tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post3261908978772794909..comments2023-12-13T16:57:33.142-06:00Comments on Blogodidact: Adding The First Leg to the Three Legged Stool of Reason - Reasons of Reason pt.5Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-42766761826640739942008-09-11T12:34:00.000-05:002008-09-11T12:34:00.000-05:00Ray said "Why even bother replying to someone that...Ray said "Why even bother replying to someone that you presume form the start is dishonest?"<BR/><BR/>?<BR/><BR/>Because of this?<BR/><BR/><I>"No, that's just the dodge, you and he and they, use to try to hide behind a bunch of complexity dodges..."Oh... it's genes...and it's environment together... and the mental software that tricks us into thinking we're thinking"</I><BR/><BR/>Hmmm... I suppose that does read that way. I'll apologize for that.<BR/><BR/>Although it often feels like... "How could they unknowingly say this stuff? How can they believe this? Given their 'beliefs', how can they believe anything?" and it is very tempting to say they are deliberately doing it, but as I pointed out in the comments to my post a while back on <A HREF="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2008/06/bill-moyers-thugocratic-speech.html" REL="nofollow">Bill Moyers</A>, I know that for most, that is not the case. <BR/><BR/>Philosophy has the power to make silent and unwitting conspirators of us all - hence the importance of understanding it; not for nothing was the inscription at Delphi "Gnothi Seauton" Know Thyself.<BR/><BR/>Ray, you try my patience, but no, I don't believe you are dishonest. Deluded... yeah, but not dishonest.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-90844531759276897742008-09-11T10:03:00.000-05:002008-09-11T10:03:00.000-05:00Why even bother replying to someone that you presu...Why even bother replying to someone that you presume form the start is dishonest?Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-88849331247655255012008-09-10T13:48:00.000-05:002008-09-10T13:48:00.000-05:00" It sounds a lot like a geocentrist chiding a hel..." It sounds a lot like a geocentrist chiding a heliocentrist - "You claim the sun doesn't rise, but how else could there be morning?""<BR/><BR/>No, it sounds a lot more like someone replying to a wackademic (or you, same difference) "You say there is no "I" and no "Free Will"... I'd like to know who said that and why they chose to."<BR/><BR/>"Dennett (and I) don't say they are 'illusions', just that their nature is different from traditional conceptions. As I've said before. :-/"<BR/><BR/>No, that's just the dodge, you and he and they, use to try to hide behind a bunch of complexity dodges..."Oh... it's genes...and it's environment together... and the mental software that tricks us into thinking we're thinking"<BR/><BR/>"Duh!" <BR/><BR/>I don't think that word means what you think it means.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-58553553394830079672008-09-10T11:51:00.000-05:002008-09-10T11:51:00.000-05:00Dennett in particular, believes the 'Self' and 'Fr...<I>Dennett in particular, believes the 'Self' and 'Free Will' to be nothing but illusions.</I><BR/><BR/>That's the key problem. It sounds a lot like a geocentrist chiding a heliocentrist - "You claim the sun doesn't rise, but how else could there be morning?"<BR/><BR/>Dennett (and I) don't say they are 'illusions', just that their nature is different from traditional conceptions. As I've said before. :-/<BR/><BR/><I>Merely "picking good goals to meet" without an understanding of what a Good Life is, or how those 'good goals' fit into one overall goal, would disqualify the goal picker from having wisdom or being wise.</I><BR/><BR/>To quote a thinker you respect... "Duh!" :->Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-44947759819933011202008-09-09T11:06:00.000-05:002008-09-09T11:06:00.000-05:00Ray said "Okay, so you don't read much Dawkins and...Ray said "Okay, so you don't read much Dawkins and Dennett, but you're sure they have errors, though apparently you don't actually have to point them out... okay"<BR/><BR/>Ray, after all of these months at OC, please don't show yourself to be just a standard run of the mill troll. I've read enough Dawkins and Dennett to see they have nothing to offer. I've pointed out particulars over the last few months, which you very well know. Dennett in particular, believes the 'Self' and 'Free Will' to be nothing but illusions. <BR/><BR/>In the same way that listening to a politician state that they are for free trade, but that there need to be protections for our farmers or some other particular industries, or a need for a 'minimum wage' (which sadly captures all of the current candidates) tells me clearly that they have no real understanding of economics let alone a proper understanding of Liberty, Individual Rights or the one Right they all rest upon, Property Rights; Dennett's position on 'Self' and 'Free Will' explains to me quite clearly that he has no proper understanding of Philosophy in particular or Human Beings in general. I'm sure he can tell me some very interesting things about brain functionality, but nothing about Life, or how to live it.<BR/><BR/>"Can you point out an "unfounded declaration", though I hate to make you dip into a book you don't like."