesting superstition. (signed) Voltaire. February 28, 1778”. Voltaire; Tallentyre, 538; from The Story of Philosophy; Will Durant; p 190.
For Voltaire, the presumption – and fact – of ecclesiastic evil did not dissuade him from a persuasion of theism. And even for Rousseau Atheism was not a reaction to Ecclesiastic evil; for Rousseau all institutions were rejected in favor of a return to the nobility of savagery.
31 comments:
The rebel rejects the basis for absolutism, and outwardly rejects absolutes as a category, paradoxically holding this rejection as an absolute.
Can you provide an example of an absolute? In other words, on what basis does the conformist have to demand absolutes from the rebel?
The First Principles of Logic and Rational Thought are absolutes. If they were not, rationality would not exist, having no foundational reference point.
For discussions of those, go the sidebar on the right side of the page.
A "principal" can not by definition be an "absolute".
To be sure, we must presuppose certain things in order to be able to make sense of the world - but these presuppositions aren't claimed as absolutes. For example, the "law of non-contradiction" is shown to be invalid at the quantum level. Does this mean that all rationality has crumbled? Hardly - it merely demonstrates that we must be careful in how much certainty we allow ourselves.
The laws of logic make up a framework by which we can determine the validity of our perceptions (and thus our environment). Despite this framework, those determinations may be incorrect; in fact, they're frequently incorrect.
Whateverman said...
A "principal" can not by definition be an "absolute".
Really? By what definition? Is that an absolute statement?
I sincerely doubt your assertion that the Principle of Non-Contradiction fails at quantum levels; maybe you are thinking of Schroedinger's Cat, or maybe the idea that existence is an equation (unknown state) that collapses into one state or another upon observation? If not, then what quantum phenomenon are you referring to?
BTW, referring to quantum physics as a source of scientific "truth" is iffy at best; it could well change by this afternoon. It is not a mature science, "settled" as Al Gore would say.
And please give examples of when the First Principles are incorrect, other than unknown quantum conundrums which are yet to be resolved, thanks.
I should point out that the First Principles are observations of reality, not made-up random rules of behavior. They are unprovable yet are widely acknowledged to be verifiable with intuitive interrogation. In other words, they are seen to be true by inspection and intuition. Logic, math and science all devolve to these principles (Check any of several books by Bertrand Russell on the subject for a clear presentation).
It is definitely possible to deny the validity of the First Principles. The most advanced case of such denial was by Friedrich Nietzsche in his book, “Beyond Good and Evil”, where he essentially demanded material evidence for their validity, a demand he knew could not be fulfilled. He based his main philosophical work on this denial of the absolute characteristics of the First Principles: Anti-Rationalism. This became the base for his “Will To Power” claim for ethics.
Denial of the validity of the First Principles comes with costs. If the Principle of Tautology is relative, then the ability to communicate is severely damaged because no definition, no word, no thought has a specified meaning at any given time. Does this reflect reality? (this is postmodernism).
The same goes for the Principle of the Excluded Middle. If logic is multivalued, how many values does it have? Fuzzy logic and multivariate logics remain esoteric curiosities, not staples of clear thought and communication.
As for the Non-Contradiction Principle, the attacks on it generate from the desire to assert against absolutes in rational thought, and therefore against absolutes in ethical behavior as well. But the cost of denying that "valid" and "nonvalid" are mutually exclusive, denying that such contradictions and paradoxes are non-rational, is the total loss of rationality itself. By accepting paradoxical thinking as valid, coherence is automatically rejected. Does this reflect reality? Is the universe itself a paradox of mass vs energy? Or are there fixed, permanent relationships that can be depended upon, always and forever consistent and coherent? The Principle of Non-Contradiction is a statement of an absolute, a truth that exists.
How do you justify that logic is rational?
Vagon,
(I thought I replied to this earlier, but I must have nuked it)
Logic is the process of rationality.
I'm not sure I understand the question, the answer seems so basic; perhaps you would restate it?
Whateverman said: A "principal" can not by definition be an "absolute"
Stan replied as follows: Really? By what definition?
After having consulted the dictionary several times, I've concluded that I wrote "by definition" too hastily. Strictly speaking, the definition does not exclude a principal from being an absolute. However, given that we human beings can never know whether a thing is absolute or not (ie. we're not omniscient), it's better to say that principals are never stated as absolutes.
In all things, human understanding is agnostic in regards to the extent to which it applies. Anyone who asserts otherwise is either wrong or misguided.
As such, "principals" are basic/fundamental, but only fools claim them as absolutes, especially when said fool does not have the capability of knowing whether his/her statement is true or false.
---
Stan followed with this: I sincerely doubt your assertion that the Principle of Non-Contradiction fails at quantum levels; maybe you are thinking of Schroedinger's Cat
That's a good enough example. the following statement is simultaneously true and false:
Schroedinger's cat is dead
Assuming you've got a layman's understanding of what the cat represents, let's switch to something a bit more concrete: the double slit experiment. When a single particle is shot at a plate containing two slits (A and B), until we look to see which slit that particle travels through, the following statements are both true:
The particle traveled through slit A.
