"Down on the Corner" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Four Thread NRO Commentary)
A few musings on these threads from recent days...
Did W Backfire? (NRO)
Interesting hypothesis by Tom Hoopes -here is the gist of what the article is about in its own words:
Reviewers keep remarking on the strange phenomenon. They hated Bush going in — and kind of liked the guy when they came out.
If that is the case, it may not bode well for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama in the election next week. Moving on we get to an article on the msm:
An Instructive Candidacy (Victor Davis Hanson)
The unethical double standards of the msm with regards to Sen. Obama and Gov. Palin could not be more educational as we wind down in this election season. As Hanson notes so well in the article there turns out to be no standard of objectivity in contemporary journalism. Gee folks, who has been saying that for years??? The first footnote of this posting will give you a hint{1} and that is all we will say on the matter for now. And finally...
Point of No Return (Mark Steyn)
No, this is not a reference to the 1977 concept album by Kansas{2} however preferable such a reference may be. No, this is to how potentially transformative for the worse this upcoming election could be if Sen. Obama wins and there is not at least a super majority-proof Republican minority in the Senate. Or as Steyn succinctly puts it:
[T]he only reason why Belgium has gotten away with being Belgium and Sweden Sweden and Germany Germany this long is because America’s America. The soft comfortable cocoon in which western Europe has dozed this last half-century is girded by cold hard American power. What happens when the last serious western nation votes for the same soothing beguiling siren song as its enervated allies?
I explained the problem last year in the context of the subject of the Crusades as the enemy we are facing now is in many ways not much different and I stand by that assessment now which will be linked to in a footnote on this posting for those who may not remember it.{3}
Right now we are demonstrating a willingness to take stands unpopular to the Euroweenie contingent but it is because of those stands that they have been able to get away with being Euroweenies. Peace cannot be achieved with enemies such as those we are facing except through either a profound spiritual metanoia on their part (which is alien to the genesis and expansion of Islam historically) or the west showing resolve to not be pushed around by these kinds of thugs.
For it is easy to take stands like "why can't we be friends???"{4} and make grandiose advocacy of "unconditional dialogue" when there is someone there willing to do the heavy lifting of the sort that you are not willing to do. But what happens in this geopolitical world of "recess" when you cannot run to the adult on duty for protection from those who would seek to do you harm??? You do one of two things, you either run scared and goad those sorts to continue to try and inflict harm on you or you take it upon yourself to build yourself up, develop a mean streak, and knock their blocks off so they will leave you alone.{5}
It may sound simple to many readers but workable solutions are rarely complicated when the dynamics of what prompts people to act a certain way are known. And those who prey on weaker people{6} regardless of the context in which it is done{7} do so usually as a result of two factors; namely (i) their own insecurities about things they have no control over and (ii) their seeing in the perceived weaker person or group a source with which they can exercise control over as a way of masking the aforementioned insecurities. This is why bullies often back down when confronted by someone who refuses to be bullied and will oppose them with force to prevent it. Usually it is in their best interests for such bullies to either cease such things or to find other targets who will roll over for them.
Whatever one wants to say about Sen. John McCain as president, I do not have anxiety about him in the area of national security and presenting the required projection of America as a bulwark against these kinds of threats. I cannot say the same thing about someone like Sen. Barack Obama who has taken no positions of principle that went against the grain -either in the Illinois State Senate or in the United States Senate where he constantly voted present in the former and nearly 100% on the side of liberal Democrats in the latter. In fact, that is the subject of this article by Rich Lowry:
Barack Obama, False Moderate
The article is worth a read but here is the summary which is worth reflecting upon:
When has Obama stood up to liberals and fought for a principled centrism? Never. This is why part of McCain’s closing argument must be that he’d be a better check on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid than the moderate poseur.
Indeed, I do not see someone with such a track record of placating political machines as being sufficiently independent minded to truly give pause to our enemies. And that is why I cannot in conscience vote for him -his quasi-marxist economy destroying tax and income redistribution policies{8} notwithstanding. Like Charles Krauthammer{9} I take a stand not popular but one that on principle I must take even if it means going down with the ship figuratively speaking.
Notes:
{1} A Dialogue on the State of Journalism With Joseph D'Hippolito (circa October 17, 2008)
{2} Which I have on vinyl by the way.
{3} On the Crusades and Learning From History (circa April 13, 2007)
{4} This is not a reference to the song by War of that name.
{5} This is an area of which I was not unfamiliar in school and thus I speak from experience on both fronts. (Being bullied and later after preparation and getting stronger smacking around many of those same bullies who were still around who then left me alone.)
{6} And these terrorist sorts see in the west a people weakened by decadence: make no mistake about that.
{7} Either individually or collectively, physically, psychologically, economically, or in other ways. (Bullying can take many forms after all.)
{8} Another significant reason for opposing Sen. Obama but that is subject I am not going to touch on now but instead mention only in passing due to lack of time and desire to talk about it now.
