The difference between them, ergo, is not logic in the sense one side has used it well and the other side has not; rather the actual source of disputes is the assumptions each side has made in their arguments and assumptions are not a matter of logic. Assumptions are made in the low visibility fog of ignorance — TheMadFool

Common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, for each one thinks he is so well-endowed with it that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they already have.
~Descartes

Change it to which opinions or parts thereof are true. — creativesoul

So you are basically asking if there is a universal method of identifying truth? Again, that would depend on the context.

Let us start by supposing that there are two opposing opinions on some matter. Is there a tried and true universally applicable method of determining for ourselves what's best to believe regarding the subject matter? — creativesoul

It seems to me this hinges on what was meant by "best to believe."

There is no build-up to awareness. You're either aware or you're not — neonspectraltoast

So awareness does not hold in degrees? That isn't my own personal experience. When I was a child, my plans and expectations did not stretch to anywhere near the extent they do now, my recollection of the past was similarly circumscribed. I understood very little of what was going on in the world compared to what I do now.

I think that the most universal experience is one of constantly expanding awareness.

A simple question: Can one be obligated to do something AND free to not do it? The answer to this question will settle our difference. — TheMadFool

As I said, it is clear that people do not always fulfill their obligations.

What would be the point of having the concept of obligation if it dictated action? There would be no "cognitive gap" - obligation would become just another kind of behaviouristic causation.

Well, my contention is that a nonmathematical law leads to chaos but a mathematical law leads to order. — TheMadFool

But chaos has an inherent order, as non-linear dynamics clearly establishes through the use of attractors.

obligatory moral codes rob us of freedom, freedom of will to act the way we wish to act so that we may own them and bear their consequences, good or bad, with the full conviction that the fruits of our actions are well-deserved. — TheMadFool

I think what you are saying amounts to a contradiction.

On the one hand, you suggest that in order to be responsible, we must act freely. On the other hand, you suggest that if a moral code is obligatory, that contradicts the premise of moral action being freely chosen.

But moral obligation is volunteeristic. Yes, it is an "obligation," but an obligation is not a cause. This is clear from that fact that people can and do ignore their obligations.

If, as I suggested, however, we usually only grasp our obligations imperfectly (due to whatever limitations of our own knowledge), then the "necessitation" of moral obligations is really a function of the degree of our understanding of same.

So if we do, in some sense, lose our autonomy in submitting to moral choice, it is in the form of embracing a higher rationality. So how is acting in accordance with the dictates of reason any different in the moral sense than in a positivistic sense? We choose to do anything because our reason leads us to the choice.

Your objection would apply equally to the very concept of free-will: I cannot choose X if there are independent reasons for choosing X....

To begin with, the postulates of moral theory are supposed to be self-evident truths which means we don't actually have a choice. These postulates are then used to infer logically necessary conclusions regarding what course of action we must take given any situation. Here too we lack choice in the matter. — TheMadFool

Do we lack a choice, or are we limited by the scope and extent of our own reason? Moral theories may entail or at least imply action consequences, but only to the extent that they are comprehended. Most people in fact suffer from a host of insidious cognitive biases which may (have been proven to) prevent the drawing of accurate conclusions.

So how can we assume the standpoint of successful and deliberate rational choice. when even attaining this level of pure objectivity is itself problematic?

To respond to the original question I'd suggest looking at the work of George Herbert Mead (which I just started reading).

Mind, Self, and Society explore's Mead's views on the social genesis of thought. As the editor puts it, "how certain biological organisms acquire the capacity of self-consciousness, of thinking, of abstract reasoning, of purposive behaviour, of moral devotion; the problem, in short, of how man the rational animal arose."

I like Mead's approach because it, ab initio, avoids the false dichotomy of the mind-matter dualism by assuming what is, essentially, a systemic view of consciousness.

Working-Class Formation: Nineteenth-Century Patterns in Western Europe and the United States edited by Ira Katznelson and Aristide R. Zolberg — Maw

:cool:

Huxley's Island for a bit of a change

GH Mead's, Mind, Self, and Society

Are there any books about free will which describes how it works? — Syamsu

I have a 2 volume set called "The WIll" by Brian O'Shaughnessy. Billed as a 'dual aspect theory,' as I recall, it covered a lot of ground and was generally a good read.

The conflict between you and I is whether or not things do or do not have multiple dimensions or aspects. — Harry Hindu

The conflict between you and I is that you will never settle on a middle ground for anything. I've read that in others' responses to your posts and seen it in our past discussions. You relentlessly pursue your own very specific narrative without attempting to moderate or adapt your perspective to allow any kind of co-existence with alternative perspectives.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm well aware of the dimensions of a great many philosophical issues and know where I stand on them. To my knowledge, there is no universal consensus on almost any issue you might care to pick. There are current favourites, but those also evolve. Anything I might say is a summary of what I believe as well as a brief account of the reasons for that belief. I'm always careful to point out what is my opinion, I never claim to have an authoritative answer.

