How consistent are your beliefs?

1246

Comments

  • barakabaraka Posts: 1,268
    Logic does not equal truth, but is a way of reasoning by which one can determine the quality and truth/falsity of statements given that the set of premises that builds under the logic is true. A bit like math really, just with propositions.

    Peace
    Dan

    dan, this is an interesting supposition. Are you suggestion that 'Truth' can be illogical and paradoxical? (I'm playing devil's advocate, btw). I would love to hear you expound on this. ffg, would suggest that if something is illogical or paradoxical then its premise is faulty. I asked this question earlier (angelica had a great reponse) and I like to get your take on it. How important is it to be consistent in your beliefs and does lack of consistency show a misunderstanding of the 'Truth'?
    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
    but the illusion of knowledge.
    ~Daniel Boorstin

    Only a life lived for others is worth living.
    ~Albert Einstein
  • baraka wrote:
    dan, this is an interesting supposition. Are you suggestion that 'Truth' can be illogical and paradoxical? (I'm playing devil's advocate, btw). I would love to hear you expound on this.

    Uh-oh ;)
    ffg, would suggest that if something is illogical or paradoxical then its premise is faulty.

    Yes I would.
  • and it would go on something like "based on given premises and axioms".


    Of which that would be an example, surely.

    For something to be logical, it must be consistent within a set of premises. These premises are not set in stone, and might give different logics if altered. An example from bookreading here. I like reading imaginative books in the sf/fantasy vein. The settings and worlds are often not logical according to our own true world, but the plot may develop logically, given the new premises of these worlds. So although the plot in itself would be illogical to our experienced standards, it may very well be logical according to it's own premises, for instance presence of timetravel, hyperspace, and above lightspeed engines. At least the really good fiction does that.

    Logic does not equal truth, but is a way of reasoning by which one can determine the quality and truth/falsity of statements given that the set of premises that builds under the logic is true. A bit like math really, just with propositions.

    Just thought I'd embellish, as your answer seemed a bit on the short side. :)

    Peace
    Dan

    For something to be logical, it must certainly be "consistent within a set of premises". However, those premises must also be logical if one is interested in truth. What you're describing above is where the term "good fiction" comes from :)
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,053
    kenny olav wrote:
    Well, I took no direct hits but did bite two bullets. I was then awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction, which is undoubtedly the greatest honor ever bestowed upon me by a computer program/philosophy book advertisement.
    I've been meaning to point out how funny I find this --not to mention very true! and dead on in representing the agenda beneath such "objective" tests.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • barakabaraka Posts: 1,268

    Yes I would.

    Just like that silly field of science called quantum physics ;)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference
    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
    but the illusion of knowledge.
    ~Daniel Boorstin

    Only a life lived for others is worth living.
    ~Albert Einstein
  • baraka wrote:
    Just like that silly field of science called quantum physics ;)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference

    Hey, people will believe anything:

    http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

    ;)
  • barakabaraka Posts: 1,268
    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
    but the illusion of knowledge.
    ~Daniel Boorstin

    Only a life lived for others is worth living.
    ~Albert Einstein
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,053
    :) Somebody has done their homework!
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • baraka wrote:

    Now that's just a low blow ;)
  • thankyougrandmathankyougrandma Posts: 1,182
    i stopped at the lock ness question...
    "L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
    -Jean-Jacques Rousseau
  • baraka wrote:

    This is some good stuff:

    "Rand believes that the elements of human self-interest are objective. All human beings have objective biological and psychological needs, and one's actual interests are identified by reference to these needs. Mere whim-fulfillment is therefore not constitutive of human well-being because one's whims might be at odds with one's actual needs. Moreover, the character traits of the "selfish" brute are not compatible with any human being's actual, rational interests. Humans live in a social world; in order to maximize the value of their interactions with others, they should cultivate a firm commitment to the virtues of rationality, justice, productiveness, and benevolence. A commitment to these virtues naturally precludes such brutish behavior.