{9} McCain Gets My Vote (Charles Krauthammer)
Friday, October 24, 2008
Points to Ponder:
(On Fundamentals of Income Redistribution)
Redistribution experiment. On my way to lunch today, a homeless man was sitting on the sidewalk holding a sign, "vote for Obama...I need the money!" The waiter had a "Vote for Obama" tie. After lunch, the waiting handed me the bill. I told [him] that he was not getting a tip because I am doing an experiment of redistribution of wealth. I told him that I am going to give his tip the homeless man. He turned abruptly and left in a huff. I gave the homeless man $10.00 for which he did not earn. I told him to thank the waiter in the restaurant because he's the one that actually earned it. ["AzVet" (circa October 24, 2008)]
(On Fundamentals of Income Redistribution)
Redistribution experiment. On my way to lunch today, a homeless man was sitting on the sidewalk holding a sign, "vote for Obama...I need the money!" The waiter had a "Vote for Obama" tie. After lunch, the waiting handed me the bill. I told [him] that he was not getting a tip because I am doing an experiment of redistribution of wealth. I told him that I am going to give his tip the homeless man. He turned abruptly and left in a huff. I gave the homeless man $10.00 for which he did not earn. I told him to thank the waiter in the restaurant because he's the one that actually earned it. ["AzVet" (circa October 24, 2008)]
Thursday, October 23, 2008
On Logic, Reason, and the Concept of Faith:
("Tales From the Mailbag" Dept.)
This is a response to an email from last year responding to an expository musings of your humble servant on the annoyance we have with arrogant atheists who do not realize how much faith is actually involved in their own presumed "faithlessness." The original posting was written in October of 2007{1} and this response was sent by a reader in early November. I was unable to get to and complete this response until the present time for various and sundry reasons. The emailer's words will be in shale coloured font.
Shawn:
I agree entirely with your conclusions on atheistic scientism (which, when severed from intelligible philosophical roots, becomes just another ideology) as to their being hypocritical in their judgment about religion. Unfortunately, I think you muddle the middle steps to that conclusion.
I should note that I am willing to consider the possibility that something I wrote off the cuff is in need of some refining. (And shorter threads -even if they are of an expository character- are at times written in that way.) Nonetheless...
You say:
"Another way of saying it is that logic is not possible without recognizing as valid some rules that are required in order to utilize logic and reasoning to begin with. And since it is not possible to prove these rules as true or false without assuming they exist to begin with, there is no way we can empirically demonstrate in a manner that is not circuitous (and thus logically specious) in its approach that it is possible to utilize logic and reason at all."
From the truth that the rules required to utilize logic are not themselves deduced logically, it does not follow of necessity that we take the rules of logic on faith. The reason is that there are other modes of coming to know than by syllogism.
("Tales From the Mailbag" Dept.)
This is a response to an email from last year responding to an expository musings of your humble servant on the annoyance we have with arrogant atheists who do not realize how much faith is actually involved in their own presumed "faithlessness." The original posting was written in October of 2007{1} and this response was sent by a reader in early November. I was unable to get to and complete this response until the present time for various and sundry reasons. The emailer's words will be in shale coloured font.
Shawn:
I agree entirely with your conclusions on atheistic scientism (which, when severed from intelligible philosophical roots, becomes just another ideology) as to their being hypocritical in their judgment about religion. Unfortunately, I think you muddle the middle steps to that conclusion.
I should note that I am willing to consider the possibility that something I wrote off the cuff is in need of some refining. (And shorter threads -even if they are of an expository character- are at times written in that way.) Nonetheless...
You say:
"Another way of saying it is that logic is not possible without recognizing as valid some rules that are required in order to utilize logic and reasoning to begin with. And since it is not possible to prove these rules as true or false without assuming they exist to begin with, there is no way we can empirically demonstrate in a manner that is not circuitous (and thus logically specious) in its approach that it is possible to utilize logic and reason at all."
From the truth that the rules required to utilize logic are not themselves deduced logically, it does not follow of necessity that we take the rules of logic on faith. The reason is that there are other modes of coming to know than by syllogism.
To really take this to brass tacks, faith is something that we give assent to that we cannot prove. I am referring in those words to how we have no way to verify emperically that the rules required to utilize reason and logic actually exist but we must presuppose them in order to reason at all. And even that statement itself embodies an often unrealized element so I will briefly note it at this time.
All presuppositions to some extent require a degree of faith when they are not grounded on proven or otherwise provable tenets. And those who lionize empiricism as the be-all and end-all of verification are involving themselves in a double standard on the laws of utilizing logic and reason that they would never accept in other contexts. Ergo, they inexorably deny the law of non-contradiction by failing to require empirical evidences for the laws of logic and reason the way they would other empirically unverifiable presuppositions. (Such as the existence of God.)
So at bottom, as the existence of the rules required to utilize logic cannot be proven in a fashion that does not presuppose them, they cannot be proven logically. They have to be taken as presuppositions and thus they are taken on a kind of faith. And for this reason, the atheists who mock religious people for believing in something they cannot empirically verify are hypocritical for doing the exact same thing themselves.
This is part of the importance of St. Thomas's use of Aristotle's philosophical foundation in developing a Christian understanding of what and how we know.
I take issue to some degree with the idea that there has to be a "Christian understanding" of what and how we know. But that point aside, my intention with that posting was merely to point out that there is no completely naturalistic way to verify the facts of reality when it comes to the laws required for utilizing logic and reason. This is the Achilles heel of the purely rationalist outlook when you take it down to the aforementioned brass tacks.
Aristotle shows how man reasons in syllogism, starting from premises and working deductively to conclusion.
