Truth and DLJ's manifesto
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-06-2014, 12:56 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 12:39 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(06-06-2014 11:34 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  No science is based on empirically repeatable tests to determine the nature of the universe. Philosophy is the pursuit of getting paid to drunkenly ramble on.
Both empiricism and science require philosophy to define them and prove them by the first principles Drinking Beverage You can't refer to nature if you don't know what nature is in its entirety. Physics knows only what it discovered from the nature so far and it is constantly changing, metaphysics is what physics expands into and can potentially discover in its entirety. We need to refer to the unknown whole somehow and we do that through the philosophical discipline of metaphysics.

Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence... metaphysics and science are subsets of philosophy and each use their respective tools to express and progress the philosophical discussion.
Scientists were formerly referred to as "natural philosophers".
Metaphysicists are often currently referred to as "woo peddlers".

Of course, I'm may not be entirely certain but .... I think I see how friction could result in this relationship between subsets. Dodgy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
06-06-2014, 01:37 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 09:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Principles are true, necessary, general and certain statements about reality. Reality includes itself, philosophy is the discipline about reality and so philosophy can define itself.
No, this is an incorrect statement.

http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios100/...method.htm
Quote:It is impossible to prove something to be true (this dips deeply into philosophy, but Truth is an ever-elusive principle.)

The scientific method is a process which formulates laws and theories based on repeatable empirical evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
Quote:A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the world. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements.

Laws are stronger than principles and thus principles can be elevated into scientific laws if these principles meet the scientific method e.g. are falsifiable, testable and observable and if they are supported by empirical evidence.
Quote:Within most fields of study, and in science in particular, the elevation of some principle of that field to the status of "law" usually takes place after a very long time during which the principle is used and tested and verified; though in some fields of study such laws are simply postulated as a foundation and assumed.

Pure philosophy and theology don't base their epistemological journey on objective evidence, they simply postulate and assume some axioms or a priori foundations and run with it, creating a "fantasy reality" of "what ifs".

Both science and philosophy/theology make the assumption that what we perceive via our senses of the universe are real. e.g. we are not a brain in a vat.

Science then demands that all subsequent knowledge be empirically verified. If it hasn't been verified then it falls into the "don't know" basket, meaning lack of knowledge.

Science does not allow for knowledge of supernatural causes or events. Supernatural, by definition means not bounded by nature, thus science has no way to objectively verify the realm of the supernatural, thus without objective verification the scientific method cannot determine knowledge.

Theology, assumes a particular god's existence and assumes a specified nature of that god. e.g. a god that is all knowing, all powerful, is love, and is ruler of humans, and then create a "fantasy reality" based on that without any need to ground it based on evidence. They even take many liberties in interpreting the words of their holy scriptures.

Logic is a tool, it can be used to infer further knowledge, however if you infer knowledge based on untrue premises, it doesn't matter how precise or correct your logic is, your result can still be untrue.

The scientific method provides a way to objectively observe the universe and to find consistency and accurate predictions. It is a method of knowledge discovery.

Theology provides a way to view the universe and to interpret it based on its own preferred a priori. It is a method of imaginative explanation for many leading to an epistemology rooted in the authority of their religious leaders and for others based on the assumption that god exists, is all powerful, is eternal, is loving, polices the moral behaviours of humans and goes by the name of (Jesus, Allah, Vishna...)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
06-06-2014, 02:25 PM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2014 02:37 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
Hey. There is a misunderstanding. The very idea of science is philosophically defined. There is no way to have the empirical or rational method than through the discipline of noetics. Noetics is based on logic. Logic is based on the principle of identity, which is absolutely impossible to deny. If you deny it, you only confirm it. Any assertion has to have an identity in order to have any meaning, even if it's an assertion denying the principle of identity.

From such basics all human knowledge is defined, including science, cars and computers. This was a big point back in the days when science didn't yet have shiny goodies to show off.

(06-06-2014 01:37 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Pure philosophy and theology don't base their epistemological journey on objective evidence, they simply postulate and assume some axioms or a priori foundations and run with it, creating a "fantasy reality" of "what ifs".