The particle did not travel through slit A.
This is not an idealization, nor is it a cute explanation that glosses over physical reality. It's not simply the best explanation we have because we lack the technology or understanding to REALLY determine which slit it went through. This is exactly what the particle does - it travels through one slit while simultaneously not travelling through that same slit.
I will cite sources for further reading on request. In any case, the law of non-contradiction is merely an abstraction of the reality we human beings experience. It's descriptive, not prescriptive, and no one with an understanding of metaphysics and/or physics has credibly claimed otherwise. As such, finding that contradictory statements are possible on the quantum level changes nothing.
Well, except for arguments which assert that absolute blah blah is required for knowledge and certainty.
---
Stan also wrote the following: BTW, referring to quantum physics as a source of scientific "truth" is iffy at best; it could well change by this afternoon. It is not a mature science, "settled" as Al Gore would say.
To my recollection, I have not ever claimed that physics is a source of scientific truth. It simply represents humanity's best efforts at understanding tangible reality; it represents "truth" insofar as we define truth as "all available evidence shows that reality seems to work like this".
Quantum Mechanics is a theory, and it may well change in the future. This doesn't preclude (or invalidate) conclusions made based on accepting it. Given that cathode ray tubes and neon lights and motherboards and the color of molten steel all confirm this theory (by the second), it's obviously safe to extrapolate it to metaphysics as well.
The contradictory is possible. the law of non-contradiction applies only to the realm of thought, not physical reality, and even then its application is limited.
Ergo, it is not absolute.
I think the interpretation of the classical dual slit experiment that you present is less than complete; existing as both a wave and a particle is not necessarily paradoxical or a violation of the Principle of Non-Contradiction. It is an indication of incomplete knowledge of the behavior of mass-energy at that level of existence.
The Principle of Non-Contradiction can be expressed both ontologically (in terms of existence) and epistemologically (in terms of truth). I will state them here, and perhaps you will give examples of their failure in the mass-energy / space-time universe.
Ontological (objective existence) Form:
An object either exists or it does not exist; it does not both exist and not exist.
Epistemological (subjective existence) Form:
A proposition is either true or it is not true; it is not both true and not true, simultaneously.
Of course there are situations that are true at one point and not at another point, and that is not the issue. If it is true at point A, it isn't also not true at point A.
Note how these form a basis for both Logic and for Physics; if a thing cannot be depended upon to exist and remain existing, then physics is confounded. If a proposition cannot be depended upon to be true and remain true, then logic is confounded (along with computer electronics, software, etc).
Now, examples of objective reality failures please.
I'm compelled to repeat here that the most famous rejection of the First Principles was that of Nietzsche, who then took that position to its logical conclusion as being axiomatic in his philosophy of Anti-Rationalism. He showed that Logic and rationalism cannot exist if the First Principles are not absolutely valid - and since he claimed that they were not valid, then logic and rationalism could also not be valid, hence Anti-Rationalism. (He did cut some rational slack for evolution, though, which he believed in fervently).
I personally suspect a connection between his Anti-Rationality and the mental collapse that caused him to spend his last decade irrationally: insane.
I need one more comment, I see, after rereading the above.
Whateverman said,
"In all things, human understanding is agnostic in regards to the extent to which it applies. Anyone who asserts otherwise is either wrong or misguided."
This is a classical example of an absolute principle being stated concerning the lack of absolutes; it comes down to this:
"There are absolutely no absolutes!"
This is indefensible from two standpoints:
First, it is self-referentially contradictory, i.e. a paradox.
Second, it is a declaration of firm knowledge of a negative existence, a position without possibility of verification.
Don't worry about nuking it, it happens. I'm talking epistemic foundations (I've read the info on your side bar and am assuming its axioms). If you are going to justify absolutes, I would like to see you absolutely justify logic in a logical way.
As Russell and Whitehead found out when writing the Principia, mathematics and logic cannot be justified using mathematics and logic. You probably know the Godel story, and you probably then know the limitations of justification or validation within a system.
Every system needs a higher system in a hierarchy in order to validate itself. For logic and the First Principles, the validation is merely intuitive at the First Principle level, and then coherence testing at the logic level.
For the First Principles, the validation is acheived by testing with a question similar to this: "what would be the effect of this principle not being valid?" And because the process is intuitive, then each individual must do this for himself.
This is the reason that theexistence of First Principles can be denied. What cannot, within my experience anyway, be denied is that logic - which is based on those principles - crumbles without them. One historical indicator of that is the life and philosophy of Frierich Nietzsche, based on just that.
So the next question is, "does logic exist?" Again a personal intuitive search.