Yes he did but premises are often presumed without warrant and when that happens, any deduction to a conclusion could well be wide of the mark of reality. This is the case even if the deductions undertaken are all one hundred percent solid. Additional problems could well be present when you couple the latter with the sort of common shoddiness that plagues most people who try to engage in deductive reasoning and throw into the equation the tendency of most people to engage in double standards viz. how they treat ideas/persons/etc they are inclined towards as opposed to those they are not so inclined.
He separately shows how the mind works in deriving the predecessor details that create the premises, and it is not deductively.
There are inductive and deductive approaches{2} towards creating premises. I have never said otherwise.
First of all, one must grasp the meaning of the terms. This process is handled in one of two ways: one is organically by natural exposure to objects of experience, leading to more complete and more comprehensive conceptualization of things, so that a child first grasps "dog" under the notion of "short wiggly thing" , then "short wiggly thing on four legs", then short wiggly thing with 4 legs which bites, barks, wags, and eats" until he finally understands the notion of dog as a species of canine. This process of conceptualization is not deductive – it precedes syllogistic activity, for it is merely the coming to knowledge about a thing, i.e. forming a concept giving us one of the terms which form a premise.
Well, we are in what you note now moving into the realm of universals -a subject I have covered on many an occasion either directly or indirectly and do not have time to peruse the archives for examples of at this time.{3}
The second typical way is analytically, by way of experiment and intentional expansion of and testing of one's concept against reality. (These are not exactly opposed methods, they are merely the non-reflective way and the reflective way of doing the same thing.)
I do not disagree with you on this at all. My guess offhand is you are going beyond my limited intentions with that posting and extending on those points a bit which is (of course) fine with me. And for that reason -and because what you wrote has a timeless element or principle to it not just a limited or circumstantial one- I have decided to respond to your note here at a time when I have had some time to do so.
Once things (and their natures) are grasped by the intellect by way of this conceptualization, one can form propositions about them. These propositions can be true or false. But there are underlying propositions which are inherently self-evident to the intellect: As soon as the intellect understands the terms, it grasps directly the validity of the proposition.
What you refer to as underlying propositions would appear to be somewhat synonymous with what I refer to by the term "foundational presuppositions."{4}
The principle "the whole is greater than the (proper) part" is not something that requires a middle term (and hence a syllogism) to grasp validly with certainty.
Is this a reference to the principle known as Law of Excluded Middle???
Nor does one's grasp of it depend upon faith. The natural force of the intellect upon the objects of its thought (the concepts "whole", "part," and "greater") derives both the proposition and its certainty without aid of any outside agent.
You are presuming something even in that statement though and I refer to the notion that items are what they are or what they are said to be: essentially the Law of Identity. That is another foundational presupposition which cannot strictly speaking be empirically proven but instead must be assumed. For the only way to avoid illogic in its usage is to presume it is correct because the only way to prove it rationally is by a self-reference to the object or idea in question which is a form of the fallacy of petitio principii. Implicitly you have in doing that provided an evidentiary proof of what I was saying in the original posting to which you responded to.
Indeed, in a person not malformed by false philosophy, it is almost a definition of self-evident truth that it is a truth about which one cannot be in doubt as to its truth.
There are presumptions in what you have just said also: the idea that there is self-evident veracity.{5} I am not trying to deconstruct this down too far mind you, only point out again the principle I made in that previous posting about it requiring faith in order to reason properly and utilize the tools of logic.
Unfortunately, there are too many people whose self-reflective abilities have been damaged to the point where they imagine doubt about EVERY proposition. (But even here, they imagine doubt when philosophizing, but in actual practical reasoning they use these self-evident principles with just as much certainty as the next person.)
I believe I know what you are trying to say here but again, every proposition which can be sustained by rational argumentation requires an element of faith in the rudimentary tools of reason and logic to be accepted -the laws of logic if you will which strictly speaking cannot be proven but must be assumed. But assuming them as we must, that does not mean that every proposition inexorably involves an element of doubt in reality -though I agree with you that there are those who would presume it.
Some of these self-evident truths are precisely those root principles (non-contradiction, excluded middle) that underlie ALL attempts to reason intelligently, without recognition of which, at least implicitly, one would not even try to argue truth with another. The fact that scientists attempt to argue truth shows that in reality they accept the validity of these root principles.
You have just made the very same point I asserted all along but in a more circuitous and lengthy manner. Furthermore, if I have "muddle[d] the middle steps to that conclusion" which we both agree is the correct one, I fail to see how you have demonstrated that assertion. I simply made the statement up front of the following point:
The ability to reason is either true or false. Logic itself applied as we would say "properly" is either an assemblage of disconnected non-sequiturs which lead us nowhere or else it can lead us to being able to discern if not with certainty what is true than at the very least isolate what is probably and what is most definitely false. The very laws of logic -be they the law of identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle, etc.- themselves are presumed to be valid because without them, there is no capacity for logic to be operative; no frames of reference or foundation from which we can then utilize reason and logic itself.
Another way of saying it is that logic is not possible without recognizing as valid some rules that are required in order to utilize logic and reasoning to begin with. And since it is not possible to prove these rules as true or false without assuming they exist to begin with, there is no way we can empirically demonstrate in a manner that is not circuitous (and thus logically specious) in its approach that it is possible to utilize logic and reason at all.