Both science and philosophy/theology make the assumption that what we perceive via our senses of the universe are real. e.g. we are not a brain in a vat.
This is not an assumption. The brain in a vat is an assumption. How did you learn about the existence of brains and vats? Through your senses. So why the hell do you use the idea of brains and vats to undermine the senses? Facepalm It's a popular but bullshit argument that ruined Descartes' life.
If you say what we perceive through our senses isn't real, then I can't hear you with my senses. Big Grin

(06-06-2014 01:37 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Science then demands that all subsequent knowledge be empirically verified. If it hasn't been verified then it falls into the "don't know" basket, meaning lack of knowledge.
Nope. There are two kinds of knowledge, empirical and rational. Rational is primary and more certain within its own domain, empirical is secondary and less certain, because its domain is always expanding by scientific research and is subject to change.
In rational world, 1 + 1 is always 2 in any system of mathematics, because the definition of 2 is 1 + 1, because we made sure to define them that way beforehand, so we are absolutely sure of that. That is why rational evidence is stronger and more primary than empirical, within its own domain.

(06-06-2014 01:37 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Science does not allow for knowledge of supernatural causes or events. Supernatural, by definition means not bounded by nature, thus science has no way to objectively verify the realm of the supernatural, thus without objective verification the scientific method cannot determine knowledge.

Theology, assumes a particular god's existence and assumes a specified nature of that god. e.g. a god that is all knowing, all powerful, is love, and is ruler of humans, and then create a "fantasy reality" based on that without any need to ground it based on evidence. They even take many liberties in interpreting the words of their holy scriptures.
No disagreement here from me.


(06-06-2014 01:37 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Logic is a tool, it can be used to infer further knowledge, however if you infer knowledge based on untrue premises, it doesn't matter how precise or correct your logic is, your result can still be untrue.

The scientific method provides a way to objectively observe the universe and to find consistency and accurate predictions. It is a method of knowledge discovery.
Yep. Do you know where the scientific method came from?
Hint: There is no "general science" with "general scientific method". There are only fields with instruments, technical terms, leading theories, pools of evidence and criteria of falsifying that evidence.
Then there is philosophy. Philosophy of science, if you want. Read your Thomas Kuhn. People think that scientific method is a scientific concept. Nope. No single scientific field can define science in general or the method in general. Only philosophy can speak about science generally. Biologists have their proteins, physicists have their colliders, geologists have their strata and none can speak about all the other fields, because they all have different instruments and jargon. Only philosophy can. When you tell me about the scientific method, you talk about empirical reality in general, which means philosophy. If you talked about the empirical reality of adenine or thiamine, that would be scientific, that would fit into a particular field, not general.

(06-06-2014 01:37 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Theology provides a way to view the universe and to interpret it based on its own preferred a priori. It is a method of imaginative explanation for many leading to an epistemology rooted in the authority of their religious leaders and for others based on the assumption that god exists, is all powerful, is eternal, is loving, polices the moral behaviours of humans and goes by the name of (Jesus, Allah, Vishna...)
I don't know why do you put theology here.
Noetics isn't a priori, it is based on the principle of identity, which is absolutely impossible to deny, we provide irrefutable evidence for it with our very existence. Every single possible objection against the principle of identity undermines its own claim on identity, existence and meaning. If you say meaning is not possible, then why do you assert the right to make any meaningful claims? Who denies the isness, confirms the isness.

I know it's a brain gymnastics, kind of like trying to look at your own teeth without a mirror. We are fond of science, but you have to acknowledge that science is a byproduct of philosophy and it can not deny philosophy or it would deny itself. Just like mankind came from the monkeys, science came from rambling drunk gay Greek dudes!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2014, 02:45 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 02:25 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I know it's a brain gymnastics, kind of like trying to look at your own teeth without a mirror. We are fond of science, but you have to acknowledge that science is a byproduct of philosophy and it can not deny philosophy or it would deny itself.
Theoretical science does have strong philosophical roots, but the significant difference is that science is grounded by the insistence of empirical evidence.

Logic alone does not provide a basis for discovery of knowledge.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2014, 02:54 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 02:25 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Hey. There is a misunderstanding. The very idea of science is philosophically defined. There is no way to have the empirical or rational method than through the discipline of noetics. Noetics is based on logic. Logic is based on the principle of identity, which is absolutely impossible to deny. If you deny it, you only confirm it. Any assertion has to have an identity in order to have any meaning, even if it's an assertion denying the principle of identity.

From such basics all human knowledge is defined, including science, cars and computers. This was a big point back in the days when science didn't yet have shiny goodies to show off.