The series of questions continues; "if logic exists, is it a consistent path to true or valid propositions while eliminating false or non-valid propositions?"
And so on. The validation of absolutes is a personal journey, just like this one. I can describe it in vague terms like those above, but I can't make the journey for you. Somehow I suspect you knew that...
Whateverman wrote "In all things, human understanding is agnostic in regards to the extent to which it applies. Anyone who asserts otherwise is either wrong or misguided."
Stan responded with the following: This is a classical example of an absolute principle being stated concerning the lack of absolutes; it comes down to this:
"There are absolutely no absolutes!"
That last bit is your characterization of my statement, and I reject it. I do so because, if you read what I wrote exactly, you will see that I never used the word "absolute" in regards to "anyone who asserts otherwise is either wrong or misguided".
I can claim "you are wrong" without appealing to some absolute standard of wrongness. If it were otherwise, no one could ever make knowledge claims.
---
Stan wrote the following:
I think the interpretation of the classical dual slit experiment that you present is less than complete; existing as both a wave and a particle is not necessarily paradoxical or a violation of the Principle of Non-Contradiction. It is an indication of incomplete knowledge of the behavior of mass-energy at that level of existence.
You are incorrect, and the standard of correctness I appeal to is the Wiki entry I linked. The state of the point particle is not idealized by our understanding of it being both a wave and a particle. It physically is simultaneously a particle and a wave.
The particle both going through the slit and not going through the slit is not a statement of our inability to tell what "really happened". the particle physically goes through the slit and does not go through the slit.
If the law of non-contradiction were in-fact absolute (a statement I have yet to see anyone try to prove, most likely because it's impossible to do so), quantum mechanics would collapse.
Instead, the law in question here is descriptive, not prescriptive. It describes reality; it is not a rule by which reality operates. Consequently, its application is limited only to language.
Ergo (again) it is not absolute.
Whateverman said,
"if you read what I wrote exactly, you will see that I never used the word "absolute" in regards to "anyone who asserts otherwise is either wrong or misguided".
You said "...in all things". You are backpedaling.
You said,
"I can claim "you are wrong" without appealing to some absolute standard of wrongness. If it were otherwise, no one could ever make knowledge claims.
This attempt to claim that "wrong" is based on non-absolute "wrongness" which is defined... How? ...is a perfect demonstration of why a lack of absolutes leads to illogic. There is no standard, is there? It fluctuates as you wish it to, varying over mood and time. That's how it works with relativism. Moreover, in your mind you cannot ever be wrong, because you have the liberty to redifine "wrongness" on the fly to satisfy any position: ANY postion whatsoever. But you, yourself can never be wrong, and everyone else is always wrong because they cannot know in advance how you will define "wrongness" in any given situation (and it might vary even though the next situation is identical to the last one). This is precisely why relativists can never, ever be trusted. There is no absolute, common definition of wrong, dishonesty, lying, etc. In fact, the absolutes don't exist for you. Even though you might be mild mannered, you are therefore dangerous in your lack of consistent definitions of these traits. You might not be inclined towards doing those things, but you have no firm, absolute ethic against doing them.
You said,
"The state of the point particle is not idealized by our understanding of it being both a wave and a particle. It physically is simultaneously a particle and a wave."
Kindly re-read what you wrote here. In non-relativist language, simultaneously = both. If your issue is with the word "understanding", I'll stick with that; the terms you use, "it physically is..." are too absolute for a statement in any science: science is not absolute, and such statements belie your superficial understanding of the scientific method and its limitations.
You said,
"Instead, the law in question here is descriptive, not prescriptive."
Which is exactly what I said above. You appear to be arguing just to argue.
And so on. The validation of absolutes is a personal journey, just like this one. I can describe it in vague terms like those above, but I can't make the journey for you. Somehow I suspect you knew that...
Absolutely. Heh.
No my point is that absolutes only exist in man-made systems of thought. They are a way of thinking as opposed to something that can be independently observed in reality. For example we have never witnessed an absolute zero or an infinite amount. So when we discuss foundational topics (like ontology and epistemology) and involve absolutes you are using incoherent terms, you literally have nothing meaningful to talk about because there is no domain of discourse.
Vagon said,
"So when we discuss foundational topics (like ontology and epistemology) and involve absolutes you are using incoherent terms, you literally have nothing meaningful to talk about because there is no domain of discourse."
IFF the conversation is artificially limited to material entities.
Yet we cheerfuly assume the absoluteness of the axioms which underly mathematics, logic, and empiricism, and we assume that these non-materialities exist as properties of universal order, regardless of whether they are "thought" in a human mind.
And, we find ways to discuss, use and teach these things, which are processes, tools which we find to be valid descriptors of reality.
BTW, welcome back, I was afraid you'd left... I hope you stick around...
Hey Stan, thanks for the welcome back.
IF the conversation is artificially limited to material entities.