For that reason, all this talk about "freethought" is an intrinsic charade. Think about it: the very sort of empirical evidence that people like Dawkins say they will accept is predicated upon accepting without scientific evidence that the basic laws universally accepted for being able to utilize logic and be able to reason do in fact exist and are themselves operative. It is unavoidable therefore that we require faith that those laws are true to enable us to try and explain reality, solve problems, discern what is false, etc. And as it requires faith to even reason at all, there cannot be anything intrinsically "irrational" about having faith in other non-emperically verifiable phenomena unless it is also "irrational" to be rational. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 17, 2007)]
Now it is possible that you are merely trying to go into more scholastic-style subtleties here than what I did but know in advance that I try to avoid those to the extent it is feasible for a variety of reasons. One is that most people have enough problems being consistent in their application of reason and logic at the elementary levels so there is no reason to complicate matters further with more complex stuff. The second reason is that on this issue, there is no more complexity needed than what I provided on this matter.
That is why for years I would annoy the self-proclaimed "infidels" and self-anointed "freethinkers" with the same basic questions over and over again on this theme. It is not a complicated issue at all so I see no reason to make it one. Essentially, to be an atheist is to have an operative presupposition in your thinking that something was created out of nothing. I remember really pissing off atheists at the infidels board about seven to eight years ago with pointing that out in various ways to a whole host of their presumed "arguments against God's existence." The beauty of it is that no matter how they slice it, that is what all of their attempts inexorably boil down to. I hope that helps.
If it were true that deductive reasoning were the only kind of activity respecting knowledge which the intellect has of its own nature, then it would be true also that the all reasoning would rest on some basis other than knowledge, and then faith or belief would be the stand-in. But asSt. Thomas explains the workings of the mind, deduction is only one kind of intellectual activity toward truth. God in his wisdom fashioned man so that his intellectual faculty has ALL the operations needed to know truth in the natural order, understanding "know" as a distinct species of activity from belief. The precursors to deduction, i.e. conceptualization and forming propositions which are self-evident, are two of those processes of the intellect.
Since I never gave assent to the proposition as you have framed it viz. deductive reasoning, I fail to see how what you have noted in any way indicts my previous arguments. But even if it does, my assertion that there are points of presupposition in the most rudimentary and essential elements of reasoning and using logic inexorably covers the areas of conceptualiation and forming propositions as well.
For we cannot conceive of something without having some forms of frame references for what we are conceiving. Or as I used to say to the atheists in years past in varying ways "no one's philosophical presuppositions are formed in a vacuum."
Which, by the way, leads me to another bone I would like to pick with the philosophical skeptics.
Pick away.
Generally, they denigrate belief as an act which is INHERENTLY unworthy of the intellect as such, so that (in their view) saying that you believe something is as much as to admit that you use the intellect in a manner in violation of its nature. The ONLY act worthy of the intellect, according to them, is to know.
They do say that and the problem is, they have their own beliefs that they do not readily admit to. But lest I get in the way of your train of thought, please continue.
But, of course, most skeptics have also swallowed the stupidity of the deductive-only crowd, perceiving only deduction as a valid way of "knowing." This of course leads ultimately to the notion that there is no such thing as knowledge properly. (Of course, they "know" this because they reason it deductively from the fact that belief in premises cannot create knowledge, and the only kind of knowledge is deductive. So at the very same time they deny knowledge, they root that denial in their certainty of the rules of logic. Hmmm…)
You are basically saying the same thing I have asserted myself. My point in the post you responded to was that it requires a kind of faith to be an atheist because if your only verification depends on what you can empirically prove, you are presuming without proof that the tools of logic and reason actually can help one discern truth from falsehood. Put another way, they presume principles such as identity and non-contradiction because without them you cannot reason at all but they cannot actually prove without petitio principii that those presupposed rules of logical thought are actually true.{6}
But my point is that while the act wherein we know is a proper act of the intellect, it is by no means theexclusive valid act of the intellect properly understanding human nature.
I never said it was. As I noted earlierthis year in 2007 in a dialogue with Jonathan Prejean:
Strictly speaking, deductive reasoning is the only reasoning which can be said to be reliable to a substantial degree when properly utilized as it is not as prone to the degree of open or nebulous constructs which inductive reasoning has. Furthermore, I do not see how inductive reasoning can ever be said to actually bind anyone rationally. Its value is in my view very circumscribed and anyone who would use it against an argument based on deduction would find themselves on the losing side far more frequently than not -all things presumed equal of course. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 24, 2007)]
All presuppositions to some extent require a degree of faith when they are not grounded on proven or otherwise provable tenets. And those who lionize empiricism as the be-all and end-all of verification are involving themselves in a double standard on the laws of utilizing logic and reason that they would never accept in other contexts. Ergo, they inexorably deny the law of non-contradiction by failing to require empirical evidences for the laws of logic and reason the way they would other empirically unverifiable presuppositions. (Such as the existence of God.)
So at bottom, as the existence of the rules required to utilize logic cannot be proven in a fashion that does not presuppose them, they cannot be proven logically. They have to be taken as presuppositions and thus they are taken on a kind of faith. And for this reason, the atheists who mock religious people for believing in something they cannot empirically verify are hypocritical for doing the exact same thing themselves.
This is part of the importance of St. Thomas's use of Aristotle's philosophical foundation in developing a Christian understanding of what and how we know.