(06-06-2014 01:37 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Pure philosophy and theology don't base their epistemological journey on objective evidence, they simply postulate and assume some axioms or a priori foundations and run with it, creating a "fantasy reality" of "what ifs".

Both science and philosophy/theology make the assumption that what we perceive via our senses of the universe are real. e.g. we are not a brain in a vat.
This is not an assumption. The brain in a vat is an assumption. How did you learn about the existence of brains and vats? Through your senses. So why the hell do you use the idea of brains and vats to undermine the senses? Facepalm It's a popular but bullshit argument that ruined Descartes' life.
If you say what we perceive through our senses isn't real, then I can't hear you with my senses. Big Grin

(06-06-2014 01:37 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Science then demands that all subsequent knowledge be empirically verified. If it hasn't been verified then it falls into the "don't know" basket, meaning lack of knowledge.
Nope. There are two kinds of knowledge, empirical and rational. Rational is primary and more certain within its own domain, empirical is secondary and less certain, because its domain is always expanding by scientific research and is subject to change.
In rational world, 1 + 1 is always 2 in any system of mathematics, because the definition of 2 is 1 + 1, because we made sure to define them that way beforehand, so we are absolutely sure of that. That is why rational evidence is stronger and more primary than empirical, within its own domain.

(06-06-2014 01:37 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Science does not allow for knowledge of supernatural causes or events. Supernatural, by definition means not bounded by nature, thus science has no way to objectively verify the realm of the supernatural, thus without objective verification the scientific method cannot determine knowledge.

Theology, assumes a particular god's existence and assumes a specified nature of that god. e.g. a god that is all knowing, all powerful, is love, and is ruler of humans, and then create a "fantasy reality" based on that without any need to ground it based on evidence. They even take many liberties in interpreting the words of their holy scriptures.
No disagreement here from me.


(06-06-2014 01:37 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Logic is a tool, it can be used to infer further knowledge, however if you infer knowledge based on untrue premises, it doesn't matter how precise or correct your logic is, your result can still be untrue.

The scientific method provides a way to objectively observe the universe and to find consistency and accurate predictions. It is a method of knowledge discovery.
Yep. Do you know where the scientific method came from?
Hint: There is no "general science" with "general scientific method". There are only fields with instruments, technical terms, leading theories, pools of evidence and criteria of falsifying that evidence.
Then there is philosophy. Philosophy of science, if you want. Read your Thomas Kuhn. People think that scientific method is a scientific concept. Nope. No single scientific field can define science in general or the method in general. Only philosophy can speak about science generally. Biologists have their proteins, physicists have their colliders, geologists have their strata and none can speak about all the other fields, because they all have different instruments and jargon. Only philosophy can. When you tell me about the scientific method, you talk about empirical reality in general, which means philosophy. If you talked about the empirical reality of adenine or thiamine, that would be scientific, that would fit into a particular field, not general.

(06-06-2014 01:37 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Theology provides a way to view the universe and to interpret it based on its own preferred a priori. It is a method of imaginative explanation for many leading to an epistemology rooted in the authority of their religious leaders and for others based on the assumption that god exists, is all powerful, is eternal, is loving, polices the moral behaviours of humans and goes by the name of (Jesus, Allah, Vishna...)
I don't know why do you put theology here.
Noetics isn't a priori, it is based on the principle of identity, which is absolutely impossible to deny, we provide irrefutable evidence for it with our very existence. Every single possible objection against the principle of identity undermines its own claim on identity, existence and meaning. If you say meaning is not possible, then why do you assert the right to make any meaningful claims? Who denies the isness, confirms the isness.

I know it's a brain gymnastics, kind of like trying to look at your own teeth without a mirror. We are fond of science, but you have to acknowledge that science is a byproduct of philosophy and it can not deny philosophy or it would deny itself. Just like mankind came from the monkeys, science came from rambling drunk gay Greek dudes!

You put far too much importance on the Principle of Identity. It doesn't tell us much.

And, yes, there are two kinds of knowledge, analytic and synthetic. Analytic knowledge is entirely up in our heads, while synthetic knowledge is from the world.
We have both, we need both, neither is master.