It seems like this has to be done prior to being socialized. — Harry Hindu

Except that capacities emerge phylogenetically, not just ontogenetically. So for any individual capacity you can equally well point to its collective origin. I think trying to authoritatively say what something is instead of acknowledging that most things have multiple dimensions or aspects is one of the biggest sources of unnecessary conflict.

t seems to me that you have to rational prior to being socialized — Harry Hindu

Would merely having the potential for rationality be a sufficient condition of socialization?

but to write with even the worst of audiences i — Pfhorrest

Perhaps it is just the I'm sure unintended pejorative tone, to which earlier referred? Maybe "least receptive"?

Mysticism to me is just the difference between the abstract and the mundane — neonspectraltoast

I always found abstraction itself to be somewhat mystical.

Why doesn't it exemplify the care and clarity it recommends instead of this sensationalist macho hyperbolic tone? No, i think it betrays a real attitude that is as problematic as it is prevalent in academia. — unenlightened

This seems a valid observation.

If I dispute the factuality (btw, what's the difference between factuality and fact?) of 1, then how do we know we are talking about the same thing - us communicating? I've asked that question three times now. It seems to me that my dispute is what communication is. — Harry Hindu

We know that we are talking about the same thing when we achieve consensus. Then our communications are co-ordinated. I fully admit, this is an intersubjective (social) approach. That's consistent with Popper, Habermas, generally, the direction in which I am moving now. If you don't have any use for a consensus/communication perspective, well, then we aren't going to be able to communicate, are we? From my current philosophical perspective, there is no rationality at a purely individual level; rationality necessarily emerges as a social (cultural) phenomenon.

1. It is a fact that we are communicating now.
2. Because I have presented this fact, it is (trivially) my opinion that this is a fact.
3. You can dispute the factuality of 1 (because you don't believe that we are communicating).
4. Nevertheless, you can't dispute my opinion that 1 is a fact (that's what makes it an opinion).

It isn't a regress or a circularity, it is simply that the fact does not exist in some kind of perfect, objective vacuum, it is situated in a specific context, which is permeated by subjectivity. It isn't one thing, or the other, it is both. You can attempt to abstractly isolate one or the other. That may even be a legitimate exercise, depending on the reason. It doesn't alter the fact (that facts qua statements of beliefs) are likewise opinions).

Yikes!! What does that say about peer review? — Mww

:lol:

You could start solving it by backing off the statement that all we ever talk about is our own opinions — Harry Hindu

I didn't say that. I said our own opinion about whatever it is we are talking about. You have missed the nuance of the statement.

many of "the great philosophers" are not in such a category — boethius

Absolutely! But that is not necessarily a point in their favour. Just because something is great, doesn't mean it couldn't have been better.

Good thing you don't necessarily disagree, as it's not an ad hominen. — boethius

Yeah, it was tongue in cheek.

Whoever taught you this is an idiot.

Essentially all of the philosophical cannon, however you want to define it, does not assume the audience is stupid, lazy and mean, nor any combination. Which of the philosophers implemented such maxims?

You are referring to advice intended for commercial writing, not philosophical writing — boethius

I don't necessarily endorse the implied ad hominen here, but I do concur that this mnemonic falls more in the way of an heuristic than a principle. I used write in tortuously complex sentences that required you to be completely in sync with the ideas. I liked the way it read. Eventually I realized that readability was, in itself, a philosophical virtue. All I did was break things up, turn subordinate clauses into sentences.

Simple, concise, clear. I think think these are the underlying philosophical virtues to which writing should aspire. I think these are the underlying objectives of these heuristics.

I wonder if you would mind mentioning the names of these two books. — ZzzoneiroCosm

The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol 1: Reason & the Rationalization of Society
The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol 2: Lifeworld & System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason

Tough reads. Das Kapital is candy compared to those.

I was just endorsing your previous conversation, I came to the same conclusion on this thread a few days ago.

?

You are repeating yourself. Presumably you can do this endlessly — A Seagull

:up:

That is one of the core questions of epistemology isn't it? We are constantly fighting a battle to find a universally valid methodology for stepping outside of subjectivity. The scientific method is one, and it works well, to the extent the the subject matter is amenable. Systems theory uses a more abstract set of fundamental entities, but follows methods that are still essentially scientific. — Pantagruel

I believe I already addressed your concerns about the relationship between the subjective and the objective, per above. I didn't pretend to solve it, I just situated it in a context of rational discussion.

The problem is that if we can only ever talk about our opinions, then what is the relationship between our opinions and what they are about? — Harry Hindu

Quite. That is one of the core questions of epistemology isn't it? We are constantly fighting a battle to find a universally valid methodology for stepping outside of subjectivity. The scientific method is one, and it works well, to the extent the the subject matter is amenable. Systems theory uses a more abstract set of fundamental entities, but follows methods that are still essentially scientific.