I take issue to some degree with the idea that there has to be a "Christian understanding" of what and how we know. But that point aside, my intention with that posting was merely to point out that there is no completely naturalistic way to verify the facts of reality when it comes to the laws required for utilizing logic and reason. This is the Achilles heel of the purely rationalist outlook when you take it down to the aforementioned brass tacks.
Aristotle shows how man reasons in syllogism, starting from premises and working deductively to conclusion.
Yes he did but premises are often presumed without warrant and when that happens, any deduction to a conclusion could well be wide of the mark of reality. This is the case even if the deductions undertaken are all one hundred percent solid. Additional problems could well be present when you couple the latter with the sort of common shoddiness that plagues most people who try to engage in deductive reasoning and throw into the equation the tendency of most people to engage in double standards viz. how they treat ideas/persons/etc they are inclined towards as opposed to those they are not so inclined.
He separately shows how the mind works in deriving the predecessor details that create the premises, and it is not deductively.
There are inductive and deductive approaches{2} towards creating premises. I have never said otherwise.
First of all, one must grasp the meaning of the terms. This process is handled in one of two ways: one is organically by natural exposure to objects of experience, leading to more complete and more comprehensive conceptualization of things, so that a child first grasps "dog" under the notion of "short wiggly thing" , then "short wiggly thing on four legs", then short wiggly thing with 4 legs which bites, barks, wags, and eats" until he finally understands the notion of dog as a species of canine. This process of conceptualization is not deductive – it precedes syllogistic activity, for it is merely the coming to knowledge about a thing, i.e. forming a concept giving us one of the terms which form a premise.
Well, we are in what you note now moving into the realm of universals -a subject I have covered on many an occasion either directly or indirectly and do not have time to peruse the archives for examples of at this time.{3}
The second typical way is analytically, by way of experiment and intentional expansion of and testing of one's concept against reality. (These are not exactly opposed methods, they are merely the non-reflective way and the reflective way of doing the same thing.)
I do not disagree with you on this at all. My guess offhand is you are going beyond my limited intentions with that posting and extending on those points a bit which is (of course) fine with me. And for that reason -and because what you wrote has a timeless element or principle to it not just a limited or circumstantial one- I have decided to respond to your note here at a time when I have had some time to do so.
Once things (and their natures) are grasped by the intellect by way of this conceptualization, one can form propositions about them. These propositions can be true or false. But there are underlying propositions which are inherently self-evident to the intellect: As soon as the intellect understands the terms, it grasps directly the validity of the proposition.
What you refer to as underlying propositions would appear to be somewhat synonymous with what I refer to by the term "foundational presuppositions."{4}
The principle "the whole is greater than the (proper) part" is not something that requires a middle term (and hence a syllogism) to grasp validly with certainty.
Is this a reference to the principle known as Law of Excluded Middle???
Nor does one's grasp of it depend upon faith. The natural force of the intellect upon the objects of its thought (the concepts "whole", "part," and "greater") derives both the proposition and its certainty without aid of any outside agent.
You are presuming something even in that statement though and I refer to the notion that items are what they are or what they are said to be: essentially the Law of Identity. That is another foundational presupposition which cannot strictly speaking be empirically proven but instead must be assumed. For the only way to avoid illogic in its usage is to presume it is correct because the only way to prove it rationally is by a self-reference to the object or idea in question which is a form of the fallacy of petitio principii. Implicitly you have in doing that provided an evidentiary proof of what I was saying in the original posting to which you responded to.
Indeed, in a person not malformed by false philosophy, it is almost a definition of self-evident truth that it is a truth about which one cannot be in doubt as to its truth.
There are presumptions in what you have just said also: the idea that there is self-evident veracity.{5} I am not trying to deconstruct this down too far mind you, only point out again the principle I made in that previous posting about it requiring faith in order to reason properly and utilize the tools of logic.
Unfortunately, there are too many people whose self-reflective abilities have been damaged to the point where they imagine doubt about EVERY proposition. (But even here, they imagine doubt when philosophizing, but in actual practical reasoning they use these self-evident principles with just as much certainty as the next person.)
I believe I know what you are trying to say here but again, every proposition which can be sustained by rational argumentation requires an element of faith in the rudimentary tools of reason and logic to be accepted -the laws of logic if you will which strictly speaking cannot be proven but must be assumed. But assuming them as we must, that does not mean that every proposition inexorably involves an element of doubt in reality -though I agree with you that there are those who would presume it.
Some of these self-evident truths are precisely those root principles (non-contradiction, excluded middle) that underlie ALL attempts to reason intelligently, without recognition of which, at least implicitly, one would not even try to argue truth with another. The fact that scientists attempt to argue truth shows that in reality they accept the validity of these root principles.
You have just made the very same point I asserted all along but in a more circuitous and lengthy manner. Furthermore, if I have "muddle[d] the middle steps to that conclusion" which we both agree is the correct one, I fail to see how you have demonstrated that assertion. I simply made the statement up front of the following point:
The ability to reason is either true or false. Logic itself applied as we would say "properly" is either an assemblage of disconnected non-sequiturs which lead us nowhere or else it can lead us to being able to discern if not with certainty what is true than at the very least isolate what is probably and what is most definitely false. The very laws of logic -be they the law of identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle, etc.- themselves are presumed to be valid because without them, there is no capacity for logic to be operative; no frames of reference or foundation from which we can then utilize reason and logic itself.
