Truth and Lies, Right and Wrong

[jayce_xt]

If you don't know what a "truth table" is, then this post is meant JUST FOR YOU. If you do,

This isn't meant to be so much a question or a debate as much as it is an alert, or perhaps a quick wake-up call. To set up the framework for the idea I wish to present to you, allow me to craft a brief narrative.

A being, at some point in time, becomes conscious. It is aware of things occurring around it. It is aware of the sensory information being collected by the various periphery organs it possesses. As a result, it becomes aware of the concept of existence. It lives. It exists. It feels. It thinks. Without any context added, it becomes aware of these vary basic ideas. It begins to form questions: what? Why? How? Where? When? In an effort to answer these questions, the being experiences as much as it can around it, searching for some set of experiences that fill these questions and allow it to better make sense of the world in which it has found itself. The reason for this is simple: there are sensations that the being enjoys and dislikes. It wants to maximize the amount of pleasure and minimize the amount of displeasure. However, it initially has no knowledge of anything about this world, and so must take blind actions to experiment and memorize what happens. In so doing, it is able to act upon the world with a sense of confidence, rather than fear or trepidation.

In many respects, this can be abstracted to a human newborn. As infants, we are only aware of the things we sense immediately around us, filled with virtually nothing else save for questions about the world around us. Were we to be thrust into the world alone at birth, this would undoubtedly be an incredibly frightening and frustrating experience. Having a group of adults to raise and teach us does not simply serve to provide for our needs when we are physically unable to meet them ourselves: it also serves to provide us information about this world that would otherwise require an immense amount of risky trial-and-error to discover ourselves. We very quickly come to trust and rely on these adults. We believe everything (or most everything) they tell us, as the majority of things they say appear to be true.

However, something we are NOT taught (or encouraged) to do in many areas around the world (certainly not where I live) is the process of discerning truth from fiction. We also aren't encouraged to decide for ourselves the meaning of right and wrong. If we assume that all humans have only the best intentions AND that all humans believe only things that are true and disbelieve only things that are false, THEN AND ONLY THEN can we safely say that this not pose a problem.

I think it's safe to say that most of you by this point--like me--have probably had at least one experience with someone who didn't fulfill all of those strict conditions (i.e. someone who didn't have the best of intentions, or someone who believed something was true when it actually wasn't). And thus, I hope, you will agree that this lack of emphasis on self-discovery and self-determination around the world is VERY MUCH a problem.

I do realize, though, that some of you haven't had such an experience. Or, even if you have had such an experience, you still believe firmly that there is no reason to earnestly doubt or question anything you have been told or instructed over the course of your life. This is a problem. There is also a chance--more likely, from what I've seen of my peers--that you believe firmly that there is no reason to earnestly doubt or question YOURSELF. This is an even bigger problem, and I hope to remedy this problem for at least a few of you.

Before you jump to any conclusions, please understand that I'm not making the argument that "you can NEVER trust ANYONE and NOTHING is ever certain." I'm not, nor would I ever intend to. Rather, I'm trying to say that the logical opposite is true: that "you CAN'T ALWAYS trust EVERYONE and NOT EVERYTHING is always certain."

More importantly, I want to tell you that THERE IS AN EMPIRICAL METHOD by which you can DETERMINE FACT FROM FICTION, and PRACTICING THIS METHOD will make not just YOUR life--but EVERYBODY'S life--BETTER. It's called "Epistemology", and it encompasses the ancient art of logic and reasoning. Many of you are probably rolling your eyes right now and thinking, "Logic is just common sense, and most people have that." IT'S NOT.

Logic and the (asinine and probably non-existent) concept of "common sense" are entirely separate entities. "Common sense" is the fallacious idea that there are some knowledges, facts, or informations that are inherent to all humans (i.e. "common sense" is to humans as "instinct" is to animals). I won't explain here why that idea is flawed and probably fundamentally wrong, but suffice it to say, THAT is the actual definition of "common sense". Logic, on the other hand, is the use and study of valid reasoning according to mathematically-proven rules that provide a guaranteed method of determining a statement or argument to be either true or false (as well as valid or invalid).

I don't want to make this too long, as most of you probably don't have the attention span for it. Nonetheless, let me stress this to you: without knowledge of Epistemology, you will NEVER be able to RELIABLY DIFFERENTIATE between truth and lies. Similarly, you will NEVER be able to FORM WORTHWHILE OPINIONS on the difference between right and wrong.

If you've ever felt frustrated at being unable to discern the truth...
If you've ever asked WHY and been dissatisfied with the answer you received...
If you currently feel like everything you know is 100% true and anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong...
If you're just curious...
If you think I'm full of it and want to prove me wrong...

PLEASE learn as much about Epistemology as you can (and point out where I'm wrong, if that's your intent). There is no way I could possibly teach this in a single post (or even thread) without making the mods upset regarding text length, so I'll just refer you to another source, instead. There are many college professors who provide lectures online for free; the following one just happens to be the one that, I feel, is both thorough in their discussion and engaging enough to not put you to sleep.

Every day, you are lied to and manipulated by people. Perhaps it's in the form of a face-to-face conversation regarding a task or question that you expect to have been finished/answered truthfully. Maybe it's in the form of the teachings your particular family/culture impressed upon you when you were children and now expect you to spread to others as you grow up. Or maybe it's in the form of countless advertisements/social media influences trying to convince you to buy a certain thing, act a certain way, think a certain way, or feel a certain way about a certain thing. That doesn't mean you're always aware of it. It also doesn't mean that you're always affected by it. But SOMETIMES, you are.

I know because it was the same way for me until a certain point in my life. I just liked things cause they looked cool. I got into things because they seemed "good" or "fun". I believed things because that was the "right" thing to believe. And I never challenged it until someone important to me told me to question myself. Until I actually started understanding this subject more and looking at ALL the facts in the MATHEMATICALLY VALID methods, and started seeing things for what they really are. They don't teach this in most high schools, from what I understand. Which blows my mind, because I'm pretty sure this should be MANDATORY.

