About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

March 31, 2014 8:00am by Kokila Patel

General Debate 31 March 2014

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment374

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (374)

Login to comment or vote

Ryan Sproull

Claiming “evolution did it” does not at all prove that notions like equality are not at root metaphysical beliefs that cannot be proved one way or another.

What do you mean by “proving equality one way or another”?
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 12:51pm
ShawnLH

Oh wait, we are back on yesterdays thread. My bad.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 12:51pm
Ryan Sproull

So pick it up in today’s thread. This looks more interesting than climate change and I was too busy doing actual work yesterday to see this one.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 12:53pm
ShawnLH

“What do you mean by “proving equality one way or another”?

Ryan, ideas like equality cannot be proved using human senses. They are metaphysical, in the sense of transcending the physical world. Richard tries the “evolution did it” meme, but this at best conjecture and an ideological reading of evolution.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 12:54pm
ShawnLH

To make the point about ideology rather than science in Richard’s posts, he uses the loaded language of “primitive”, a chronocentric arrogance that assumes we know better, but this is debatable to say the least.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 12:57pm
Manolo

Our own addled Griff will play the leading in this comedy (read farce): http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/31/climate-change-to-make-it-off-broadway-debut-thanks-to-national-science/

The National Science Foundation has spent nearly $700,000 on a climate change-themed theatrical production, leaving some in Congress questioning if the organization’s grant funds could be put to better use.

The play is being produced by New York-based activist theater group The Civilians. According to a plot description on the theater company’s website, “focuses on a woman named Phyllis as she tries to track down a friend who disappeared while filming an assignment for a nature show on a tropical island. During her search, she also uncovers a devious plot surrounding an international climate summit in Auckland, New Zealand.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 1:06pm
ShawnLH

“We don’t know what caused thunder so it must be Thor
We don’t know what caused a storm at sea so it must be Neptune”

There is a huge and unprovable assumption here, that Divinity arose simply to explain the natural world. But any number of other factors could and imo like were involved, including the near universal personal experience of the divine among human beings, including in today’s world.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 1:09pm
Ryan Sproull

Ryan, ideas like equality cannot be proved using human senses. They are metaphysical, in the sense of transcending the physical world. Richard tries the “evolution did it” meme, but this at best conjecture and an ideological reading of evolution.

Again, I don’t understand what “proving equality” means. “Equality” is not a true or false statement. “God exists” is.

If you’re talking about the statement “equality exists” and comparing it to “God exists”… They’re completely different kinds of claims, and there’s no inconsistency in demanding evidence of God’s existence while holding equality as a value.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 1:10pm
ShawnLH

“Again, I don’t understand what “proving equality” means.”

My point was that people who claim to only view the world through reason and science (unless you were born on the planet Vulcan nobody actually operates that way) will in the next breath insist on equality for all.

Now, yes you can choose to hold equality as a value, but at that point we are back to metaphysics, and I can just as easily demand evidence for equality as a value.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 1:15pm
thedavincimode

Who is the fuckwit who raised religion today?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 1:18pm
ShawnLH

Exactly where in the natural world do we see equality? On the contrary, it is not present. In order to arrive at equality as a value, we have to transcend the natural world and claim that equality is a higher moral value we should aspire to.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 1:19pm
mikenmild

But a call for equality might well be based on a rational response to the human condition. Rawls’s ‘veil of ignorance’, for example.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 1:20pm
ShawnLH

“But a call for equality might well be based on a rational response to the human condition.”

“Might be” is the problem. It could just as easily be claimed that a rational response to the world and the human condition necessitates heirachy, strong leadership, and a military social structure, given the violent nature of the world.

In fact Fascism made exactly that claim, citing evolutionary competition between species for scarce resources to back it up.

What is “rational” is very often in the eye of the beholder.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 1:25pm
mikenmild

The fascist claim was based on a complete misapprehension of what Darwinism might imply. I never said that equality was the only rational response, just that acceptance of equality as a value might be arrived at through a rational process.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 1:28pm
ShawnLH

” I never said that equality was the only rational response.”

But if reason is a source of truth on it’s own then it should arrive at only one conclusion as truth is not contradictory. If there are multiple “reasons” then it ceases being that source solely by itself, and other factors must also come into play.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 1:34pm
Ryan Sproull

My point was that people who claim to only view the world through reason and science (unless you were born on the planet Vulcan nobody actually operates that way) will in the next breath insist on equality for all.

Which is not a problem.

Now, yes you can choose to hold equality as a value, but at that point we are back to metaphysics, and I can just as easily demand evidence for equality as a value.