Anyway, I've re-read my replies on the distinction between reason and logic and they are clear and well-founded, so I'm not going to waste time trying to persuade someone who clearly isn't open to reasoned arguments that don't coincide with their own presuppositions. Possibly they will be useful to someone else though.

I could literally go on writing for days without stopping and give, at best, a possible glimpse of a gist of what slumbers within. It’s the human condition. It’s practically the same for everyone. — I like sushi

I have the citation somewhere, but I think it was von Bertalanffy who said that what justifies any metaphysical theory is ultimately its elegance.....

The problem is that MadFool was talking about mysticism, not his opinion of it. — Harry Hindu

That seems to me to be a bit of a non-starter. Everyone is always talking about their own opinion of whatever it is they are talking about. You can purport and pretend to objectivity, this aspect can never really be discounted. You are splitting hairs.

Logic reduces to reasons. If you don't have reasons, or your reasons don't support the conclusion (as in a contradiction), then you simply aren't being logical. — Harry Hindu

Sorry, but this is just not true. There are lots of solid systems based on reasons which do not equate with logic. Popper's entire method of critical realism. I just finished two books by Habermas on communicative action which provide an extremely robust account of the evolution and reification of reason as a social construct. Your position is simply narrow.

Moreover, logic does not reduce to reasons: logic is a system of formalized relationships. And reasons certainly do not reduce to logic (although they may utilize it of course).

Edit: ie. https://www.princeton.edu/~harman/Papers/RandL.pdf - why logic is not reason and vice versa

Then why are you even here trying to put it into words? Why are you even trying to express something that you say is inexpressible? — Harry Hindu

Because expressing an opinion about mysticism was the subject of the thread.

I don't see how non-linear thinking would be easier than linear thinking. If you want to abandon logic, then you are abandoning coherency. — Harry Hindu

Non-linear dynamics is not illogical, it represents a different form of logic, one in which order is revealed in the apparent disorder which characterizes complex-natural systems.

Likewise, reason does not reduce to logic, but is a communicative process in which defensible hypotheses are supported by reasons which are not reducible to material facts, but may constitute 'plausible narratives' (depending on the subject matter, as in this case).

Others however, will learn to recognize their own mystical experience, and seek to better understand it. This will drive them toward associating with people who have the same object, where they can discuss and learn about mystical things. — Metaphysician Undercover

I would agree precisely. "Mysticism" is no less a valid experimental or theoretical domain than any other. It is just a question of the nature of its "utility" - most people labour under a very parochial concept of utility, which modern media (driven by de-valued/monetized objectives) promotes.

As I see it there are two kinds of insight then. One kind, something Pythagoras might've experienced, can be expressed in words - clear propositions - and the other kind, the mystical variety, that simply defies any attempt to word them. — TheMadFool

I think this is a difference of degree, and not of kind. Mystical experiences are not impervious to communication (I don't limit myself to language here, because I think communication is more fundamental than language. You can have communication without language, but not language without communication). They are just more difficult to communicate. Think Kant's antinomies of reason. Both sides of the antinomy can be formulated, but the antinomy arises out of the juxtaposition of the two contradictory positions. Is, in essence, the "gap" or tension between the linguistic forumlations, which nevertheless produces an insight.

I have been what I would classify as a seeker from a very early age. I considered entering a Zen monastery when I was 25, visited and did the intake interview. Practiced yoga, meditation, martial arts, studied every kind of philosophy and science I could. Did a lot of comparative religion too. In my half-century I have had more than a few experiences that really solidified my certainty of there being much more than meets the eye shall we say.

The secret for me is I always maintain a hypothetical or experimental attitude. I'm not looking for any kind of particular confirmation (which is where I think the search degenerates into something contrived). I am just....continuously gathering information.

If it can't be expressed (in words), it can't be understood. — TheMadFool

Do you believe that when Pythagoras first grasped the relationship between the squares on the sides of a right-angled triangle it popped into his head in propositional form?

It seems pretty clear to me that there is an incipient event of understanding which is pre-verbal and intuitive. Any kind of reasoning about the nature of learning and theorization would never get started if the mind were not capable of intuitively grasping something novel. You would be in an infinite circularity of already known propositions.

FI you can work from home, theres a good chance yours is a bullshit job. — Banno

Any mid-level and up IT person can probably work from home (I can with no loss of productivity). Pretty sure that none of those are bullshit jobs.

Currently I keep the Covid public health test forms updated (they have been evolving quickly) and keep the doctors and nurses who we set up to work from home running smoothly. Pretty sure none of those are bullshit jobs either.

MAXIMUM PRODUCTIVITY — Frank Apisa

I think the question being bruited is, is this a material value, or a social value?

Have you ever "understood" anything that simply can't be worded? — TheMadFool

Well, if understanding represents something in addition to what is explicitly presented in a proposition, then by definition it is "beyond words." So perhaps all understanding has this dimension; and it is just more evident in some types of claims than others. I am leaning in the direction of hermeneutics now.