<BR/><BR/>(slow burn) Perhaps. Later. I've read, and do read, plenty I don't like. That isn't the disqualifier. I don't like Descartes, Rousseau, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Godwin, Marx, Fichte, J.S. Mill, Wundt, Dewey, James, Wittgenstein, Popper. etc, but I've read them. And btw, your boys don't even rise up the level of Marx (which is pretty far down the scale). When you figure out the gimmicks and 'errors' to look for, you don't need to read much further (don't ask. Read). I've read Dawkins "The God Delusion", several articles by both, and suffered through several of their lectures and videos (there's one multi-part video out there with all four together that hits all their low points as well), to see they don't have much of value to offer. Most of which can be traced to their views on 'Self' and 'Free Will', and most of that can be traced back to the start of the list at the start of this paragraph.<BR/><BR/>"Saying they lack poetry is not the same as showing they're wrong."<BR/><BR/>Read all of this series of posts first, see if you can put that in the context I use it, then get back to me.<BR/><BR/>"Oh, and the way I see it, 'intelligence' is about figuring out how to meet goals, while 'wisdom' is about picking good goals to meet - it's on a meta-level."<BR/><BR/>Not surprisingly, you leave out a key point. Merely "picking good goals to meet" without an understanding of what a Good Life is, or how those 'good goals' fit into one overall goal, would disqualify the goal picker from having wisdom or being wise. Also, having One overall goal that didn't integrate with what is The Good, The Beautiful and The True, would be folly as well. A view of human nature that denies both 'Self' and 'Free Will', will never even grasp, let alone integrate proper concepts of a Good Life or The Good, The Beautiful and The True.<BR/><BR/>"It's funny, you always put out assertions like "their fundamental principles undercut and destroy the very possibility of either Reason or Individuality", but I can't seem to find where you 'show your work' on that."<BR/><BR/>Ray. Shut up. Read. This entire blog is about 'showing my work'. If I could condense it all into comment length (this one being a case in point), my blog would be much, much much smaller. If you have an interest, read it (if you need a particular one, the one that focuses on Hume, <A HREF="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2008/03/liberal-fascism-getting-to-root-of.html" REL="nofollow">Liberal Fascism pt.1</A> would be a decent place to start in the middle). If you have a disagreement with how one post presents what it does, point it out. Please don’t demand explanation in the first post of a series, that pertains to what the next 5 or 6 flesh out.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-43508027130660957382008-09-09T08:08:00.000-05:002008-09-09T08:08:00.000-05:00Okay, so you don't read much Dawkins and Dennett, ...Okay, so you don't read much Dawkins and Dennett, but you're sure they have errors, though apparently you don't actually have to point them out... okay. Can you point out an "unfounded declaration", though I hate to make you dip into a book you don't like. (Saying they lack poetry is not the same as showing they're wrong.) I'll take a look tonight at TGD if I haven't given it back to my dad.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and the way I see it, 'intelligence' is about figuring out how to meet goals, while 'wisdom' is about <I>picking good goals to meet</I> - it's on a meta-level. (Example: Nixon - intelligent, not wise. Edith Bunker - wise, though not intelligent.)<BR/><BR/>I did look at that Dennett video, but feel free to point out something <I>in particular</I> you disagree with there.<BR/><BR/>It's funny, you always put out assertions like "their fundamental principles undercut and and destroy the very possibility of either Reason or Individuality", but I can't seem to find where you 'show your work' on that.<BR/><BR/>(BTW, I <I>am</I> working on my 'free will report' on the bus rides to and from work, but right now much of my time is devoted to getting my webserver running again - poor Mac SE/30 died on me. :-> )Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-42337113732272947322008-09-08T23:11:00.000-05:002008-09-08T23:11:00.000-05:00Ray said "You say that all the 'New Athei...Ray said "You say that all the 'New Atheists' "dismiss these episodes as silly...", ", try not to drop context or equivocate. <BR/><BR/>What I said was,<BR/>"You could, as do the likes of Sam Harris, dismiss these episodes as silly, mere examples of Religious beliefs spurring wars based on readings of entrails, of unjust punishments "<BR/><BR/>When I am speaking of the likes of Sam Harris in this context, I am speaking of those who speak like Sam Harris. I don't believe you'll find a reference to Dawkins or Dennett in this post. One of those who does fall into the "likes of Harris" is Hitchens. They both ridicule the idea of Religion playing a significant role in peoples lives or the idea of it being taken seriously in any way. <BR/><BR/>I've read, and have, both of Harris's books, I get his email updates and I'm pretty familiar with him. I've read much of Hitchens, but don't own any of his books at the moment - eventually I'll correct that, because I very much enjoy the way he writes.<BR/><BR/>One reason that I enjoy reading Harris and Hitchens, is because they make their arguments in more of a traditional rhetorical, argumentative fashion - their philosophical ('hard' philosophy) and political beliefs color, but aren't key to their arguments, and they do still manage the form of Reason. They do have a sense of Truth, rather than mere flat fact.<BR/><BR/>The reason I dislike, and read little of Dawkins or Dennett, though I've got one of Dawkins books, is because they try to make direct justifications and arguments based upon a philosophy and epistemology, which is blatantly deterministic, and so flat out in error, and emptily (?)mystic - in the worst sense of the word as unfounded declarations taken without support, that I have no interest in pursuing them further.