You can demand evidence for truth claims. Insisting on equality for all is not a truth claim.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 1:34pm
ShawnLH

For example, I think equality under the law is reasonable. But I cannot get to that conclusion using reason alone.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 1:35pm
mikenmild

Rationality does not require reaching the same answer in all circumstances. I can use rational processes to decide between purchasing a car or a motorbike without either decision being irrational.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 1:36pm
ShawnLH

“You can demand evidence for truth claims. Insisting on equality for all is not a truth claim.”

Of course it is. It assumes, however unconsciously, that there is a higher value, a truth about human relationships, that is not accessible to reason alone.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 1:38pm
ShawnLH

“Rationality does not require reaching the same answer in all circumstances.”

In what way then is reason a source of truth that can be relied upon exclusively?
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 1:41pm
ShawnLH

“We have used our rational faculties and we have not found truth. We take our Descartes’ Mediations into our room at night and we think and we think and we think. And at the end of the night, not only do we not know truth, we don’t even know if the room exists, if our chair exists, if we are really wearing our dressing gown and sitting in front of the fire. After all our meditating we actually feel farther from truth than we did before. Of course Descartes believed he had found knowledge of God and the external world, but for most philosophers the rationalist project leaves us desperate, sure only of our own momentary existence proven in the cogito ergo sum. We can’t prove God’s existence, we can’t prove the existence of external objects, and we certainly can’t find the wisdom that is the key to the happy life. So our first enflamed passion begins to die, as we fall into skepticism and nihilism. Reason only seems to prove that reason cannot bring us to the truth.”

http://www3.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/ti99/hockenbe.htm
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 1:46pm
mikenmild

The use of reason may not be perfect, but it remains the only method we can use to discover truths about the world. Alternatives tend to boil down to “my ancient text is better than yours.”
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 1:46pm
Ryan Sproull

Of course it is. It assumes, however unconsciously, that there is a higher value, a truth about human relationships, that is not accessible to reason alone.

You assume that. People arguing for equality are not necessarily assuming that.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 1:59pm
ShawnLH

“The use of reason may not be perfect, but it remains the only method we can use to discover truths about the world.”

How do you know? Assuming it is the only method is just that, an assumption, a kind of faith in reason. But the 20th century should make us very skeptical about the Western world’s faith in Cartesian rationality given the number of horrors it led to.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 1:59pm
Ryan Sproull

“We have used our rational faculties and we have not found truth. We take our Descartes’ Mediations into our room at night and we think and we think and we think. And at the end of the night, not only do we not know truth, we don’t even know if the room exists, if our chair exists, if we are really wearing our dressing gown and sitting in front of the fire. After all our meditating we actually feel farther from truth than we did before. Of course Descartes believed he had found knowledge of God and the external world, but for most philosophers the rationalist project leaves us desperate, sure only of our own momentary existence proven in the cogito ergo sum. We can’t prove God’s existence, we can’t prove the existence of external objects, and we certainly can’t find the wisdom that is the key to the happy life. So our first enflamed passion begins to die, as we fall into skepticism and nihilism. Reason only seems to prove that reason cannot bring us to the truth.”

That’s what happens when people start from the mistake of “cogito ergo sum”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:01pm
mikenmild

Great, so now you want to show that the use of logical reasoning leads to bad outcomes. Go right ahead with that one.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:02pm
ShawnLH

“People arguing for equality are not necessarily assuming that.”

Not consciously, but yes, they are assuming a higher moral value, in this case equality, exists by which human relationships can be evaluated.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:03pm
ShawnLH

“Great, so now you want to show that the use of logical reasoning leads to bad outcomes.”

No, but it can and has. That does not mean it always will, but it can, and thus reason alone is not reliable exclusively.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:05pm
Ryan Sproull

Not consciously, but yes, they are assuming a higher moral value, in this case equality, exists by which human relationships can be evaluated.

Not necessarily.

This is your argument? “They don’t even realise that they agree with me”?

People do not have to believe that equality exists out there in the world independently of human thought in order to argue for equality.

What’s next? “Oh, you think that Star Wars is better than Star Trek? Oh, you must believe in some sci-fi-goodness metaphysical thing to say that!”
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:06pm
UglyTruth

The use of reason may not be perfect, but it remains the only method we can use to discover truths about the world.

Another method is observation.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:06pm
ShawnLH

“That’s what happens when people start from the mistake of “cogito ergo sum”.”

Nihilism. The despair that is so much a part of of the modern Western world. Reason alone can give us technology, more wealth and more toys. But alone it results in the existential despair that is one of the most prominent features of modern life.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:09pm
Ryan Sproull

Nihilism. The despair that is so much a part of of the modern Western world. Reason alone can give us technology, more wealth and more toys. But alone it results in the existential despair that is one of the most prominent features of modern life.