And you are wrong about science because you still don't get that the scientific method is general. It is the approach to knowledge and is the same in all sciences.
Different kinds of instruments, different kinds of data collection are details - they don't affect the methodology in any important way.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
06-06-2014, 03:59 PM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2014 04:57 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 02:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  You put far too much importance on the Principle of Identity. It doesn't tell us much.
It doesn't, but the little it does tells necessary to prove the existence of knowledge, so we not take knowledge for granted. It tell us where is the origin of the discipline of logic and everything else logical is derived from logic.
The principle is also obligatory. If you can provide a logical, necessary chain from such a principle to some obligation, such as make you sandwich, I absolutely would have to make you sandwich or I'd prove myself as irrational or even immoral.
But so far the only obligation I saw derived from the first principles was the Non-Aggression Principle which Libertarians are so fond of. It is anyway a negative obligation, not a positive one. It says that there is no moral justification for initiation of aggression, so I have a negative moral obligation to never initiate aggression. Which is something I can fulfill even by doing nothing, non-aggressing is something we can all do universally. And universality is the property of a principle. This is why I must consider myself a Libertarian, I am unable to logically disprove the NAP, I can track it down to the first principles.
https://freedomainradio.com/free/#upb

(06-06-2014 02:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  And, yes, there are two kinds of knowledge, analytic and synthetic. Analytic knowledge is entirely up in our heads, while synthetic knowledge is from the world.
We have both, we need both, neither is master.
Do you mean induction and deduction? These are not noetics. Noetics (gnoseology, epistemology) justifies the very idea of knowledge and that there is nothing wrong with knowledge in our heads. It is in fact primary to sensory knowledge, it gives rational dimension to empirical objects. If we can't rationally cognize them, we can't be objectively sure we mean the same thing. So rational knowledge is objective. But it can also perceive objects that do not seem to exist in empirical reality at all, such as numbers or logical categories.

I sometimes think that pure rationalism might be ultimately reflected in reality on quantum level, where the principle of uncertainty knows no middle ground. Similarly, M-theory operates in extremely restricted conditions, in string mechanics what is not forbidden, is obligatory. And as I said, the Principle of Identity reminds me of the law of energy preservation. I do not believe in thought experiments of murdering software-simulated humans in computer by deleting the program. Any software simulation would necessarily take much less energy to run than is the energy mass of the human body.

(06-06-2014 02:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  And you are wrong about science because you still don't get that the scientific method is general. It is the approach to knowledge and is the same in all sciences.
Different kinds of instruments, different kinds of data collection are details - they don't affect the methodology in any important way.
Hey, I said that the scientific method is general! Generality is a fundamental property of philosophy.
Scientific method may be the same in all the sciences, but it is impossible to prove that statement by the actual methods of any of these sciences. Experiment in genetics bears little similarity to experiment in physics or chemistry. Even if you could somehow understand multiple sciences and reverse-engineer the general scientific method out of the particular methods, this was not how the scientific method was originally invented and logically grounded in the first principles.

(06-06-2014 02:45 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Theoretical science does have strong philosophical roots, but the significant difference is that science is grounded by the insistence of empirical evidence.

Logic alone does not provide a basis for discovery of knowledge.
Well, the very idea of justifying empiricism is philosophical. Empiricism was put forward as a rational claim that truth can be known empirically. It can not be any other way, how would you empirically prove that empiricism is true? If we say that humans are mortal, which is a general and absolute statement, we can only prove that empirically by killing ALL humans - including the scientist, who would then be unable to complete the experiment. General, absolute knowledge is stronger than empirical, but can only be arrived at rationally.

Some philosophical schools had objections against empiricism and all these objections were refuted logically, all except one - how can we be absolutely certain that empirical conclusions are true?
The answer is, we can't be certain, but we do not insist on any particular conclusion. Instead we do legitimately choose any object as a part of the method and test it. If anything can prove or disprove itself, it's the empirical method.
This is why empiricism is worthy, but it is also object-bound and can not prove itself in general. There are as many empiricisms as there are scientific fields.