Can you provide an ontology for an immaterial entity that doesn't borrow from materialism?
Yet we cheerfuly assume the absoluteness of the axioms which underly mathematics, logic, and empiricism,
I have no problem with using them for systemic approximation, Newton is proof enough that it works. This is the key point though, they need to be useful.
and we assume that these non-materialities exist as properties of universal order, regardless of whether they are "thought" in a human mind.
I am yet to see a compelling philosophical argument for their existence and I'm sure the vast majority of physicists would say these assumptions only work at a specific level.
Vagon said,
Can you provide an ontology for an immaterial entity that doesn't borrow from materialism?
If I might rephrase your question, ontology is the study of things that exist, the study of being. Materialism is the concept that non-material ontologies do not exist, based erroneously on the self-limitations of empirical science to material-only existence.
A restatement of your question then asks if I can provide a description of an non-material existence that is not founded on the idea that they do not exist. Is this what you mean?
While I doubt that I have a handle on your meaning here, I submit that “meaning” is a non-material entity that exists without being founded in Materialist philosophy; it exists also without any foundation in material existence. An example would be “the meaning of meaning”, which is a hierarchical abstract notion with no roots in material existence. I'm sure there are a great many examples of such abstracts which we could discuss.
I have no problem with using them for systemic approximation, Newton is proof enough that it works. This is the key point though, they need to be useful.
Why do they need to be useful? How do you justify that condition? How is “useful” defined, and what does it exclude? Is a concept useful if it is intellectually satisfying? Or must it produce material results?
I am yet to see a compelling philosophical argument for their existence and I'm sure the vast majority of physicists would say these assumptions only work at a specific level.
If you are denying that meaning (or the First Principles) exists and is useful, surely you have an argument to support that denial other than just “compelling”. “Compelling” is a relative subjective judgment, not an empirical, objective, material validation; in fact, “compelling” is an abstract, a metaphysical existence such as you asked for above; it encompasses meaning as apprehended / comprehended, absent any a priori bias against it.
Your presumption of speaking for a majority of physicists is an Appeal to Authority which we are just now discussing on this blog on another post – you are just in time. I personally doubt that physicists would take such a rigid position, given the negative nature of the question and the inability to validate it beyond any doubt. When quantum mechanics is fully understood – if that ever happens – it is possible that the First Principles will be validated, expanded, and more fully and completely understood. Maybe even more First Principles will be added. By then string theorists might have discovered experimental methods to test non-material dimensions (I hope I live long enough to see it, what a kick that would be!).
We could discuss what happens to rationality when the Axioms it depends on are conditional rather than absolute, and what then becomes of conversations like this...
asks if I can provide a description of an non-material existence that is not founded on the idea that they do not exist. Is this what you mean?
Well thats the point isnt it? If you are going to provide an ontology for existant you have to borrow from materialism. Think about the consequences of not providing a positive ontology. You remove the domain of discourse and provide negative attributes leaving you with exactly the same position as people who believe in everything else you would say is imaginary.
Its just asking for something to discuss so you're not begging the question when you say certain immaterial things exist.
surely you have an argument to support that denial other than just “compelling”.
Surely I do. Before I start note I used compelling in the hope you would provide an example of something compelling, rather than simply an attack on the use of "compelling". Suffice to say I cannot see any basis other than intuition or retorsion that you have used to defend your first principles. This intuition is not absolute proof though and if you're going to demand an absolutes in the realm of ontology and epistemology, it would be hypocritical to not have an absolute foundation, yes?
I'm not saying axioms or absolutes aren't useful systemically, just that they are not provable at a foundational level. From this vantage point we draw conclusions, not from an assumption absolutes can exist anything more than systemically.
I personally doubt that physicists would take such a rigid position, given the negative nature of the question and the inability to validate it beyond any doubt.
Agreed, an appeal to authority, but it seems we're in agreement. A modern physicist would never assume an absolute for anything more than it is useful. Considering what we know about general relativity and quantum mechanics the point stands - the vast majority of physicists do not consider absolutes as existing outside systems of thought.
Vagon said,
”Stan Said
asks if I can provide a description of an non-material existence that is not founded on the idea that they do not exist. Is this what you mean?
Vagon said,
Well thats the point isnt it? If you are going to provide an ontology for existant you have to borrow from materialism. Think about the consequences of not providing a positive ontology. You remove the domain of discourse and provide negative attributes leaving you with exactly the same position as people who believe in everything else you would say is imaginary.
Its just asking for something to discuss so you're not begging the question when you say certain immaterial things exist.”
Well, if that’s the point, it is self-contradictory. Plus, you entirely ignored my response.
Vagon said,
”This intuition is not absolute proof though and if you're going to demand an absolutes in the realm of ontology and epistemology, it would be hypocritical to not have an absolute foundation, yes?