Another way of saying it is that logic is not possible without recognizing as valid some rules that are required in order to utilize logic and reasoning to begin with. And since it is not possible to prove these rules as true or false without assuming they exist to begin with, there is no way we can empirically demonstrate in a manner that is not circuitous (and thus logically specious) in its approach that it is possible to utilize logic and reason at all.
For that reason, all this talk about "freethought" is an intrinsic charade. Think about it: the very sort of empirical evidence that people like Dawkins say they will accept is predicated upon accepting without scientific evidence that the basic laws universally accepted for being able to utilize logic and be able to reason do in fact exist and are themselves operative. It is unavoidable therefore that we require faith that those laws are true to enable us to try and explain reality, solve problems, discern what is false, etc. And as it requires faith to even reason at all, there cannot be anything intrinsically "irrational" about having faith in other non-emperically verifiable phenomena unless it is also "irrational" to be rational. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 17, 2007)]
Now it is possible that you are merely trying to go into more scholastic-style subtleties here than what I did but know in advance that I try to avoid those to the extent it is feasible for a variety of reasons. One is that most people have enough problems being consistent in their application of reason and logic at the elementary levels so there is no reason to complicate matters further with more complex stuff. The second reason is that on this issue, there is no more complexity needed than what I provided on this matter.
That is why for years I would annoy the self-proclaimed "infidels" and self-anointed "freethinkers" with the same basic questions over and over again on this theme. It is not a complicated issue at all so I see no reason to make it one. Essentially, to be an atheist is to have an operative presupposition in your thinking that something was created out of nothing. I remember really pissing off atheists at the infidels board about seven to eight years ago with pointing that out in various ways to a whole host of their presumed "arguments against God's existence." The beauty of it is that no matter how they slice it, that is what all of their attempts inexorably boil down to. I hope that helps.
If it were true that deductive reasoning were the only kind of activity respecting knowledge which the intellect has of its own nature, then it would be true also that the all reasoning would rest on some basis other than knowledge, and then faith or belief would be the stand-in. But asSt. Thomas explains the workings of the mind, deduction is only one kind of intellectual activity toward truth. God in his wisdom fashioned man so that his intellectual faculty has ALL the operations needed to know truth in the natural order, understanding "know" as a distinct species of activity from belief. The precursors to deduction, i.e. conceptualization and forming propositions which are self-evident, are two of those processes of the intellect.
Since I never gave assent to the proposition as you have framed it viz. deductive reasoning, I fail to see how what you have noted in any way indicts my previous arguments. But even if it does, my assertion that there are points of presupposition in the most rudimentary and essential elements of reasoning and using logic inexorably covers the areas of conceptualiation and forming propositions as well.
For we cannot conceive of something without having some forms of frame references for what we are conceiving. Or as I used to say to the atheists in years past in varying ways "no one's philosophical presuppositions are formed in a vacuum."
Which, by the way, leads me to another bone I would like to pick with the philosophical skeptics.
Pick away.
Generally, they denigrate belief as an act which is INHERENTLY unworthy of the intellect as such, so that (in their view) saying that you believe something is as much as to admit that you use the intellect in a manner in violation of its nature. The ONLY act worthy of the intellect, according to them, is to know.
They do say that and the problem is, they have their own beliefs that they do not readily admit to. But lest I get in the way of your train of thought, please continue.
But, of course, most skeptics have also swallowed the stupidity of the deductive-only crowd, perceiving only deduction as a valid way of "knowing." This of course leads ultimately to the notion that there is no such thing as knowledge properly. (Of course, they "know" this because they reason it deductively from the fact that belief in premises cannot create knowledge, and the only kind of knowledge is deductive. So at the very same time they deny knowledge, they root that denial in their certainty of the rules of logic. Hmmm…)
You are basically saying the same thing I have asserted myself. My point in the post you responded to was that it requires a kind of faith to be an atheist because if your only verification depends on what you can empirically prove, you are presuming without proof that the tools of logic and reason actually can help one discern truth from falsehood. Put another way, they presume principles such as identity and non-contradiction because without them you cannot reason at all but they cannot actually prove without petitio principii that those presupposed rules of logical thought are actually true.{6}
But my point is that while the act wherein we know is a proper act of the intellect, it is by no means theexclusive valid act of the intellect properly understanding human nature.
I never said it was. As I noted earlier
Strictly speaking, deductive reasoning is the only reasoning which can be said to be reliable to a substantial degree when properly utilized as it is not as prone to the degree of open or nebulous constructs which inductive reasoning has. Furthermore, I do not see how inductive reasoning can ever be said to actually bind anyone rationally. Its value is in my view very circumscribed and anyone who would use it against an argument based on deduction would find themselves on the losing side far more frequently than not -all things presumed equal of course. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 24, 2007)]
Humans (as I pointed out in my last email to you) are intrinsically social.
Agreed.
One of the ways this is illustrated is in the reality that knowledge is a common good. But it is a common good not only in its very essence (as distinguished from "proper goods" where, if I possess some proper good such as this glass of wine, you cannot enjoy the very same glass of wine, common goods can be held at the same time by multiple persons) it is also common in the process of coming to knowledge. (Scientists of all people should understand this, but they ignore its implications).
Agreed.
The point is that we rest 95% of our daily acts at least partly on belief in the superior knowledge of those who are more expert than we are on various subjects. These acts of belief are not violations of our intellectual nature, they are a validation of our nature as social. We are MADE so as to rely on others, including relying on others' intellects.