I know it sounds like a mental masturbation, but that's what it means to derive something from the first principles so that nobody can deny it and stay rational. We are surrounded by electronics but it wasn't always so. And there are plenty of other areas where principles are equally strong, but there are no shiny goodies to show. For example, were there any absolute empirical reasons to end slavery? Not likely. From empirical point of view, slavery did cause some whip marks on people's backs, but it also generated a lot of profit. And neither of these decidedly means that slavery is somehow morally wrong and should be abolished. So if people had only empiricism (or tradition) to rely upon, there would still be black slaves today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2014, 05:12 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 03:59 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(06-06-2014 02:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  You put far too much importance on the Principle of Identity. It doesn't tell us much.
It doesn't, but the little it does tells necessary to prove the existence of knowledge, so we not take knowledge for granted. It tell us where is the origin of the discipline of logic and everything else logical is derived from logic.
The principle is also obligatory. If you can provide a logical, necessary chain from such a principle to some obligation, such as make you sandwich, I absolutely would have to make you sandwich or I'd prove myself as irrational or even immoral.
But so far the only obligation I saw derived from the first principles was the Non-Aggression Principle which Libertarians are so fond of. It is anyway a negative obligation, not a positive one. It says that there is no moral justification for initiation of aggression, so I have a negative moral obligation to never initiate aggression. Which is something I can fulfill even by doing nothing, non-aggressing is something we can all do universally. And universality is the property of a principle. This is why I must consider myself a Libertarian, I am unable to logically disprove the NAP, I can track it down to the first principles.
https://freedomainradio.com/free/#upb

(06-06-2014 02:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  And, yes, there are two kinds of knowledge, analytic and synthetic. Analytic knowledge is entirely up in our heads, while synthetic knowledge is from the world.
We have both, we need both, neither is master.
Do you mean induction and deduction? These are not noetics. Noetics (gnoseology, epistemology) justifies the very idea of knowledge and that there is nothing wrong with knowledge in our heads. It is in fact primary to sensory knowledge, it gives rational dimension to empirical objects. If we can't rationally cognize them, we can't be objectively sure we mean the same thing. So rational knowledge is objective. But it can also perceive objects that do not seem to exist in empirical reality at all, such as numbers or logical categories.

I sometimes think that pure rationalism might be ultimately reflected in reality on quantum level, where the principle of uncertainty knows no middle ground. Similarly, M-theory operates in extremely restricted conditions, in string mechanics what is not forbidden, is obligatory. And as I said, the Principle of Identity reminds me of the law of energy preservation. I do not believe in thought experiments of murdering software-simulated humans in computer by deleting the program. Any software simulation would necessarily take much less energy to run than is the energy mass of the human body.

(06-06-2014 02:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  And you are wrong about science because you still don't get that the scientific method is general. It is the approach to knowledge and is the same in all sciences.
Different kinds of instruments, different kinds of data collection are details - they don't affect the methodology in any important way.
Hey, I said that the scientific method is general! Generality is a fundamental property of philosophy.
Scientific method may be the same in all the sciences, but it is impossible to prove that statement by the actual methods of any of these sciences. Experiment in genetics bears little similarity to experiment in physics or chemistry. Even if you could somehow understand multiple sciences and reverse-engineer the general scientific method out of the particular methods, this was not how the scientific method was originally invented and logically grounded in the first principles.

(06-06-2014 02:45 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Theoretical science does have strong philosophical roots, but the significant difference is that science is grounded by the insistence of empirical evidence.

Logic alone does not provide a basis for discovery of knowledge.
Well, the very idea of justifying empiricism is philosophical. Empiricism was put forward as a rational claim that truth can be known empirically. It can not be any other way, how would you empirically prove that empiricism is true? If we say that humans are mortal, which is a general and absolute statement, we can only prove that empirically by killing ALL humans - including the scientist, who would then be unable to complete the experiment. General, absolute knowledge is stronger than empirical, but can only be arrived at rationally.

Some philosophical schools had objections against empiricism and all these objections were refuted logically, all except one - how can we be absolutely certain that empirical conclusions are true?
The answer is, we can't be certain, but we do not insist on any particular conclusion. Instead we do legitimately choose any object as a part of the method and test it. If anything can prove or disprove itself, it's the empirical method.
This is why empiricism is worthy, but it is also object-bound and can not prove itself in general. There are as many empiricisms as there are scientific fields.

I know it sounds like a mental masturbation, but that's what it means to derive something from the first principles so that nobody can deny it and stay rational. We are surrounded by electronics but it wasn't always so. And there are plenty of other areas where principles are equally strong, but there are no shiny goodies to show. For example, were there any absolute empirical reasons to end slavery? Not likely. From empirical point of view, slavery did cause some whip marks on people's backs, but it also generated a lot of profit. And neither of these decidedly means that slavery is somehow morally wrong and should be abolished. So if people had only empiricism (or tradition) to rely upon, there would still be black slaves today.