Your presupposition is that absolutes only exist in materialities. You have no proof of that. Your position is merely a denial of exactly the same form that Nietzsche made, roughly 120 years ago. It leads straight to anti-rationality, because, as the scientific method indicates, there is no such thing as a material absolute; all scientific (material) findings are conditional, never absolute. As Popper showed, absolutes can only exist in the non-material realm, and they cannot be falsified because they are only in the material realm. You have confused the nature of abstract existences with falsifiable material existences.
For example, epistemology exists only in the non-material realm. This is because it addresses the same thing: issues that are metaphysical and non-falsifiable. Demanding a material justification for such a thing goes against the very definition of it. Therefore it is not rational. By making a non-rational, impossible by definition demand, you apparently think you have proved a discrepancy in potential answers. But the discrepancy is in the question, which is self-contradictory and paradoxical in nature.
Vagon said,
”I'm not saying axioms or absolutes aren't useful systemically, just that they are not provable at a foundational level. From this vantage point we draw conclusions, not from an assumption absolutes can exist anything more than systemically.”
Existing systemically seems to have very little meaning. Either they exist or they do not exist. How can something be useful that does not exist? Please do answer that question!
Vagon said,
”the vast majority of physicists do not consider absolutes as existing outside systems of thought.”
Precisely! Now, does thought exist, or not? Can something that is “useful” NOT exist? Please show your work!
You find yourself in a position of denial without proof, which is opinion, if it is not based on axioms that are intuitively obvious to most observers. You can legitimately declare that the axioms are not provable; but you cannot legitimately declare that the axioms are provably false.
Moreover, you will have to deny them out of obstreperousness, because you will not be able to argue against them logically; after all, logic uses them as axioms, and to argue against its own axioms would be fatal to logic itself: irrationality would have won the day.
Your presupposition is that absolutes only exist in materialities. You have no proof of that.
No my presuppositions is that absolutes do not exist in anything other that our systems of thought.
You have confused the nature of abstract existences with falsifiable material existences.
I assure you I have not and I am responding to your presuppositions that abstract thought exists outside of the brain.
Existing systemically seems to have very little meaning. Either they exist or they do not exist. How can something be useful that does not exist? Please do answer that question!
Hardly, mathematics (deduction) works extremely well in the scale of the immediate human environment, not so much in extremely big and extremely small environments, but it is still useful. Of course ideas exist - in a bundle of neurons, but only as these thought processes. It is you that is asserting that absolutes exist in some non-material realm. Why should we care what you propose exists in a non-material realm that has not been shown to be independent of the human mind?
You find yourself in a position of denial without proof, which is opinion, if it is not based on axioms that are intuitively obvious to most observers.
And you find yourself in a position of assertion without proof. You label it a denial, but where does the burden lay, in the assertion or the criticism of that assertion?
You can legitimately declare that the axioms are not provable; but you cannot legitimately declare that the axioms are provably false.
Agreed, am I to take this as a concession you cannot absolutely be certain of your axioms?
Moreover, you will have to deny them out of obstreperousness, because you will not be able to argue against them logically; after all, logic uses them as axioms, and to argue against its own axioms would be fatal to logic itself: irrationality would have won the day.
Actually no, this is entirely consistent with my foundation, which deals with certainty as confidence in knowledge. It is you that appears to be holding the concept of certainty to some non-human absolute standard, one that you have yet to defend by that same standard. I ask again, look at your original post and tell me on what basis does the conformist have to demand absolutes from the rebel?
Vagon said,
”No my presuppositions is that absolutes do not exist in anything other that our systems of thought.”
Then are you denying that our thoughts reflect any abstract external reality, external reality apprehended intuitively, and comprehended as valid, such as for example, “if it exists, it does not not exist?”
And that by that denial you have damaged the credibility of empirical data acquisition to provide valid instances of a specific existence because it might or might not exist under this modified axiom?
”I assure you I have not and I am responding to your presuppositions that abstract thought exists outside of the brain.”
I have not made that assertion. My assertion is that abstract realities exist outside the brain; these can be intuitively accessed and analyzed by the mind, which uses the brain as a substrate, yet is not the brain. Your claim that I said or presupposed that thinking occurs outside the brain is not true. The concept that ideas are transferable outside the brain / mind complex through the use of neutral substrates was the issue, and I thought we agreed to transmissibility.
”It is you that is asserting that absolutes exist in some non-material realm. Why should we care what you propose exists in a non-material realm that has not been shown to be independent of the human mind?”
Here you have reverted to the materialist claim that non-material entities must be found in the material realm and conclusively proved there. The independence of the fact of universal coherence, a non-physical thing, this fact, from the brain’s neural activity while considering this fact should speak for itself; however, the materialists miscategorization fallacy precludes even considering this possibility.
(Comment continued below)
(Comment continued from above)
Vagon said,
”And you find yourself in a position of assertion without proof. You label it a denial, but where does the burden lay, in the assertion or the criticism of that assertion?”