Why on earth are you talking about nihilism?
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:10pm
mikenmild

Yes Ugly. When I observe an aeroplane fly into a building and the building subsequently collapses, I use reason to postulate the cause of the collapse.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:12pm
ShawnLH

“People do not have to believe that equality exists out there in the world independently of human thought in order to argue for equality.”

The what do they base their argument for equality on?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:12pm
Sofia

With the new thrust of the UN Climate Change Report, regardless of all the arguments, what has the ETS actually achieved or is it still only a money shuttle around where polluters just pay [and pass it on to consumers – us] but don’t do a fucking thing about reducing emissions.

So we pay to allow inaction and then will physically and finacially pay again for the results of inaction.

Why not some straight forward local solutions, rather than a fucking screwed up international monetary/carbon trading shambles?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:13pm
ShawnLH

“Why on earth are you talking about nihilism?”

Reason alone, the Cartesian rationalism of the Western world, leads to nihilism and despair.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:15pm
ShawnLH

Observation of the world as it is would also lead us to other conclusions. That despite the claims of hyper-rationalists, reason alone does not lead to wisdom or human fulfillment. Religion and spirituality has not gone away in the West, quite the contrary. Human beings need more than just rationalism alone. It does not fulfill the deepest desires of the heart for meaning. And a life without meaning leads to despair.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:20pm
Ryan Sproull

The what do they base their argument for equality on?

It varies. But first you have to ask, what does an “argument for equality” mean? There are different kinds. Is the person trying to convince another that equality is worth pursuing? Or trying to convince another that something is unequal and should therefore be changed? Or demanding that something be made equal without any reference to the views of others?

In the first case, trying to convince another that equality is worth pursuing, they may believe that equality “exists” in the way you’re talking about, in which case they will have to convince the other person that equality “exists” (perhaps beginning with trying to convince them that values “exist” in general before arguing that equality is one of them). Or they may try to appeal to some other value held by the person they’re addressing – utility, for example.

In the second case, trying to convince another that something is unequal and should therefore be changed, it doesn’t matter whether or not they believe that equality “exists” – it only matters that the person they’re addressing values equality.

And in the third case, demanding that something be made equal without trying to convince anyone to agree, it doesn’t matter whether or not they believe that equality “exists” – it only matters that they value equality and therefore want it pursued, whether others agree or not.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:22pm
Ryan Sproull

Reason alone, the Cartesian rationalism of the Western world, leads to nihilism and despair.

Descartes starts with a logical fallacy (circular reasoning) and proceeds from that mistake. Whether or not reason alone leads to nihilism and despair, Descartes was unreasonable and is therefore irrelevant to the question.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:24pm
ShawnLH

Ryan,

as a Buddhist do you believe reason alone leads to wisdom and enlightenment?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:24pm
ShawnLH

“it only matters that they value equality”

Which just leads me back to the question, WHY do they value equality?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:26pm
UglyTruth

Yes Ugly. When I observe an aeroplane fly into a building and the building subsequently collapses, I use reason to postulate the cause of the collapse.

If you’re thinking what I think you’re thinking, then that’s a fallacy.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/posthocf.html

Alias: Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

Translation: After this, therefore because of this, Latin
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:26pm
mikenmild

yes Ugly, which is why I only postulated the aeroplane crash as the cause of the collapse. There could have been other reasons for the building collapsing. It just so happens, in the case I am thinking of, there were no other reasons.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:29pm
Ryan Sproull

Ryan,

as a Buddhist do you believe reason alone leads to wisdom and enlightenment?

Hah. Good call. No, I don’t.

“it only matters that they value equality”

Which just leads me back to the question, WHY do they value equality?

Causally? Upbringing, societal influences, parental influences, personal experiences.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:32pm
ShawnLH

“Causally? Upbringing, societal influences, parental influences, personal experiences.”

Exactly. I don’t think anyone really sits down and just reasons their way to equality. In fact, despite the claims of some on KB, I don’t think most people’s deeply held values are arrived at by just reason alone.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:36pm
ShawnLH

Most human beings get to their deepest values by a combination of faith (metaphysics), reason and tradition (what has been passed down to us by our ancestors).

Nobody on KB was born on the planet Vulcan.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:39pm
Ryan Sproull

Exactly. I don’t think anyone really sits down and just reasons their way to equality. In fact, despite the claims of some on KB, I don’t think most people’s deeply held values are arrived at by just reason alone.