You would appear to be basically arguing that humans being intrinsically social have it built into their nature to rely on others and thus express "belief" in these areas not to the detrument their intellectual nature. I do not disagree with this proposition at all -indeed if we sought to verify every step of everything we do on a daily basis before giving or withholding assent or engaging or disengaging in an action, we would never get out of the house. I do not see how what you are outlining in any way detracts from what I have asserted with regards to the requirement of faith in order to even utilize the natural tools of reason and logic.
For what I was doing with that post was striking at what is at the root and matrix of all rational thought and analysis: the necessity of accepting certain propositions for even being able to reason and use logic which cannot strictly speaking be proven. But the foundation of those who would deny the existence of some kind of First Mover or God{9} is to elevate as the apex of all knowledge reason and logic who then mock those who believe in God on the basis of the latter not being able to be strictly proven in an empirical fashion.
My point was they are in the same position as those whom they mock: giving assent to something they cannot emperically verify without recourse to circularity of argument and thus invalidating the foundation on which they stand. How is what you have argued in any way a refutation of what I have been saying??? If anything what you are saying concurs with me albeit you get a bit more Scholastic and technical in the process from what I can discern.
The point is that we rest 95% of our daily acts at least partly on belief in the superior knowledge of those who are more expert than we are on various subjects. These acts of belief are not violations of our intellectual nature, they are a validation of our nature as social. We are MADE so as to rely on others, including relying on others' intellects.
You would appear to be basically arguing that humans being intrinsically social have it built into their nature to rely on others and thus express "belief" in these areas not to the detrument their intellectual nature. I do not disagree with this proposition at all -indeed if we sought to verify every step of everything we do on a daily basis before giving or withholding assent or engaging or disengaging in an action, we would never get out of the house. I do not see how what you are outlining in any way detracts from what I have asserted with regards to the requirement of faith in order to even utilize the natural tools of reason and logic.
For what I was doing with that post was striking at what is at the root and matrix of all rational thought and analysis: the necessity of accepting certain propositions for even being able to reason and use logic which cannot strictly speaking be proven. But the foundation of those who would deny the existence of some kind of First Mover or God{9} is to elevate as the apex of all knowledge reason and logic who then mock those who believe in God on the basis of the latter not being able to be strictly proven in an empirical fashion.
My point was they are in the same position as those whom they mock: giving assent to something they cannot emperically verify without recourse to circularity of argument and thus invalidating the foundation on which they stand. How is what you have argued in any way a refutation of what I have been saying??? If anything what you are saying concurs with me albeit you get a bit more Scholastic and technical in the process from what I can discern.
The only way the skeptics could be right about belief as contrary to the nature of the intellect is if all human interaction ought to be rooted in doubt, and this would utterly destroy true marriage. But beyond that, it would make man universally paranoid schizophrenics, attempting to be continually doubting everyone around them consciously, while at the same eating food which they did not grow, getting on planes which they did not build or drive, etc.
Dedicated to my friend Albert Cipriani whose birthday is today.
Notes:
{1} Musings on the Core Flaw in the Atheist's Logical/Rational Slaw (circa October 17, 2007)
{2} I realize that someone can come to correct conclusions with invalid or faulty arguments but outside of the supernatural sciences and certain mechanisms that are contained therein for providing solid points of reference, such situations are more conducive to dumb luck or simply betting on the come viz. picking a particular authority with which to accept the conclusion of. In everyday discussions though, the natural lights of reason and logic are ample when they are properly understood and inculcated. As far as the distinction between inductive and deductive, you are right but the tenor of my posting implies deductive reasoning.
{2} I realize that someone can come to correct conclusions with invalid or faulty arguments but outside of the supernatural sciences and certain mechanisms that are contained therein for providing solid points of reference, such situations are more conducive to dumb luck or simply betting on the come viz. picking a particular authority with which to accept the conclusion of. In everyday discussions though, the natural lights of reason and logic are ample when they are properly understood and inculcated. As far as the distinction between inductive and deductive, you are right but the tenor of my posting implies deductive reasoning.
Strictly speaking, deductive reasoning is the only reasoning which can be said to be reliable to a substantial degree when properly utilized as it is not as prone to the degree of open or nebulous constructs which inductive reasoning has. Furthermore, I do not see how inductive reasoning can ever be said to actually bind anyone rationally. Its value is in my view very circumscribed and anyone who would use it against an argument based on deduction would find themselves on the losing side far more frequently than not -all things presumed equal of course. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 24, 2007)]
{3} I may at some point add some archive examples to this posting in the present footnote should I have time to actually track any down. (Or should I in future postings on other subjects stumble across one or more of them in the archives when looking for previous statements on particular subjects in which those concepts are embodied.)
{4} By this term I mean those principles on which our respective views of the world and its constituent elements are based.
{5} The whole idea of self-evident veracity is a problem because as I noted in the other posting, the ability to even utilize logic and reason is subject to certain presuppositions which are required a priori. Ergo, any utilization whatsoever of logic and reason presupposes those points I noted previously making every exercise of reason an exercise of faith in some form or another.
{5} The whole idea of self-evident veracity is a problem because as I noted in the other posting, the ability to even utilize logic and reason is subject to certain presuppositions which are required a priori. Ergo, any utilization whatsoever of logic and reason presupposes those points I noted previously making every exercise of reason an exercise of faith in some form or another.