The materialist fallacy is the assertion here. The materialist fallacy is an argumentative block, it is without logical merit because it excludes the consideration of categories that are excluded a priori, as an agenda, not because they lack rationality. Pulling a “burden of proof” block signifies that the evidence presented will not be considered, period. Your denial that there exists a universal order which exists outside the neural ion transfer in the material brain puts an effective end to any useful conversation on this subject. Again, it's not a logical position, it's an argumentation tactic.
This is not the first time this has happened of course. The materialist argumentation blockade is commonly used as defense against the need to acknowledge that there exists, outside space-time, and mass-energy, other considerations that are only known through introspection. The consequence of there not being these axioms, the reasons for the axioms and the ability to judge their veracity despite their non-materiality is the complete loss of the axioms as consistent, trustworthy and all the other qualities that make an axiom an axiom (even that tautology is now without merit). Without the coherence of axioms, mathematics and empiricism fail, of course, and we see that not happening on a consistent basis. The axioms do not fail. They refer to a reality that exists, with or without us, and regardless of any denial.
However, your denial of the necessity of this, means that the conversation cannot progress beyond this and so I guess it stops here.
As for conformist vs. rebel, it appears that you missed the entire point of the post: in the French Revolution, neither camp adhered to any ethic. The conformist abused and betrayed his professed ethic, and the rebel professed no ethic for himself outside success of the revolution. Which was worse? According to Voltaire, both were unconscionable purveyors of evil, just projected from different philosophies. So he concluded that his own introspection was the only reliable source of truth.
If, as it appears, you are siding with the rebels, then I don't have much to say to you beyond this. The hearty acceptance of such wanton violence in the exercise of Consequentialism places logic out of bounds.
Then are you denying that our thoughts reflect any abstract external reality, external reality apprehended intuitively, and comprehended as valid, such as for example, “if it exists, it does not not exist?”
I am saying that reflect is a strong word, approximate is more appropriate.
I have not made that assertion. My assertion is that abstract realities exist outside the brain; these can be intuitively accessed and analyzed by the mind, which uses the brain as a substrate, yet is not the brain.
Apologies for the straw-man then. I still find it odd that you propose "abstract realities" and the concept of a mind as separate to the brain with no other apparent basis than intuition though.
Here you have reverted to the materialist claim that non-material entities must be found in the material realm and conclusively proved there.
There's a subtle, but important, difference. I am talking about a reality that we are part of, not that we somehow ascend above. At a base level it doesn't matter what we think, reality keeps those thoughts in check. In this instance you are claiming absolutes in reality, I would like the justification for it.
The independence of the fact of universal coherence, a non-physical thing
Can you show by what basis you claim universal coherence is fact? Remember you must do this absolutely in order to adhere to your own standards.
Pulling a “burden of proof” block signifies that the evidence presented will not be considered, period. Your denial that there exists a universal order which exists outside the neural ion transfer in the material brain puts an effective end to any useful conversation on this subject. Again, it's not a logical position, it's an argumentation tactic.
Actually I think you'll find me more influenced by objectivism than materialism. So to reiterate my position is not "I will not consider the immaterial", but given the absence of evidence for the immaterial why is it useful for me to consider it?
Finally I assure you it is not merely an argumentation tactic, it forms an important foundation for my own philosophy. This philosophy is: logic cannot be absolutely defended, but the alternative is absurdity (in which case none of this matters anyhow so why worry about it?). It follows that the only logical path is to continue on the probability logic works, but without the man-made construct of absolutes. Building from this foundation and from empirical observations in general I have yet to see any logical reason to assume absolutes exist outside systems of thought.
(cont.)
defense against the need to acknowledge that there exists, outside space-time, and mass-energy, other considerations that are only known through introspection.
This is a strong assertion indeed. You have bolted on mysticism to empiricism and justified the joining merely because you can conceptualise it, then called this joining a need.
The consequence of there not being these axioms, the reasons for the axioms and the ability to judge their veracity despite their non-materiality is the complete loss of the axioms as consistent, trustworthy and all the other qualities that make an axiom an axiom (even that tautology is now without merit).
I do not claim that axioms are not useful, only that you have no basis for claiming they are somehow immaterial.
Without the coherence of axioms, mathematics and empiricism fail, of course, and we see that not happening on a consistent basis. The axioms do not fail. They refer to a reality that exists, with or without us, and regardless of any denial.
You assert this, but where is the empirical or absolute defense? It seems odd that you suggest a reality exists with absolutes and yet every empirical measure used has yet to find one example outside the human mind.
However, your denial of the necessity of this, means that the conversation cannot progress beyond this and so I guess it stops here.
A withdrawal hardly seems necessary, we both agree axioms are useful. It is only that I admit I have no absolute foundation and you are yet to provide yours.