No one reasons their way to any values. You can’t derive an ought from an is.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:39pm
SPC

ShawnLH, so you do not think that the philosphers who prepared the way for democracy reasoned their way to equal political citizenship. Or that concept that humans are equal before God is based on reason, whether slave or free born, …

Ryan, you can reason your way from what is not to what could and should be.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:40pm
ShawnLH

“No one reasons their way to any values. You can’t derive an ought from an is.”

And on that we are in total agreement.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:41pm
Ryan Sproull

Ryan, you can reason your way from what is not to what could and should be.

No, you can’t. Any claim of what “should” be presupposes some prior value for its meaning. Any attempt to move from the premise of “X is true” to the conclusion of “therefore you should do Y” will, explicitly or implicitly, assume another premise: “you should do Z”.

And when that “you should do Z” is made explicit and the hypothetical rational arguer turns their attention to arguing for that, they can only do so by presupposing some other “should” statement.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:49pm
SPC

Ryan,

ShawnLH, read your bible and consider the word logos while reading Genesis.”

“Genesis was not written in Greek.”

For fucks sake that’s the most banal observation made in the debate so far.

The bible is translated into English and includes the word logos and in some, Hebrew terminology is used to describe God (confusing many to presume it is a personal name for God). Then there is the Greek word Christos, in the form of Christ to link it to Christian (a bit like how Octavius became Octavian) in place of the Hebrew word Messiah rather than the English word anointed.

The issue is emanation of enlightenment. From thought to word to action in one aspect and in the premises on which a faith or worldview are created on the other.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:51pm
UglyTruth

yes Ugly, which is why I only postulated the aeroplane crash as the cause of the collapse.

Rather foolish of you to base your postulate on a fallacy, don’t you think?

There could have been other reasons for the building collapsing. It just so happens, in the case I am thinking of, there were no other reasons.

So you weren’t thinking of the NY twin towers collapses then?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:53pm
SPC

Ryan, there is no constant state of ought, what could and should be is the motivation of life. Life of itself has value.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:53pm
Ryan Sproull

Ryan, there is no constant state of ought, what could and should be is the motivation of life. Life of itself has value.

How do you reach the conclusion that life has value?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 2:56pm
ShawnLH

“The bible is translated into English and includes the word logos and in some, Hebrew terminology is used to describe God ”

Not in Genesis which was written in Hebrew. The word Logos is in the Gospel of John and was written in koine Greek.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 3:11pm
SPC

Ryan, life is/has ought.

You question whether life has value?

You should check out “The Middle” – On Demand TVNZ (yesterdays one). The child of a family is fearful that anything and everything could go wrong but then comes to accept that nothing lasts forever by becoming a Buddhist. Finding enjoyment of life and being alive by accepting that it does not last.

The dalai lama appears to be, or puts on a pose of being happy, is this because he thinks his life and the life of others he meets has value or because he accepts that it has no value, nor their lives?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 3:12pm
Ryan Sproull

I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing, SPC. I was saying that there is no way to arrive at values purely by reason and observation.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 3:15pm
griffith

In epistemology, rationalism is the view that “regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge”[1] or “any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification.”[2] More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory “in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive.”[3] Rationalists believe reality has an intrinsically logical structure
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge. Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.

Some things are hardware. The ecosystem we evolved within “Gaia”*

Some things are software. The effects of your surrounding culture/s.

Some things are wetware/operator. The foibles of a specimen. Your personal rationality / world view.

*The ecosystem we evolved In and exist within is what the word means numskull.

.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 3:16pm
ShawnLH

“but then comes to accept that nothing lasts forever by becoming a Buddhist. Finding enjoyment of life and being alive by accepting that it does not last.”

I’ll let Ryan deal with that but I can see a problem with that understanding of Buddhism.

“You question whether life has value?”

The question is, how do you KNOW that it does without assuming metaphysical values in the first place?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 3:17pm
SPC

ShawnLH

Thanks for the primary school elucidation, well yeah da.

Are you being deliberately blind to the point. The bible is translated into English, yet not all words are translated into English.

Does something similar occur in Islam where Moslems read the Koran in their own language but get the God in Arabic rather than in their own language – so they think that Allah is the name of God rather than just derived from Arab for, the God.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 3:18pm
SPC

ShawnLH, how does one know a metaphysical value?
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 3:22pm
ShawnLH

“The bible is translated into English, yet not all words are translated into English.”

In an English translation all the words are translated into English. ‘Logos’ is translated as Word.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 3:22pm
ShawnLH

“ShawnLH, how does one know a metaphysical value?”

You can’t from reason alone. It requires faith.