The Principle of Identity is trivially true.

No, I meant analytic and synthetic. Nothing else you wrote was responsive.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2014, 05:57 PM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2014 06:22 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 05:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  The Principle of Identity is trivially true.

No, I meant analytic and synthetic. Nothing else you wrote was responsive.
I disagree. Facts are trivially true. Principles have far-reaching consequences for perception and interpretation of reality, establishing of knowledge, science, relationships and so on. The simplicity may be misleading, so let's say it outright. Facts are extremely specific (concrete), they apply in the narrowest circumstances (usually scientific). Principles are extremely abstract (general), they apply generally in all reality or generally on some other level. The more abstract principle applies to a greater scale of the less abstract derived instances, not vice versa. Thus is the basic hierarchy of values objectively established according to degree of abstraction (potential variability of application).

What's with the analytic and synthetic knowledge? Why is it simply not rational and empirical knowledge? Does it disprove what I say, such as that objective moral obligations can be derived from undeniable first principles?

ATTENTION! The objective definition of EVIL: I propose, that evil is placing a more concrete value above a more abstract value, thus reducing the variability of application and range of expression of the whole hierarchy of values. For example, a golden teapot is a very concrete thing. If people value this golden teapot above all else, especially above human life and regularly fill it with blood of human sacrifices, then it is evil. How so? A human being has a greatly variable potential range of expression. A human can do lots of things. However, a golden teapot can't do anything. So worshiping a golden teapot and getting sacrificed to it puts the human being below the level of a teapot, golden or not, thus restricts his variability of expression (mostly by being dead or limiting mental freedom). We could argue that the versatility, freedom and self-determination of a human being belongs to the very ideal identity of a human being that we strive towards as a principle. Thus reducing people on kettle-worshipers re-defines them as less than human, less than a teapot and the external, more concrete locus of value (the teapot) violates integrity of their self. Therefore it denies the principle of integrity, which results in a fundamentally irrational behavior. And immoral, because the principle of identity also supports NAP and UPB, which is a basis for objective secular morality.
Identity is equivalent to integrity. We are not all ourselves if we lack some necessary part, such as kidneys, intellect or emotions. Stefan Molyneux uses the concept of "self-ownership", and he's not wrong, but I find it overly focused on economical worries (ownership rights) rather than what it takes to be our full self.

People are naturally free. If you disagree, you use your freedom to express disagreement. Therefore, restricting human freedom against their will is immoral, it goes against our identity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2014, 06:12 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(04-06-2014 08:52 AM)Luminon Wrote:  So, let's start slowly.
- Can two mutually exclusive claims be true simultaneously? Yahweh is the one true god, Allah is the one true god. I don't think so.

ummmmm .... yeah. You do realize that Judaism, Christianity and Islam and all the other Abrahamic religions all worship and revere the same God whether they call it Yahweh or Allah or my big fat dick, right?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
06-06-2014, 06:21 PM (This post was last modified: 07-06-2014 12:01 PM by Chas.)
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(06-06-2014 05:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(06-06-2014 05:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  The Principle of Identity is trivially true.

No, I meant analytic and synthetic. Nothing else you wrote was responsive.
I disagree. Facts are trivially true. Principles have far-reaching consequences for perception and interpretation of reality, establishing of knowledge, science, relationships and so on. The simplicity may be misleading, so let's say it outright. Facts are extremely specific (concrete), they apply in the narrowest circumstances (usually scientific). Principles are extremely abstract (general), they apply generally in all reality or generally on some other level. The more abstract principle applies to a greater scale of the less abstract derived instances, not vice versa. Thus is the basic hierarchy of values objectively established according to degree of abstraction (potential variability of application).

What's with the analytic and synthetic knowledge? Why is it simply not rational and empirical knowledge?

Because they are clearly defined, well-understood philosophical terms.

Quote: Does it disprove what I say, such as that objective moral obligations can be derived from undeniable first principles?

I haven't even addressed those. That's another example of non-responsiveness, throwing in distractions.

So, no, I haven't set out to disprove that statement. However, it does not appear that objective moral obligations can be derived from first principles, only derived moral obligations. Do you have a list of undeniable first principles?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: