This has got me thinking: Does my individual psychology (which has accrued various arbitrary biases based on my genes, upbringing, books I've read, etc.) limit what philosophical theories I can consider to be good/true? — clemogo
No. Quite the opposite. Your environment limits what philosophical theories you can consider to be good or true. (By environment, I don't mean the 5 square miles of what your brain could reach. Your environment should include the galactic size of everything)Does my individual psychology (which has accrued various arbitrary biases based on my genes, upbringing, books I've read, etc.) limit what philosophical theories I can consider to be good/true? — clemogo
And yet here you are trying to make a theory of your own -- is it your deep psychological biases that make the decision? If this is your conclusion, then what reasoning did you use? How did you reach this conclusion?Often there is no definitively rational reason to prefer one philosophical theory over another (all theories have their pros and cons), and so, in the end, perhaps it is my deep psychological biases that choose which theory I subscribe to. — clemogo
Not at all. They are pretty much aware of biases. Rawls had driven this problem to the ground. (Veil of ignorance or the original position).So, does this mean that philosophers are fooling themselves if they don't think that the only reason why they subscribe to the theories that they do is because of their personal arbitrary biases? — clemogo
And yet here you are trying to make a theory of your own -- is it your deep psychological biases that make the decision? If this is your conclusion, then what reasoning did you use? How did you reach this conclusion? — Caldwell
Does my individual psychology (which has accrued various arbitrary biases based on my genes, upbringing, books I've read, etc.) limit what philosophical theories I can consider to be good/true? — clemogo
Learning to overrule whatever biases one is inclined toward due to genetics or predisposition, is part of a proper education. — Metaphysician Undercover
Still...can a innate predisposition, as such, be subjected to over-ruling, whether by education or otherwise? And what of a good bias? Should my innate predisposition to help the proverbial lil’ ol’ lady cross the street be educated out of me?
You made no distinction between the relative values of our individual biases, grouping them all as biases in general, the compendium of which we can be taught to overcome. To that alone, I make objection. — Mww
....some innate biases can be overcome. — Metaphysician Undercover
we cannot properly distinguish between good and bad biases, when we are already biased. — Metaphysician Undercover
This means we must rid ourselves of all biases, form an open mind, then reassess all those dismissed biases from this newly established position. — Metaphysician Undercover
Skepticism instructs us to doubt..... — Metaphysician Undercover
Therefore we must subject anything which appears as knowledge, to doubt. — Metaphysician Undercover
Go ahead, express something that is not already seated somewhere, somehow, someway. The notion of the ridding of all is absurd - impossible. One may attempt to identify biases and to work with, around or through them, but every gesture is biased is some way. Do you care to retreat from the categorical to something (more) reasonable?This means we must rid ourselves of all biases, form an open mind, — Metaphysician Undercover
True enough, if one accepts that biases are innate. I don’t think I’d go that far, and apparently, neither do you, because you said, “inclined toward due to genetics or predisposition”. — Mww
We naturally have feelings, but can certainly distinguish a good one from a bad one. It follows that how we feel about a bias may be exactly how we distinguish them from each other, by how the object of each affects us. — Mww
And this prevents us from just going right back to a new bias, a new inclination of a different color, but inclination nonetheless? — Mww
True, but it serves no purpose to doubt ourselves into oblivion. If humans are naturally inclined to biases and cognitive dispositions, it seems rather futile to effect their collective demise. — Mww
Besides, I suspect there are some biases we refuse to over-rule, and in conjunction with them, the innate predispositions we couldn’t over-rule without destroying the manifest identity to which they belong. — Mww
Doubt implies dismissal Without the opportunity for correction. — Mww
I get what you’re saying; I just think you’ve gone too far with it, in terms of practical purposes and the consequences for philosophy. — Mww
Go ahead, express something that is not already seated somewhere, somehow, someway. The notion of the ridding of all is absurd - impossible. One may attempt to identify biases and to work with, around or through them, but every gesture is biased is some way. Do you care to retreat from the categorical to something (more) reasonable? — tim wood
And this prevents us from just going right back to a new bias, a new inclination of a different color, but inclination nonetheless?
— Mww
Yes, but the decision is made from a more fully developed intellect (...) more rational (...) develop the full capacity of logical reasoning (...) a matter of introspection (...) a matter of time — Metaphysician Undercover
That's the whole point. — Metaphysician Undercover
So any bias can be overcome, that's the nature of free will, and will power. — Metaphysician Undercover
We naturally have feelings, but can certainly distinguish a good one from a bad one.
— Mww
I don\t agree that we can "certainly distinguish a good feeling from a bad feeling". Sometimes the distinction is easy, other times not so easy. — Metaphysician Undercover
Doubt implies dismissal Without the opportunity for correction.
— Mww
No, "doubt" implies indecision. — Metaphysician Undercover
we need to reassess the principles to see what the problem is. — Metaphysician Undercover
Learning to overrule whatever biases one is inclined toward due to genetics or predisposition, is part of a proper education. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, my point exactly. Yours is predicated on education, the qualifications above listed being more attributable to experience than mere education. One cannot even become properly educated without those qualifications. Or, in other words, becoming educated presupposes those qualifications. Either way, and however reduced. It is education that comes as a consequence, and never as an antecedent.
So any bias can be overcome, that's the nature of free will, and will power.
— Metaphysician Undercover
And that right there is the proverbial knife-in-the-heart of your predication on education. Will power cannot be taught. And while experience is a form of education, absent the stipulation that says otherwise, education as used herein indicates the formal, sit-down-shut-up-and-memorize brand of it. — Mww
.......the proposed counterargument suggests both a reevaluation of conditionals and a reassessment of the principle the conditionals endorse.
With respect to which, I offer, for your consideration: education in the minor and my experiences in the major determine the possibilities toward biases in general, my biases represent a rational determination from those possibilities, which is called persuasion, my innate predispositions judge a priori whether my biases conform to my nature, which is called interest.
Agree with any of that? — Mww
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.