You assume life has value, but you cannot get to that assumption without faith in higher values.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 3:26pm
griffith

English

English arose in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of England and what is now southeast Scotland. Following the extensive influence of Great Britain and the United Kingdom from the 17th to mid-20th centuries through the British Empire, it has been widely propagated around the world.[7][8][9][10] Through the spread of American-dominated media and technology,[11] English has become the leading language of international discourse and the lingua franca in many regions.[12][13]

Historically, English originated from the fusion of closely related dialects, now collectively termed Old English, which were brought to the eastern coast of Great Britain by Germanic settlers (Anglo-Saxons) by the 5th century; the word English is derived from the name of the Angles,[14] and ultimately from their ancestral region of Angeln (in what is now Schleswig-Holstein). The language was also influenced early on by the Old Norse language through Viking invasions in the 9th and 10th centuries.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 3:28pm
SPC

Ryan, I accept that people will differ in their understanding of terminology if they are not schooled in it the same way. Thus some problem in debate.

You were saying that you do not agree that values can be arrived at by reason and observation alone. Your point is not the way others ought to see it, though some may agree.

Yet some do accept values by reason and observation and even propose values to others based on their reasoning and observation. But of course in a diverse world in which others believe in divine revelation there are other influences on value judgments in the society collective.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 3:29pm
Ryan Sproull

The question is, how do you KNOW that it does without assuming metaphysical values in the first place?

The form of your question only makes sense if you assume metaphysical values in the first place.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 3:29pm
Ryan Sproull

You were saying that you do not agree that values can be arrived at by reason and observation alone. Your point is not the way others ought to see it, though some may agree.

My point is that I can logically demonstrate proof that values cannot be arrived at by reason and observation alone.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 3:30pm
ShawnLH

“The form of your question only makes sense if you assume metaphysical values in the first place.”

This has been point all along. Everyone does assume them whether they admit it or not.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 3:31pm
SPC

ShawnLH,

Is “word” an accurate translation of “logos”. I used the word logos in reference to the premises in the Genesis account.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

You overlook the Hebrew term used in Exodus in English translations (now confused with a personal name for God across languages) and also the use of the term Christ (from Greek Christos from Hebrew Messiah?) so that all of the faith would be Christians. Just as in Islam, the term Allah is across languages.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 3:35pm
ShawnLH

“Is “word” an accurate translation of “logos”.”

Yes.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 3:37pm
SPC

Ryan, so you think others ought to agree with your logic that more than reason and observation are required to arrive at values (values that we ought to have).

Is this really your contention?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 3:44pm
SPC

ShawnLH, adequate?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 1, 2014 3:47pm
Ryan Sproull

Ryan, so you think others ought to agree with your logic that more than reason and observation are required to arrive at values (values that we ought to have).

Is this really your contention?

No, I said nothing about “values that we ought to have”. That sentence is nonsensical – you can only “ought” anything in terms of a value.

I said that it is logically impossible to arrive at any values purely through reason and observation.

And yes, I do think that others “ought” to disregard logically impossible beliefs, if they are at all interested in truth.

Note that what I am saying is quite different from Shawn’s belief that we have some kinds of other non-reasoning faculties that can “perceive” values in some way.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 2, 2014 11:23am
Ryan Sproull

This has been point all along. Everyone does assume them whether they admit it or not.

You misunderstand me. Your question is meaningless to anyone who does not accept your conclusion. It is a subtle form of begging the question.

You ask, “How do you KNOW that life has value?” as if one could be correct or incorrect in the statement, “Life is valuable.” Values are not known, they are experienced. You might as well ask something, “How do you KNOW that you are feeling pain?” as if one could be correct or incorrect in the statement, “I feel pain.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
April 2, 2014 11:28am

More comments:

‹
1
2
3
4

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Dotcom makes the right call here

The Genesis sale »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.3K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

Roger Partridge: Can the Dead Own Property? Our Supreme Court Just Said Yes in Nikora v Kruger
Breaking Views
Mr Bach in Cathedra
No Minister
11.30am Live from Pennsylvania – Waatea Sunday Morning Political Podcast US Election Special
The Daily Blog
Battle of Beersheba – Canadian Frustration – Balfour Declaration I THE G…
Utopia
"The paradox of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' is that the phrase is used only by the very people who are suffering from it."
Not PC
Word of the day
Hompaddock
Some sporting reflections
Point of Order
Open mike 02/11/2024
The Standard
The High Court says "Land Back"
No Right Turn
Why you should reject the term “Christian nationalism”
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
MILLION DOLLAR REWARD
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
United Rugby Championship Predictions for Week 7
Stats Chat
The Battle for Democracy
NZCPR
Pretty (il)legal
Croaking Cassandra
Where are the food carts?
Offsetting Behaviour
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d