{7} Others of his time such as Jefferson's political and intellectual rival Alexander Hamilton expressly rejected this notion in part (presumably) from growing up on the island of Nevis in the Carribean and seeing black people of a different mould than those Thomas Jefferson had seen: an example of how Jefferson's inductive reasoning based on experience and observation differed from that of Hamilton and how induction as a basis for reason and logic while capable of cogency of argument if properly utilized is also capable of serious flaws.
{8} Indeed, the moment it is conceded (even tacitly) that one has to be learned to be logical is the moment that academic elitists can impose an intellectual tyranny onto the rest of humanity. The truth is, intellectuals are often quite stupid and can make stupid arguments. Likewise, recognized "experts" in a particular area of study also can make poor arguments or misjudge matters. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 11, 2006)]
{9} However they perceive Him/Her/Them, Etc.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Okay, I will admit that I said yesterday that I intended to post something today on some of the thoughts I have had pertaining to what the msm is trying to do with regards to the subjects of the 2008 election in general{1} and Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Hussein Obama{2} in particular.{3} But that posting is not done and I have no motivation to work on it today after having the best birthday I have had since 2004. Prior to that I would have to go back to 1999 or 2000 to find a birthday comparable to today's. But that point aside, the originally planned posting will be done soon -though I may lead off tomorrow's new blogging cycle with the oft-mentioned posting on the needed third way in politics.
I am not sure right now how I plan to do that and will basically decide on a whim tomorrow depending on if I am motivated to finish the aforementioned material into a bloggable piece or not at that time or thereabouts. But in the meantime, that is all I want to say on the matter except to direct readers to a link I found which substantially outlines many of my views on this matter:
Mr. Dodger's Neighborhood (NetRight Nation)
As many would characterize me as someone of the so-called "right wing", it seems appropriate to remind readers of part of the longstanding weblog disclaimer which has adorned the side margin for years; namely this part:
My approval of a website, weblog, or essay is to be properly understood as approval of a macro nature and not necessarily a micro one and the macro approval pertains to the general theme so categorized not necessarily to micro elements not pertaining to said theme thereof. [Part of the Rerum Novarum Weblog Disclaimer]
Having reiterated that point, I will deal with the rest of the matters pertaining to the general subjects noted in the beginning of this posting in the previously mentioned list of skeletal pointers when I get to it.
Notes:
{1} I am putting together some skeletal bits for musing tomorrow on the issue of the msm and the election coverage as well as certain things that I and others are being asked to presume in this election concerning the candidates. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 20, 2008)]
{2} Particularly Sen. Obama.
{3} Along with to some extent Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. Joe Biden though this was touched on yesterday as well.
I am not sure right now how I plan to do that and will basically decide on a whim tomorrow depending on if I am motivated to finish the aforementioned material into a bloggable piece or not at that time or thereabouts. But in the meantime, that is all I want to say on the matter except to direct readers to a link I found which substantially outlines many of my views on this matter:
Mr. Dodger's Neighborhood (NetRight Nation)
As many would characterize me as someone of the so-called "right wing", it seems appropriate to remind readers of part of the longstanding weblog disclaimer which has adorned the side margin for years; namely this part:
My approval of a website, weblog, or essay is to be properly understood as approval of a macro nature and not necessarily a micro one and the macro approval pertains to the general theme so categorized not necessarily to micro elements not pertaining to said theme thereof. [Part of the Rerum Novarum Weblog Disclaimer]
Having reiterated that point, I will deal with the rest of the matters pertaining to the general subjects noted in the beginning of this posting in the previously mentioned list of skeletal pointers when I get to it.
Notes:
{1} I am putting together some skeletal bits for musing tomorrow on the issue of the msm and the election coverage as well as certain things that I and others are being asked to presume in this election concerning the candidates. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 20, 2008)]
{2} Particularly Sen. Obama.
{3} Along with to some extent Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. Joe Biden though this was touched on yesterday as well.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Palin Becomes Increasingly Accessible To The National Media (CBS News)
Meanwhile, it would seem that Sen. Joe Biden is MIA for some reason...my guess is that they do not want him saying anything stupid to get in the way of the presumed "coronation" of the Obamessiah. I am putting together some skeletal bits for musing tomorrow on the issue of the msm and the election coverage as well as certain things that I and others are being asked to presume in this election concerning the candidates{1} so that is all I will say on the matter for now except to note that Sen. McCain was being criticized for "hiding Gov. Palin" two weeks ago whereas nothing of a similar nature is being said about the Obama campaign and the absence of Sen. Biden.
Note:
{1} Not to mention other persons involved to varying degrees in this election season.
Meanwhile, it would seem that Sen. Joe Biden is MIA for some reason...my guess is that they do not want him saying anything stupid to get in the way of the presumed "coronation" of the Obamessiah. I am putting together some skeletal bits for musing tomorrow on the issue of the msm and the election coverage as well as certain things that I and others are being asked to presume in this election concerning the candidates{1} so that is all I will say on the matter for now except to note that Sen. McCain was being criticized for "hiding Gov. Palin" two weeks ago whereas nothing of a similar nature is being said about the Obama campaign and the absence of Sen. Biden.
Note:
{1} Not to mention other persons involved to varying degrees in this election season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)