As for conformist vs. rebel, it appears that you missed the entire point of the post: in the French Revolution, neither camp adhered to any ethic. The conformist abused and betrayed his professed ethic, and the rebel professed no ethic for himself outside success of the revolution. Which was worse? According to Voltaire, both were unconscionable purveyors of evil, just projected from different philosophies. So he concluded that his own introspection was the only reliable source of truth.
Or perhaps Voltaire missed the point. His introspection is just another professed ethic.
If, as it appears, you are siding with the rebels, then I don't have much to say to you beyond this. The hearty acceptance of such wanton violence in the exercise of Consequentialism places logic out of bounds.
I'm sorry its come to this point. I'm also unsure how you extrapolate that I find wanton violence agreeable or even how you find it flows logically from my position.
This is non-productive. Your claim of not being a materialist falls flat. You still demand material evidence of a non-material entity. The logical failure here is absolute.
And as for absolutes, I was just reading an article by Max Planck on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Paraphrasing a statement he makes, entropy might not be true, but it has never been proven false. It cannot be false in the real world, because every system is irreversible, in the sense that no action can occur in the universe that does not affect either nearby particles or the fields that pervade the universe. By transferring energy out of the system, the system cannot completely reverse itself to its original conditions; the system is lossy, everywhere in the universe.
This might not be the case tomorrow, but if not, then major changes to the universal fabric are necessary. It might not have been the case before t=0, at the Big Bang, but the universe did not exist then. It became true shortly after the Big Bang, and still is true.
This of course is known mathematically, which is intuitively. Obviously there is no empirical data that covers the entire universe for every instant over that time. So empirical data can, by definition, not reveal an absolute if it exists.
The definition of absolute then is what? If, for all time, a thing has not changed, has not failed, is it absolute? Or like everything the Pyrrhean Skeptic knows exists, is still doubful of? As in "absolute doubt"?
Skepticism of that magnitude is unjustified except as support for another agenda. The demand for "evidence" of absolutes, once again, cannot be provided empirically for the reasons I gave above. So demanding such is against the logical realities of empiricism itself: illogical.
And the failure to accept realities that exist outside those realities of empiricism is obstinance. Sorry, but that's what it is, illogical obstinance.
So what this discussion has become is a series of argumentative ploys, assertions and denials of assertions etc. For example you side with the Atheist Rousseaueans over the Theist Voltaire, yet cannot connect that to the murders those Atheists commited? Really?
As I say, this has descended into absurdity with you demanding logical impossibilities and refusing to acknowledge the obvious.
Tell me, why should I continue to put time into this?
This is non-productive. Your claim of not being a materialist falls flat. You still demand material evidence of a non-material entity. The logical failure here is absolute.
Its simply not true. You can label me how you want but not just materialists (objectivists and pragmatists come to mind) would all ask for the same basic thing. As an example I will happily take non-material evidence too, but you have yet to provide a coherent ontology for it, let alone a sample of it.
This of course is known mathematically, which is intuitively. Obviously there is no empirical data that covers the entire universe for every instant over that time. So empirical data can, by definition, not reveal an absolute if it exists.
And here we are. If empirical data only extends to human observation, then by what standard do you ask for proof of a negative? If you know of some alternative form of knowledge an ontology for that knowledge would be required now.
I can address the rest of your post but you are getting frustrated and I don't want to exacerbate the issue. Let me break it down for you:
1. I am not claiming absurdity is true, only that it is possible and we cannot rule it out.
2. As you agreed above empiricism (which it seems from your site you agree with) does not reflect any absolutes in the physical world.
3. You have not yet provided a reason for demanding epistemic absolutes, yet when you want the atheist to provide evidence for a negative this is exactly what you presume.
Vagon said,
” And here we are. If empirical data only extends to human observation, then by what standard do you ask for proof of a negative? If you know of some alternative form of knowledge an ontology for that knowledge would be required now.”
It requires no alternative form. It is quite easily seen as impossible, empirically, to provide the proof of the Atheist belief, which is that there is no deity. The claim itself is necessarily materialist; yet it cannot be proven within the chosen framework limitations of materialism, which requires empiricism for generating knowledge.
#3. ”You have not yet provided a reason for demanding epistemic absolutes, yet when you want the atheist to provide evidence for a negative this is exactly what you presume.”
This is where you are stuck in the infinite loop. You deny the evidence I have given without a reason, and insist that you have no responsibility to prove what you believe, which is the original issue.
1. Atheism is the belief that there is [no deity].
2. Atheists cannot prove that there is [no deity].
3. Therefore Atheists believe in something that they cannot prove.
Your attempt to throw the burden off of the Atheist just doesn’t hold up.
The question of absolutes is a separate issue. If you want to word it thus, I suppose that we can do that:
1. Atheism is the belief that there absolutely is no deity.
2. Atheists cannot prove that there absolutely is no deity.
3. Therefore Atheists believe in something that they cannot prove.
Absolutes do exist; the chair you sat in yesterday absolutely existed, yesterday, at the time you experienced it preventing gravity from putting your behind onto the floor. The example that I gave from Planck is an example of an absolute within the timeframe of universal existence. Arguing against absolutes is a deflection technique to prevent having to address #2, above.