<BR/><BR/>"But I've seen Dennett and Dawkins (at least) explicitly state that they can take wisdom from literature - including the Bible - though they warn against taking them literally."<BR/><BR/>Wisdom is not just a bunch of lessons learned, steps to follow to gain a flat objective, that is at best cleverness, and denying Truth, Soul and Free Will, is but to turn 'wisdom' on an equivocation into sly or clever set of calculations. See Dawkins Chp 6 & 7 of "The God Delusion" for ref, everything is 'caused' or happenstance, there is no IS in his 'truth-value' world. Though I've said the little 'r' reasoning atheists and the Fundamentalists are two sides of the same coin, the little 'r' boys are on the bottom (and note - this is not atheists per se, only those who deny soul and Truth - see Objectivism for an example of atheists I don't include in the little 'r' net). <BR/><BR/>See Dawkins summation of the 10 commandments form Chp 7... rules... steps... logic chopping how-to's bereft of meaning or poetry - flat, insignificant, and doomed not only to failure, but contempt. Without the Poetic, reason is but dead code, it fails to be Reason, it fails to be human, and delivers us unto something less than human. <BR/><BR/>I can find and pick out several isolated quotes by Rousseau, Kant, or J.S. Mill, that would sound seemingly the height of Reason and Individuality, but their fundamental principles undercut and and destroy the very possibility of either Reason or Individuality.<BR/><BR/>I'd like to give a few points on Dennett, but I'm out of time... a long and difficult day... suffice to say I hold him the worst of the three (if memory serves, the video I linked to you in the past, hits enough of his low points).<BR/><BR/>"If I were to dismiss, say, Gagdad Bob based on, say, Jerry Falwell, you'd call foul"<BR/><BR/>No, I wouldn't call foul, I'd call Fool.<BR/><BR/>"Why aren't you guilty of the same failing here?"<BR/><BR/>My entire series of posts here explain why, but Ray... I hate to say it again, but as always, you miss the point. And as long as you think of thinking, of Reasoning as some variation of deterministic switch flipping, you always will.<BR/><BR/>Gotta go.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-18606316942738697782008-09-08T09:52:00.000-05:002008-09-08T09:52:00.000-05:00Okay, Van, we'll continue this here. You say that ...Okay, Van, we'll continue this here. You say that all the 'New Atheists' "dismiss these episodes as silly", and <I>directly</I> contrast that with trying "examine think, think upon them, maybe come to a first level conclusion such as ‘You can’t avoid discord by trying to avoid it...'"<BR/><BR/>But I've seen Dennett and Dawkins (at least) explicitly state that they can take wisdom from literature - including the Bible - though they warn against taking them literally. Consider how much crap Dawkins took for stating explicitly that he's a "cultural Christian".<BR/><BR/>You also lump all of them together in general, but say Harris' "hides his error less near the surface than they doe". If I were to dismiss, say, Gagdad Bob based on, say, Jerry Falwell, you'd call foul (and be right to). Why aren't you guilty of the same failing here?Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-18023081972172730512007-12-09T06:11:00.000-06:002007-12-09T06:11:00.000-06:00“ It can hardly slip anyone’s notice that the myth...“ It can hardly slip anyone’s notice that the myth of Damocles can be told and related to even though the factual assumptions are evidently absurd. But the idea of a Promised Land and ethnic dominance in the Pentateuch falls in a different category altogether. You cannot deduce a god given right unless there is a god!” …and so forth. I’ve managed to answer to this post too! Just one more to go and I’ll be in phase <BR/>The whole post can be found <A HREF="http://allotetraploid.se/?p=288" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Allotetraploidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09930183638460669684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-33953110925698989412007-11-28T12:16:00.000-06:002007-11-28T12:16:00.000-06:00Good stuff, Van. Often our problem as high and mid...Good stuff, Van. Often our problem as high and middle schoolers was we were too used to 'Realistic' fiction, which is fiction that tries to suspend your disbelief by seeming more ordinary in setting. <BR/><BR/>I think the classics were already regarded as 'too difficult' for us kids. A shame, really.<BR/><BR/>Keep it up...Ephrem Antony Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00032465992619034619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-66575304896272096792007-11-26T17:37:00.000-06:002007-11-26T17:37:00.000-06:00;-)I thought I was going to finish this post over ...;-)<BR/><BR/>I thought I was going to finish this post over Thanksgiving, but the Wife thought it'd be a novel idea if since we were all home and had nowhere to rush off to or things to do, that maybe I should actually be here/there rather than virtually.<BR/><BR/>Ouch. Had to limit the PC life to 30 min a day... so, once again... I'll try to wrap it up this week.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-79807015037936161522007-11-23T09:43:00.000-06:002007-11-23T09:43:00.000-06:00I'm readin' this piecemeal, Van, since my brain is...I'm readin' this piecemeal, Van, since my brain is recovering from a food-coma.<BR/>Not to mention the wrath of the "too much turkey (and everything else) gods."<BR/>I'll spare you the details...:^)USS Ben USN (Ret)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07492369604790651538noreply@blogger.com