This world is constantly encouraging us to NOT think critically. This world is constantly urging us to NOT analyze things rationally. And that scares the hell out of me. I don't want to live in a world filled primarily with people who are little more than whatever they are told to be. I don't want to live in a world that believes things not because they're ACTUALLY true, but because they were TOLD they're true. Because I remember a point in my life where I was that EXACT KIND OF PERSON, and how MISERABLE I was.

If I reach even a couple people here with this, I think I'll feel a little better. Thanks for reading. And sorry for how long it turned out to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc75YUOOsyo

[Vlerchan]

Similarly, you will NEVER be able to FORM WORTHWHILE OPINIONS on the difference between right and wrong.
You can't form an opinion on right or wrong that's grounded in logic or empirical evidence.

That's where the idea of ethical nihilism comes from.

Your claim is also interesting. Being a value judgement it can't be grounded in logical or empirical evidence. That makes it - using your logic - a claim that isn't worthwhile. Of course I don't consider this a problem because sometimes - not all the time, all government policies should be based on logic and empiricism - statements that are not grounded in logic or empirical evidence can have value and be worthwhile:

It's human irrationality that gives life meaning, it's the source of human freedom. Because if we are what we are not, then we can only beour deviations from our instrumental norms. See, in the beginning when rationalism and empiricism sought to liberate us from our premodern outlook it was a force of good - consider the emancipation of woman, homosexuals, etc. - but the end-goal was to subject ourselves to increasing levels of rationalisation. Human beings became mere instruments, a means to a more and more efficient end. Encouraged through the promise of consumption tomorrow, to fill their empty lives.

[jayce_xt]

Whoops. Sorry. I was rather sleep-deprived when I wrote that, so I guess my choice in words was off. Will attempt to rectify.

You can't form an opinion on right or wrong that's grounded in logic or empirical evidence.

That's where the idea of ethical nihilism comes from.

Ethical nihilsm is not the only concept that recognizes morality (right and wrong) as an abstraction of the human condition. It's easy to confuse it with moral relativism, though, so I can understand your words here. Hopefully, this should also serve to point out that relativism, not nihilism, is the groundwork upon which these words were lain.

Keeping that in mind, then, it's entirely possible to form an opinion on right or wrong using epistemological frameworks. After all, opinions can be formed from anything and everything, be it evidence, persuasion, or whim. I think what you meant to say is that there is no way to PROVE morality using logic, and THAT statement most certainly is true.

It's human irrationality that gives life meaning, it's the source of human freedom. Because if we are what we are not, then we can only beour deviations from our instrumental norms. See, in the beginning when rationalism and empiricism sought to liberate us from our premodern outlook it was a force of good - consider the emancipation of woman, homosexuals, etc. - but the end-goal was to subject ourselves to increasing levels of rationalisation. Human beings became mere instruments, a means to a more and more efficient end. Encouraged through the promise of consumption tomorrow, to fill their empty lives.


The meaning of life is whatever we, as humans, ascribe to it. I would further argue that it's the ability to choose such meaning for ourselves, and not the ability to be illogical, that gives us freedom as individuals. If we cannot choose something so fundamental to existence as the meaning thereof, how can we expect to independently and willfully choose less important things? That's the context under which I wrote this. With a firm grasp of logic, human beings are able to decide for THEMSELVES what is truth. From there, they are able to ascribe their OWN meaning (i.e. opinions) with no influence on the decision save their own.

Without a solid grasp of epistemology, humans are easily manipulated and deceived. These things run contrary to self-determination. So many of us are told what to believe, are told what to do, are told even how to feel about it all. Without the tools to recognize that this is happening, in the first place--without the tools to evaluate all the arguments being presented to us as absolute truth and challenge those arguments--we are helpless but to obey. No amount of irrationality or illogicality can serve as adequate substitute for the ability to truly choose for oneself. Thus, I make the claim that, without a working tool set to challenge what others present to each other, one cannot form beliefs or opinions that are truly their own. And ultimately, the only things that really matter are the beliefs and opinions that we CHOOSE to form.

It's not meant as a disparaging statement when I say, "you will NEVER be able to FORM WORTHWHILE OPINIONS [without the ability to reason]"; rather, it's simply taking the thoughts of every human being to their logical conclusion. Deep down, the most important opinions to us are our OWN opinions. Yet, if the opinions we have aren't our own... what worth do they truly have?

[Vlerchan]

Ethical nihilsm is not the only concept that recognizes morality (right and wrong) as an abstraction of the human condition.
I never claimed it was.

It's easy to confuse it with moral relativism, though, so I can understand your words here. Hopefully, this should also serve to point out that relativism, not nihilism, is the groundwork upon which these words were lain.
I wasn't talking about the groundwork you're producing.

I was talking about the idea that there's no means of using pure rationalism or empiricism to derive moral truths and that's the reason people defer to ethical nihilism.

Keeping that in mind, then, it's entirely possible to form an opinion on right or wrong using epistemological frameworks.
No, there isn't, because there's no a priori basis from which to start.

At best you can presume something about the human condition and proceed from there.

I think what you meant to say is that there is no way to PROVE morality using logic, and THAT statement most certainly is true.
That is exactly what I was saying.

So, from this, moral claims are inherently irrational, and thus 'not worthwhile'.

---

The meaning of life is whatever we, as humans, ascribe to it.
I'm not disputing this.

I would further argue that it's the ability to choose such meaning for ourselves, and not the ability to be illogical, that gives us freedom as individuals.
I figure our freedom to choose stems from our freedom to be irrational.

The rational figuration would be that life is without meaning.

However I was attempting to go deeper than that though. Our cultures determine things to be truths (because logic requires a premise to start from) and these exist as the framework we have to operate within. Then using logic we'll all reach the same conclusions - eg: more efficiency: good, more profits: good, more consumption: good, etc., etc. - and it is irrational behaviour that allows our emancipation from this structure.

If we cannot choose something so fundamental to existence as the meaning thereof, how can we expect to independently and willfully choose less important things?
I don't believe free will exists, so independent and (arguably) wilful choice can't exist either.

But this doesn't have much to do with my claims.

With a firm grasp of logic, human beings are able to decide for THEMSELVES what is truth.
Logic is objective. If we then all start from the same premise (and the premise is supplied within the current metalogical frameowork), we'll all reach the same answer.

From there, they are able to ascribe their OWN meaning (i.e. opinions) with no influence on the decision save their own.
Except the game happens to be rigged.

Without a solid grasp of epistemology, humans are easily manipulated and deceived.
I would argue that without a grasp of political-sociology humans are easily manipulated and deceived.

These things run contrary to self-determination.
I would agree with this in the context of the Enlightenment and human beings use of rationalism to escape from the archaic professed truths of the church (etc.) but rationalism as a force of emancipation soon gave way to rationalism as a means of subordination and control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_cage), instrumentalism.

So many of us are told what to believe, are told what to do, are told even how to feel about it all.
You mistake me for supporting this. I don't.

Without the tools to recognize that this is happening, in the first place--without the tools to evaluate all the arguments being presented to us as absolute truth and challenge those arguments--we are helpless but to obey.
Sure. I just don't believe you're on to the right tools.

No amount of irrationality or illogicality can serve as adequate substitute for the ability to truly choose for oneself.
You equating reliance on rationalism with choice is something you've yet to prove.

Thus, I make the claim that, without a working tool set to challenge what others present to each other, one cannot form beliefs or opinions that are truly their own.
I again don't believe in free will so I don't believe in this independent thought stuff. Regardless.

Logic is objective. If we then all start from the same premise (and the premise is supplied within the current metalogical frameowork), we'll all reach the same answer, and have the same views.

And ultimately, the only things that really matter are the beliefs and opinions that we CHOOSE to form.
Ultimately nothing matters.

What's most amusing about your claims is that they all revolve around some sense of irrationalism.

---

Yet, if the opinions we have aren't our own... what worth do they truly have?
The worth that others ascribe to them.

Things do not have worth without respect to other things.

[jayce_xt]

I was talking about the idea that there's no means of using pure rationalism or empiricism to derive moral truths and that's the reason people defer to ethical nihilism.

Implying EVERYONE defers to ethical nihilism. Which I don't. In fact, most people don't.

===

No, there isn't, because there's no a priori basis from which to start.

At best you can presume something about the human condition and proceed from there.

An a priori basis is always arbitrary to start. You build from the ground up.

A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example "All bachelors are unmarried"). Galen Strawson has stated that an a priori argument is one in which "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science."

A moral claim is, at its heart, a claim of A being better in some aspect than B. Usually, moral claims hinge on pleasing a divine being, though some abstractly refer to the happiness of humans. Thus, I can establish an a priori basis of, "I like feeling good," and build up a set of moral beliefs centered around that thought.

Not terribly difficult.

===

That is exactly what I was saying.

So, from this, moral claims are inherently irrational, and thus 'not worthwhile'.

"Moral claims are inherently irrational, and thus not worthwhile" is entirely distinct from "there is no way to PROVE morality using logic" (i.e. no way to prove which morality is correct). You're confused.

===


I figure our freedom to choose stems from our freedom to be irrational.

The rational figuration would be that life is without meaning.

However I was attempting to go deeper than that though. Our cultures determine things to be truths (because logic requires a premise to start from) and these exist as the framework we have to operate within. Then using logic we'll all reach the same conclusions - eg: more efficiency: good, more profits: good, more consumption: good, etc., etc. - and it is irrational behaviour that allows our emancipation from this structure.

Irrationality is certainly one way to break free from a structure. But is freedom simply the breaking of one's chains? Or is there more to it than that? What does "freedom" even mean? Because you have at least a fundamental grasp of logic and reasoning, YOU are able to ascribe YOUR OWN definition of freedom. Had you simply been irrational, what meaning would you have given it, instead? I guarantee you it wouldn't have been a meaning that you are as happy with right now.

===

I don't believe free will exists, so independent and (arguably) wilful choice can't exist either.

But this doesn't have much to do with my claims.

On the contrary: this has EVERYTHING to do with your claims. With ANYONE'S claims. Even as you sit here, opposed to the ideas I present, it's because you have a very strict, very "you" definition of life's meaning (i.e. that it has none). You dislike the interpretation I have on this same thing, and so strive to argue your point to reinforce it within yourself all the more. At its core, the freedom of being alive is in the freedom to decide EVERYTHING for oneself. If one were irrational, but not able to make their own choices, is that freedom? I believe that's the case. You, on the other hand, posit that the opposite is true: that if one were irrational, but not able to make their own choices, THAT would be freedom.

I think you're a very free person. And it's not because of any irrationality within you, but because you are aware and able to self-determine. Because you have a working knowledge of reasoning that allows you to ignore all other influences, save for the influence that is YOURSELF. And that's a very beautiful thing.

===

Logic is objective. IF we then all start from the same premise (and the premise is supplied within the current metalogical frameowork), we'll all reach the same answer.

This is my point entirely, and I want to highlight that word as much as I can: IF. IF we all start from the same premise--that is, IF we all agree that ONE THING IN PARTICULAR is the foundation of morality or "proper living" (whatever that is)--THEN and ONLY THEN will we reach the same conclusion.

But that's the beauty of choice: we all choose our own foundations. We are all individuals that, while having things in common, are simultaneously unique and separate entities from one another. No matter how good the logical form, it holds true IF AND ONLY IF the premises are true. What I wish to argue is that there is NO SET OF PREMISES which holds true for all humans. Does that mean, then, that the logical form no longer works? Of course not. That being the case, then, each human is free to develop its own set of morals, and is able to still do so while following the logical form. It doesn't matter that our foundations--our "core premises", if you will--are different from one another. The forms can still be logical, even if they differ from one another because of the varying premises.

===

I would argue that without a grasp of political-sociology humans are easily manipulated and deceived.

Bah! Political "science" is little more than a dogmatic bastardization of other, actual sciences. As for sociology, that's merely the study of how people behave. Studying behavioral patterns can most certainly give you insight into a particular culture's modes of deception, yes. Interestingly enough, those modes all boil down to abstractions of epistemological form known as "logical fallacies". In other words, there isn't anything you could learn about manipulation or deception through sociology that epistemology wouldn't be able to tell you just as well.

===

I would agree with this in the context of the Enlightenment and human beings use of rationalism to escape from the archaic professed truths of the church (etc.) but rationalism as a force of emancipation soon gave way to rationalism as a means of subordination and control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_cage), instrumentalism.

Actual rationalism and the "rationalism" to which you refer are very, very removed from one another. One is a school of thought dedicated to understanding the nature, test, and source of knowledge. The other is simply a moniker coined in reference to the drive away from religion as the public increasingly deferred to and relied upon bureaucracy as an organizational and leadership structure (which, logically-speaking, is actually a very inefficient way of managing a society). For some reason, it was thought that the gradual abandoning of religion was, in of itself, rational; thus, "rationalization". However, any philosopher worth their salt will gladly tell you that people do not become more rational simply because they're no longer religious. An incredibly stupidly-coined term on Weber's part, really, as these two uses of the word "rationalism" have very little in common.

===

You mistake me for supporting this. I don't.

Not at all. Rather, I was simply stating a fact that I knew we could both agree upon. If I thought you supported it, I would have explicitly wrote something to the effect of, "... like you think should be done," "... according to you," "... etc."

===

Sure. I just don't believe you're on to the right tools.

And that is an opinion that you have formed, independently of anyone else telling you to do. Unless you truly believe it's your irrationality (your lack of logic) that is causing this, I'd definitely say this falls in line with everything I've said so far.

===

You equating reliance on rationalism with choice is something you've yet to prove.

To which rationalism do you refer? Do you mean that which is defined as "the school of thought dedicated to understanding the nature, test, and source of knowledge"? Or are you referring to Weber's "replacement of traditions, values, and emotions as motivators for behavior in society with rational, calculated ones"? Because those are very separate and distinct animals altogether (pardon the figure of speech).

===


I again don't believe in free will so I don't believe in this independent thought stuff. Regardless.

And that's cool. I think it's fine. Not believing in free will is totally your choice to make. Or is it? Heheh, well, I guess that depends on whether I'm being asked or you're being asked, doesn't it?

===

Logic is objective. If we then all start from the same premise (and the premise is supplied within the current metalogical frameowork), we'll all reach the same answer, and have the same views.

Of course. But, again, the premises aren't always the same.

Ultimately nothing matters.

What's most amusing about your claims is that they all revolve around some sense of irrationalism.

Irrationality? Where?!

===

The worth that others ascribe to them.

Things do not have worth without respect to other things.

Maybe this is just the individualist in me, but where anything concerned... what do I care what worth others ascribe to things? The answer is easy: I only care insofar as I choose to care. Meaning, if I don't care what worth someone else gives to something else, their worth effectively has no worth. If I find someone else's opinion of worth to be worth something to me, then of course, that opinion has worth to me. Similarly, if my opinion about a given thing has value to me, that value will be important to me. But if I decide something has no value to me, to what extent can anyone force me to change my mind? The less rational I am, the more I can be moved beyond my will. But the MORE rational I am... can anyone really tell me that something has a certain value if I choose to believe it doesn't?

Similarly, can I force people to accept MY opinion of a thing's value if they are completely rational? Of course not. A completely rational person won't give a whit what I think. They have decided upon a thing's worth, and no amount of effort on my part will sway them. If they are less rational, however--that is, if they have a less solid grasp on proper argumentative form and common fallacies that might deceive them--then they are naturally more prone to manipulation, and thus, more prone to accepting an opinion or belief that isn't THEIRS. Someone who has absolutely no competence in argumentation or logic, then, will be at the mercy of anyone who crosses their path. Their opinions will be swayed wherever the winds take them, and they will be similarly powerless to understand why. "Because they said so," is the furthest in terms of questioning a belief they will go.

Doesn't that just seem irrational?

[Vlerchan]

I think the problem here is poor explanations on my part. I made an effort in this post to clear it up.

Implying EVERYONE defers to ethical nihilism. Which I don't. In fact, most people don't.
I don't mean to imply that. Of course not all people are ethical nihilists.

It's probably the case that most people aren't.

An a priori basis is always arbitrary to start. You build from the ground up.
This is the point I'm making. Everything is based in arbitrariness, and arbitrariness can't be rational, or else it wouldn't be arbitrariness.

"Moral claims are inherently irrational, and thus not worthwhile" is entirely distinct from "there is no way to PROVE morality using logic" (i.e. no way to prove which morality is correct). You're confused.
What's a rational moral claim that's not built in logic?

You're engaging in semantics.

Irrationality is certainly one way to break free from a structure.
Considering the structure is institutionalised rationality, I believe it's the only way.

But is freedom simply the breaking of one's chains? Or is there more to it than that? What does "freedom" even mean? Because you have at least a fundamental grasp of logic and reasoning, YOU are able to ascribe YOUR OWN definition of freedom. Had you simply been irrational, what meaning would you have given it, instead? I guarantee you it wouldn't have been a meaning that you are as happy with right now.
This is actually a good point.

I would consider freedom, and other such concepts, to be arbitrarily constructed.

There's no rational basis to derive the definition of freedom from.

What we're using as the meaning of freedom - presuming we're using a common meaning - is just something we've agreed on, this says nothing for it being rational or irrational.

Even as you sit here, opposed to the ideas I present, it's because you have a very strict, very "you" definition of life's meaning (i.e. that it has none).
I believe it has no inherent meaning.

It can have all sorts of meanings as people create them.

At its core, the freedom of being alive is in the freedom to decide EVERYTHING for oneself.
This is free will.

As constructs of our genetics and socialisation we also don't have this freedom. Though for the purpose of this discussion I'm quite happy to ignore free will-determinist complications.

If one were irrational, but not able to make their own choices, is that freedom? I believe that's the case. You, on the other hand, posit that the opposite is true: that if one were irrational, but not able to make their own choices, THAT would be freedom.
No I don't.

I posit that one needs to be irrational then one is able to make choices (ignoring free-will-determinist complications), and that's freedom.

Because you have a working knowledge of reasoning that allows you to ignore all other influences, save for the influence that is YOURSELF.
Except I didn't create reason. I choose to use it.

It's not me for sure.

This is my point entirely, and I want to highlight that word as much as I can: IF. IF we all start from the same premise--that is, IF we all agree that ONE THING IN PARTICULAR is the foundation of morality or "proper living" (whatever that is)--THEN and ONLY THEN will we reach the same conclusion.
[To reduce clutter I'm just going to refer to the point made three down from here.]

But that's the beauty of choice: we all choose our own foundations.
OK. Let's pretend this is true:

Where do we derive our own foundations from? If reason is what's within us, and we're not relying on reason by definition, then it must be from without us.

We are all individuals that, while having things in common, are simultaneously unique and separate entities from one another.
If by 'separate' you mean can be abstracted away from our social setting then I disagree.

No matter how good the logical form, it holds true IF AND ONLY IF the premises are true. What I wish to argue is that there is NO SET OF PREMISES which holds true for all humans. Does that mean, then, that the logical form no longer works? Of course not. That being the case, then, each human is free to develop its own set of morals, and is able to still do so while following the logical form. It doesn't matter that our foundations--our "core premises", if you will--are different from one another. The forms can still be logical, even if they differ from one another because of the varying premises
The arguments I was making weren't about premises holding true for all humans. It's about premises holding true in societies. If premises become true within a given society then then truth derived from that is what is considered to be rational, and all other truths are considered irrational, because truth itself is a societal construct.

Bah! Political "science" is little more than a dogmatic bastardization of other, actual sciences. As for sociology, that's merely the study of how people behave. Studying behavioral patterns can most certainly give you insight into a particular culture's modes of deception, yes. Interestingly enough, those modes all boil down to abstractions of epistemological form known as "logical fallacies". In other words, there isn't anything you could learn about manipulation or deception through sociology that epistemology wouldn't be able to tell you just as well.
I meant that political-sociology allows people to determine the accepted, hegemonic premises, as manifested in our cultural and societal norms, and work away from them in a bid to construct a competent counter-hegemonic force.

Because philosophers seek to understand the world, the point is to change it.

Actual rationalism and the "rationalism" to which you refer are very, very removed from one another. One is a school of thought dedicated to understanding the nature, test, and source of knowledge. The other is simply a moniker coined in reference to the drive away from religion as the public increasingly deferred to and relied upon bureaucracy as an organizational and leadership structure (which, logically-speaking, is actually a very inefficient way of managing a society). For some reason, it was thought that the gradual abandoning of religion was, in of itself, rational; thus, "rationalization". However, any philosopher worth their salt will gladly tell you that people do not become more rational simply because they're no longer religious. An incredibly stupidly-coined term on Weber's part, really, as these two uses of the word "rationalism" have very little in common.
I was more referring to the idea of instrumental rationalism, which is what rationalism manifests as within the context of our capitalist political economy, because the premise - efficiency: good, profit: good, consumption: good - proceeding instrumental rationalism holds cultural hegemony.

To which rationalism do you refer? Do you mean that which is defined as "the school of thought dedicated to understanding the nature, test, and source of knowledge"? Or are you referring to Weber's "replacement of traditions, values, and emotions as motivators for behavior in society with rational, calculated ones"? Because those are very separate and distinct animals altogether (pardon the figure of speech).
More-so the latter, as the dominant manifestation of the former.

Irrationality? Where?!
Our premises.

Maybe this is just the individualist in me, but where anything concerned... what do I care what worth others ascribe to things? The answer is easy: I only care insofar as I choose to care. Meaning, if I don't care what worth someone else gives to something else, their worth effectively has no worth. If I find someone else's opinion of worth to be worth something to me, then of course, that opinion has worth to me. Similarly, if my opinion about a given thing has value to me, that value will be important to me. But if I decide something has no value to me, to what extent can anyone force me to change my mind? The less rational I am, the more I can be moved beyond my will. But the MORE rational I am... can anyone really tell me that something has a certain value if I choose to believe it doesn't?

Similarly, can I force people to accept MY opinion of a thing's value if they are completely rational? Of course not. A completely rational person won't give a whit what I think. They have decided upon a thing's worth, and no amount of effort on my part will sway them. If they are less rational, however--that is, if they have a less solid grasp on proper argumentative form and common fallacies that might deceive them--then they are naturally more prone to manipulation, and thus, more prone to accepting an opinion or belief that isn't THEIRS. Someone who has absolutely no competence in argumentation or logic, then, will be at the mercy of anyone who crosses their path. Their opinions will be swayed wherever the winds take them, and they will be similarly powerless to understand why. "Because they said so," is the furthest in terms of questioning a belief they will go.

Doesn't that just seem irrational?
Yes. I think the difference is that I'm not an individualist.

An analogy towards economics (economics is what I study) might help clear up what I mean. In a market, the price (hereafter: value) of a good is determined through market forces. A set amount of a good is placed on the market and demand operates to set its value, it remains valuable so long as the consumers are interested. There might be suppliers that believe the good to be more valuable, but unless these suppliers can shift the demand curve upwards (convince people the good is more valuable) then that's irrelevant. If the supplier can't shift the demand curve she goes out of business - or: gets labelled a crank and marginalised.

So, whilst I admit to lots of subjective valuations exist, these combine to set a single objective value, and that's the one that actually matters.

---

Also, I'll post my thanks here for the interesting discussion.

This is the best philosophical discussion I've had here since Arkansasguy was most active.

Edit: Now I remember who you are. We debated capital punishment: I ran the irritating - but there's no such thing as certain! - devils advocate position. Welcome back.

[jayce_xt]

This is the point I'm making. Everything is based in arbitrariness, and arbitrariness can't be rational, or else it wouldn't be arbitrariness.

If everything is based in arbitrariness, then there would be no logic. There would be no satisfactory distinction between whim and reason. Yet you and I both seem to agree that the idea of logic exists; thus, while many things are, indeed, picked or chosen or acting as if by random chance, there are conversely at least a few other things that don't behave that way.

===

What's a rational moral claim that's not built in logic?

You're engaging in semantics.

To be fair, you're the one who made the statement, "Moral claims are inherently irrational," not me. I actually argued the opposite: that it is entirely possible for a moral claim to be based in logic. And that argument is not the same as saying that "a given set of moral rules cannot be proven to be the correct set of rules that we should live by". I don't think it's at all contradictory for me to say both of my original statements together; i.e. "A moral claim can be based in logic; however, logic cannot prove that it is correct for all people."

Thus, if my morality centered around the building of houses, for example, I could then make the claim, "An increase in resource harvesting is beneficial to my beliefs." That doesn't mean that building houses actually makes me better than those who don't or can't build houses, as there's as of yet no god or technological/cosmological singularity that we know of that can verify this. It does, however, mean that, if I believed that building houses was good, harvesting more resources is also good. Assuming that there was a logical and causal relationship between the two.

===

Considering the structure is institutionalised rationality, I believe it's the only way.

Hmm. I'm just not certain. I don't frame things or speak in absolutes unless I am absolutely certain about the idea in question. If this culture were the embodiment of institutionalized rationality, then the resulting government and laws should not be as irrational as they frequently are. I certainly believe it's possible to break structure of any kind through irrationality; however, I also don't believe it's the only or most effective way.

===

This is actually a good point.

I would consider freedom, and other such concepts, to be arbitrarily constructed.

There's no rational basis to derive the definition of freedom from.

What we're using as the meaning of freedom - presuming we're using a common meaning - is just something we've agreed on, this says nothing for it being rational or irrational.

Thank you.

All I was really getting at here was that even the definition of that freedom--a thing we agree is important--can change with our desires. The more we're filled with the desires of others, I believe, the further our perception of that definition changes from what we actually want it to be (or what we would believe it to be without the desires of others having a say in the matter). I think we're on the same page here, for the most part.

===

I believe it has no inherent meaning.

It can have all sorts of meanings as people create them.

Seconded!

===

This is free will.

As constructs of our genetics and socialisation we also don't have this freedom. Though for the purpose of this discussion I'm quite happy to ignore free will-determinist complications.

You're absolutely correct. At present, we don't have this freedom for precisely the reasons you've provided. Inanimate objects have absolutely no choice in anything; they are simply acted upon by other forces. We, as living beings, have at least slightly more capacity for making choices in our lives. It's not complete, sure, but it can get better. I feel that improving one's grasp of reasoning seems to provide the greatest return on that front; the more rational and objective humans become, the greater diversity and ability to self-determine is generally tolerated.

Perhaps my error was in implying that this was the ONLY way to improve self-determination, which isn't the case. I should amend my earlier statement, then, to say that I believe it's the most EFFICIENT way. That was my mistake.

===

No I don't.

I posit that one needs to be irrational then one is able to make choices (ignoring free-will-determinist complications), and that's freedom.

I see. That makes more sense, then!

===


Except I didn't create reason. I choose to use it.

It's not me for sure.

Ah, I didn't mean to imply that reason necessarily originated within you. And yes, maybe the meanings you attach aren't 100% yours. Considering the nature of influence on our lives, we are always going to be partly our surroundings. By the same token, I still think that reason gives us the opportunity to be more purely ourselves than we would be without it. If nothing else, it allows us to look at ourselves objectively and question why we are the way we are a bit more fully than we would otherwise. Instead of using the core foundation someone else gave us, we can choose one for ourselves.

===

OK. Let's pretend this is true:

Where do we derive our own foundations from? If reason is what's within us, and we're not relying on reason by definition, then it must be from without us.

Ah! By 'foundations', I was referring to the arbitrary moral starting point. Each of us has something that we value. By taking that as a core belief, we can rationally evaluate other courses of action and test whether or not they further or hinder that core idea.

===

The arguments I was making weren't about premises holding true for all humans. It's about premises holding true in societies. If premises become true within a given society then then truth derived from that is what is considered to be rational, and all other truths are considered irrational, because truth itself is a societal construct.

And this is where conflict and problems arise. The current model of society presents a set of premises that it demands all of its constituent members follow. However, humans being more-or-less unique (if even in only asininely minor ways), this will require of many people to force an invalid set of premises into their logical forms. To ensure that they accept, anyway, current social models force divergent members to conform by adopting a logical model that doesn't fit them.

That's why everyone reaching the same conclusion through the same premises is not guaranteed (indeed, is very unlikely), where morality is concerned: we all operate under slightly different models.

===

I meant that political-sociology allows people to determine the accepted, hegemonic premises, as manifested in our cultural and societal norms, and work away from them in a bid to construct a competent counter-hegemonic force.

Because philosophers seek to understand the world, the point is to change it.

Certainly, it helps. I didn't mean to suggest it didn't. I merely intended to point out that it wasn't unique in its utility or effects, was all.

===

I was more referring to the idea of instrumental rationalism, which is what rationalism manifests as within the context of our capitalist political economy, because the premise - efficiency: good, profit: good, consumption: good - proceeding instrumental rationalism holds cultural hegemony.

I see what you mean. I will reference the statement two slots above this one (forcing premises into different models), though with an added note that the premises were not rationally established. It was just sort of arbitrarily asserted that these premises were all true and good, and not necessarily true.

To continue my previous example, it would be like asserting that burning forests is morally correct, as far as promoting house building. That premise would then be attached to the morality of "building houses is good", but its veracity might be questionable to any who were knowledgeable in the subject.

===

Yes. I think the difference is that I'm not an individualist.

An analogy towards economics (economics is what I study) might help clear up what I mean. In a market, the price (hereafter: value) of a good is determined through market forces. A set amount of a good is placed on the market and demand operates to set its value, it remains valuable so long as the consumers are interested. There might be suppliers that believe the good to be more valuable, but unless these suppliers can shift the demand curve upwards (convince people the good is more valuable) then that's irrelevant. If the supplier can't shift the demand curve she goes out of business - or: gets labelled a crank and marginalised.

So, whilst I admit to lots of subjective valuations exist, these combine to set a single objective value, and that's the one that actually matters.

Ah, I remember this. Yeah, I think I caught that meaning from what you said. That was actually sort of the context I was hoping to apply in relation to a person's capacity for logic and reasoning.

One of the biggest game-changers in economics, from what I've read, is the area of marketing. The only reason marketing works is because people are irrational, easily made prey for psychological warfare (for that is essentially what advertisements are). Generally speaking, the more susceptible a person is to being swayed by such things (i.e. the less rational or logical a person is), the more elastic demand for all goods directed at them is. Thus, the more aggressively a product toward them is marketed, the greater the resultant demand for it will be.

The more rational a person is, the less effect aggressive (or any) marketing will have on them. The take-away from this is that marketing (psycho-social influence) artificially inflates (alters) the value of things. It causes people to perceive things as having a value that's beneficial to the group that's exerting the influence. There is no doubt that, for certain things, everyone attaches a similar value. Food and shelter are universally in a constant state of demand. However, beyond that, it's a marketing game. What I was hoping to demonstrate was that value for such non-essential goods--and value for societal ideals and beliefs, for that matter--is simply a matter of how much influence can be exerted upon a person. But, influence is only effective insofar as that person is illogical.

For an imaginary, 100% logical person, then, influence has no effect on their values. They literally decide the value of ALL things, in relation to them, and there is no way to tell them that the value they've attached to certain beliefs or ideas should change if they wouldn't have already come to that conclusion themselves. Conversely, for an imaginary, 100% illogical person, influence has every effect on the beliefs they support. There is no way for them to know for certain what ideas or values they have because, in all truth, it's decided for them by others. This person simply accepts whatever is given to them because they are that easily swayed.

Neither of these two extremes actually exist, of course. At least, not as far as I'm aware. But, hopefully they serve as good enough examples to better explain what it is I'm trying to say.

---

I'm glad to provide such stimulation :) I feel the same. I'm also flattered that you remembered me, honestly. I was fairly certain I recognized you, as well, but wasn't entirely sure until just now. And thanks for the warm welcome; I've been busy, so there's not been near as much time to post here as I'd like.

On that note, I do apologize if I got more than a bit heated during that debate. Interestingly enough, I was invited to sit in on an introductory rhetoric class at a nearby community college around the same time. It was awesome, but there was a hiccup. One of the students there and I got into an argument, and he got more than a bit verbally abusive. Left me feeling defensive for quite a bit, and I know for a fact I was too caught up in trying to make my point to you to relax :P so, again: sorry if I made an ass of myself.

[Vlerchan]

I've separated the following post into two sections, starting from the third point onwards.

The first part is almost certainly relevent, the second part I'm not so sure.

If everything is based in arbitrariness, then there would be no logic.
I think you're correct. The immediate question that comes to mind though is whether this is the same with our understanding of logic. However since I have no clue I'm just going to admit to poor wording on my part:

I was forming agreement with you, all moral judgements are founded in arbitrariness (an unfounded a priori basis), and you build up from there. The point I'm raising is that if we are to remain true to your standard (as I understand it), then the fundamental irrationality of all moral judgements reduce them to worthlessness. Because, whilst we can use logic to build from the premise, the fact of the matter remains that the premise is illogical, then what it produces in terms of claims can't be logical.

I also do mean logical as akin to universally or objectively true here. Logic itself is defined by these qualities.

I don't think it's at all contradictory for me to say both of my original statements together; i.e. "A moral claim can be based in logic; however, logic cannot prove that it is correct for all people."
If we agree that the premises are arbitrary, then a moral judgement can't be based in logic. It can be, and I wholly agree here, derived through logic from agreed principles, but I see that as different to it being based in logic. If it was based in logic, then it would be possible to demonstrate with logic how it applies to everyone.

However, since it's not, and since it's rather based in an agreed principal, it's only ever possible to demonstrate how it applies to everyone who holds to this agreed principal.

I feel that improving one's grasp of reasoning seems to provide the greatest return on that front; the more rational and objective humans become, the greater diversity and ability to self-determine is generally tolerated.
I'm not so sure this is true. I'm not sure how it can be.

There might be a connection between people being more logical-minded, and more accepting of diverse viewpoints, but that doesn't need to follow: our diverse viewpoints and self-determinative abilities our founded in our constructing of different premises, something that doesn't rely on logic. What I think, rather, is that this acceptance rises in tandem more with the rise of atomisation, hedonism, and individualism, where these become standard operating premises within our societies.

If you don't accept atomisation, hedonism, and individualism - consider the secular European far right here - and rather argue in favour of opposing values: social cohesion, purposeful self-restraint, and collectivism/communitarianism, then your use of logic is going to have you arrive at opposing values. That is, if I'm understanding you correctly here, which I'm not entirely sure of.

By the same token, I still think that reason gives us the opportunity to be more purely ourselves than we would be without it. If nothing else, it allows us to look at ourselves objectively and question why we are the way we are a bit more fully than we would otherwise. Instead of using the core foundation someone else gave us, we can choose one for ourselves.
This is what confuses me.

Our core foundation, our premises, our truths, or whatever term we'll use, is founded in arbitrariness. We then use logic to build off it, but there's no means of correcting (or 'choosing') our core foundations through the use of logic, because these aren't based in logic. You seem to accept this in the same post that "we can [only] rationally evaluate other courses of action and test whether or not they further or hinder that core idea".

---

Hmm. I'm just not certain. I don't frame things or speak in absolutes unless I am absolutely certain about the idea in question.
I don't either. Though in my defence I had been up something close to 20 hours when I wrote that response.

Correcting, I don't think we live in institutionalised rationality for the whole part, since the feudel-era relics like the Church, still play something of a role in most countries, even if it's diminished from what it played in pre-Modern times. But, still, for the most part, I think this is true.

If this culture were the embodiment of institutionalized rationality, then the resulting government and laws should not be as irrational as they frequently are.
Except, outside the sphere of social policy, which has been progressively rationalised since the 1970s, the government and the laws it passes seem rational to me, at least when considered in the context of the current system. You just have to stop seeing 'society' as the collection of all citizens, and more like a reflection of the interests of the dominant class(es), and then its outputs start to make total sense.

---

I'm not sure if this needs more explanation. To be safe I'll offer some. Some systems benefit some, but not others. In order to continue existing, a system must self-reproduce, generally this occurs through concious social control (exhibited from a nexus of social institutions, social relations and ideas, these perpetuating themselves as 'common sense' values). In other words, in order for an idea to remain in force, the supporting metalogical framework must be in existence.

So, genuine pluralism doesn't exist - the genuine opposition (communists, anarchists, fascists, monarchists, etc.) are 'cranks' - and can't exist unless a counter-hegemony is constructing and replaces the older one. Until then, all officiated behaviour, is just actors shilling on behalf of different factions within the ruling class, and as such, the outputs generally shouldn't make sense for everyone outside the ruling class.

I certainly believe it's possible to break structure of any kind through irrationality; however, I also don't believe it's the only or most effective way.
I think the problem we're having is that I have a broader understanding of the terms under use.

I see what's rational as encompassing the socially constructed truths within societies, and whilst I've never studied epistemology - I'm not much into philosophy that doesn't relate to politics or law - I would imagine that's not going to be encompassed in it.

However, humans being more-or-less unique (if even in only asininely minor ways), this will require of many people to force an invalid set of premises into their logical forms.
If our premises are founded at a genetic level, and with the bare knowledge about genetics I have my doubts they are in general. Rather, if our premises are determined through an environmental process then this isn't going to make sense, because it's a constant process that has no end to label valid.

It was just sort of arbitrarily asserted that these premises were all true and good, and not necessarily true.
It gets to the idea that truth is a social construct. There's what's logical, and there's what's empirical, but both are conditional: what's logical is dependent on the correct metalogical framework, and what's empirical is dependent on efficient observation. So, from the human perspective, there's can't be a required truth, there can just be things we all agree are true.

The premises are also a required output of our material realities. These are 'true' within the capitalist political-economy, because these are required to be 'true' in order for the capitalist political-economy to exist in the first place. So, these aren't true because they are good and proper, these are just true because they are true.

---

One of the biggest game-changers in economics, from what I've read, is the area of marketing.
You would think so. But the idea, esp. in the US, that we are all rational agents (and the market corrects dissenters into shape) is still quite pervasive. Now, I do think this is true to quite a large extent, but no-where near to the extent that some economists would have you believe.

What I was hoping to demonstrate was that value for such non-essential goods--and value for societal ideals and beliefs, for that matter--is simply a matter of how much influence can be exerted upon a person. But, influence is only effective insofar as that person is illogical.
I question this.

It presumes that there is foundations contained inside us, presumably within our genetics. It implicitly rejects the view that our foundations might not be set and just the result of a constant tug-of-war between multiple and varied environmental (pyscho-social forces), which I believe might be more to the truth.

---

I feel I should also add that the argument I'm making about freedom being found in the irrational requires we take to be true the idea that what's rational (inc. being considered true) encompasses the socially-constructed truth produced by the nature of our capitalist political-economies.

---

On that note, I do apologize if I got more than a bit heated during that debate. Interestingly enough, I was invited to sit in on an introductory rhetoric class at a nearby community college around the same time. It was awesome, but there was a hiccup. One of the students there and I got into an argument, and he got more than a bit verbally abusive. Left me feeling defensive for quite a bit, and I know for a fact I was too caught up in trying to make my point to you to relax so, again: sorry if I made an ass of myself.
I thought you presented yourself perfectly fine, which is why I happened to remember you.

[Bleid]

More importantly, I want to tell you that THERE IS AN EMPIRICAL METHOD by which you can DETERMINE FACT FROM FICTION, and PRACTICING THIS METHOD will make not just YOUR life--but EVERYBODY'S life--BETTER. It's called "Epistemology", and it encompasses the ancient art of logic and reasoning. Many of you are probably rolling your eyes right now and thinking, "Logic is just common sense, and most people have that." IT'S NOT.

Be careful. Logic is not encompassed by epistemology.

Logic is encompassed by metaphysics.

Logic is encompassing of epistemology.

Epistemology is particularly the study/theory of knowledge.
This is not the same thing as logic, nor does it encompass logic, but instead, logic is what dictates epistemology.

Metaphysics is that which encompasses logic. The two of these go hand in hand. Metaphysics is the study/theory of that which is beyond physical (context-free; the realm of logical formalism).

Metaphysics is where our logical concepts come from, and from those logical concepts comes a theory of knowledge (epistemology).

You seem like you fancy some philosophy, so I'll assume you know at least in part of René Descartes and his Meditations (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/descartes/meditations/meditations.html).

If you'll recall, he comes to his epistemological claim regarding knowledge through the use of metaphysical reasoning.

Also I'd like to clarify,

Logic, on the other hand, is the use and study of valid reasoning according to mathematically-proven rules that provide a guaranteed method of determining a statement or argument to be either true or false (as well as valid or invalid).

Not exactly. There's what's called completeness and consistency in logic systems.

Proving logical axioms and inference rules through mathematics would be the worst case of begging the question that could ever occur.

Mathematics is founded in logic.

To then prove logic through mathematics would be like if I went up to you saying something like,

"I'm not a liar. I can prove it -- It's because I'm telling the truth."

Just simply doesn't slide.

Our most common logical systems are consistent but not complete, and there is a very good reason for this relating to what I said above. If you're curious I can go into further detail as to those reasons.

Similarly, I notice in a number of cases further on in your post you make mention to "mathematically valid" - again, this is improper to say.

Mathematics is precisely a subset of logic.

Where logic is the study of reasoning, mathematics is the study of reasoning with quantities (numbers).

Logic is the general, encompassing study of any particular study of reasoning.

(This is also why epistemology is encompassed by logic, as the majority of work in epistemology is proof of knowledge claims through logical and metaphysical means).


Edit:
There are a fair number of other parts to your post that I'd take issue with, such as you saying "true or false" with reference to arguments, but I'll keep my post succinct and address anything else in a reply if you want to read it, rather than writing an essay here.


-----------

Suggested readings from a reliable source since you seem enthusiastic about the ideas:
Basic Logic (http://www.jasonjcampbell.org/uploads/Rules_of_Logical_Inference.pdf)
Epistemology (http://www.jasonjcampbell.org/uploads/Epistemology.pdf)
Philosophy in General (http://www.jasonjcampbell.org/uploads/Introduction_to_Philosophy.pdf)

Let me know if you had anything to say or have any questions. Many more where those came from, too.