Here is the infinite loop that is so frequently played as a “logical” argument:
Uncritical Denial of the Obvious:
1. It’s your assertion, your burden of proof: so, present your evidence.
2. I deny your evidence as unpersuasive / uncompelling.
3. Your next evidence? (Return to step 1).
This infinite loop is an argument by uncritical denial. It requires no debate of the quality of the evidence, the source of the evidence, nor does it falsify the evidence. It merely stops the argument by blocking it uncritically, a tactic of argumentation rather than an appeal to logic.
It becomes the task of the proposer to challenge the denial as having no weight either empirically or logically; it is merely a blank denial, an empty tactic.
This is where we stand. This is why I think that it is impossible to continue without breaking the loop. I have never before seen an Atheist choose to break the loop.
In order to preserve the loop, an Atheist must make several claims:
.
(Continued from comment above)
In order to preserve the loop, an Atheist must make several claims:
1. The mind is nothing more than firing neurons; it doesn't exhibit any transcendental characteristics. Proof of this is that at death, material evidence of a mind no longer exists, therefore there is no transcendent mind.
2. There is no transcendental existence such as meaning, or meaning of meaning. There is no subjective space; it is all material, objective space, existing only in firing neurons.
3. There are no transcendentals such as logic or math; they are all firings of neurons. They do not exist materially except as electrochemical discharges, even as observable organizational features within the material universe.
3. Intuition = fantasy, delusion, self-deception or insanity. Intuition is not involved in the process of apprehending, comparing, differentiating, judging, and comprehending, which is all just neurons firing. Intuition is not required as a faculty to differentiate between valid neural input and non-valid neural input.
4. Experiences not had personally are denied. At least until they are had. And then they are only neurons firing. In fact, all experience is just neurons firing as neural inputs are received; there is no direct evidence of a material existence just as there is no direct evidence of a non-material existence. It is not possible to make a compelling argument against the possibility that I am a brain in a vat.
5. Assuming logic exists, it is at best conditional / relative. It cannot be absolute, by definition. Therefore absurdity must be considered possible (a redefinition of absurd, see [1] below).
6. It is not absurd to plea for absurdity. (I might be a brain in a vat). Absurd Phyrronian skepticism is not absurd, because absurdity is not absolutely absurd. (see #11)
7. Because absurdity is acceptable, then any propositional absurdity should do in order to prove a point; absurd denials are especially acceptable.
8. There is no truth; if there were, it would be absolute and absolutes do not exist by definition and therefore there is no truth – meaning that everything is false. It’s just that some things are more false than others.
9. Because there is no truth, there is no pure, absolute moral ethic. This proves that there is no deity. And that epistemology doesn’t exist and is beyond absurd.
10. But wait, everything is false; see #8.
11. It is not absurd to deny tautology as an absolute: a is not absolutely equal to , precisely because there are no absolutes by definition, and it is not absurd to deny them based on absurdity as an alternative. Plus denying the tautology of definitions does not affect the absolute denial of absolutes via definition.
12. But wait, see #10.
Etc. and so it goes.
(continued below)
(coninued from previous comment, above)
I maintain that “a bear” is absolutely “a bear”; and that it is not “not a bear”, absolutely. And I maintain that absurdity [1] exists, is a valid category denoting nonsense, and that denying the tautology is absurd. Further, I maintain that absolutes can be shown to exist, and that denying them is absurd. And, I maintain that the existence of absolutes, such as tautologies, persists outside the mind [2], beyond the firings of neurons, and that it points intuitively to the existence of order in the universe. And I maintain that the order has a source, a first cause.
Finally I maintain that Atheists, being limited to the material domain, having placed their faith in the products of empirical scientific search of the material domain, cannot under any circumstances prove the above to be in material error using the techniques that they claim to have sole validity (i.e. falsified empirically), and therefore they believe something that they cannot prove or disprove using their own techniques.
In short, the Atheist cannot know that there is no deity; if he believes that, then it is a faith statement, not an empirical statement of experimental results. The issue of probability degenerates to pure opinion, given the inability to calculate the probability based on empirical inputs.
And this is why some Atheists attempt the sophomoric declaration that rather than a “theory of no God”, they “have no God theory”, which is pure nonsense: absurd.
One last thought: You may deny that you have a subjective space. You can argue that successfully.
You may deny that I have a subjective space. You cannot argue that successfully.
[1] absurd: ridiculous, unreasonable: Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2004.
[2] The concepts of the First Principles are derivative from observations of the nature of the material universe, and reflect what exists in material reality. As Planck said of entropy, if it is not true, then it is false, period.
Post a Comment