    Rand argues that the conventional understanding of selfishness implies an altruistic framework for thinking about ethics. Within this framework, the question, "Who is the beneficiary of this act?" is the most important moral question: right acts are acts undertaken for the "benefit" of others and wrong acts are acts undertaken for one's own "benefit." Rand believes that this approach passes over the crucial ethical questions: "What are values?" and "What is the nature of the right and the good?" In addition, the altruist framework suggests a dichotomy between actions that promote the interests of others to one's own detriment and actions that promote ones own interests to the detriment of others. Rand rejects this dichotomy and affirms the harmony of human interests."
  • OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    baraka wrote:
    dan, this is an interesting supposition. Are you suggestion that 'Truth' can be illogical and paradoxical? (I'm playing devil's advocate, btw). I would love to hear you expound on this. ffg, would suggest that if something is illogical or paradoxical then its premise is faulty. I asked this question earlier (angelica had a great reponse) and I like to get your take on it. How important is it to be consistent in your beliefs and does lack of consistency show a misunderstanding of the 'Truth'?

    I'm saying that what "truth" you get, depends on what premises you build your argument and reasoning. Depending on A premises may yield X as truth, while B premises may yield Y truth. The premises defines what kind of truth and what truth you can get. Logic is much like math. You build on axioms whose truth you deem self-evident or certain, and everything you build further upon that depends ultimately on the correctness of the assumed/self-evident premises. Which is why I like to define it a bit wider to leave room for that.

    Consistency is in this vein a good thing, however, I have no problem with ambivalence, because I have no delusions of man's reason's grandeur. We do what we can with what we got. The closest we can get to truth may well be contradictive or ambivalent. This will rub ffg all the wrong way, I know. He's in the aristotelian tradition of logic and reality. That tradition do not have neither hegemony nor sole claim to "truth". And it usually demands a bit over the top belief in man's "reason" for my tastes. But this is one of the more fundamental conflicts between me and ffg.

    My point was really that logic also is used in a more conventional sense, as a synonym to coherent. In that sense, logic is indeed based upon premises, which I tried to illustrate with imaginative literature. That sense of logic needs have no connection at all with ffg's ultimate logic...

    And, really, I like to set the questionmark after ffg's "and this is how it is, so there" statements. :)

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    For something to be logical, it must certainly be "consistent within a set of premises". However, those premises must also be logical if one is interested in truth. What you're describing above is where the term "good fiction" comes from :)

    Which is why I'm wondering about your funky definition of "logic". Previous squabbles have often revealed that you mean something quite else by a term than many others (particularly me). Logic builds on premises. Fundamental premises. You always start with a premise/axiom, in your case "what we see/sense is what is" (A=A). The logic comes from the consistency you can derive from that premise onto other situations and circumstances. And when you lump it all together and see it both ways, both is logically tied to eachother of course.

    It is not an unusual vein of logic, I'm not saying that. But I am saying that fundamentally, you rely on the truth and logic of one/some premises/axioms from which you reduce no further, and hence do not lead up to strictly logically. Like a math equation for graphs, where you can get a result of the equaton by entering numbers, so is logic. The number entered is optional, and if changed will yield different, but logical and according to the equation, results.

    You insert A=A as that metaphorical number, and thus rely on that to be true. I question it's truth, as you know, or at least do not see it as unproblematic nor self-evident.

    but we can go on for days, cant we? ;)

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • And it usually demands a bit over the top belief in man's "reason" for my tastes.

    And by what method did you come to that conclusion?

    :)
  • You insert A=A as that metaphorical number, and thus rely on that to be true. I question it's truth, as you know, or at least do not see it as unproblematic nor self-evident.

    All logic, as you say, requires a central axiom. And any central axiom will end up being self-evident.
  • OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    And by what method did you come to that conclusion?
    My intuition, philosophy and so forth. I dont set myself outside this you know. Just saying that you (or me) may indeed not be right, and outline why.
    All logic, as you say, requires a central axiom. And any central axiom will end up being self-evident.
    Precisely. You're getting the hang of it :)

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • My intuition, philosophy and so forth. I dont set myself outside this you know. Just saying that you (or me) may indeed not be right, and outline why.

    So in other words you demonstrate the weakness of reason via the process of reason. Interesting.
    Precisely. You're getting the hang of it :)

    It's not complicated.
  • OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    So in other words you demonstrate the weakness of reason via the process of reason. Interesting.
    As i said, I use what I have. But I am aware that "reason" is not this objective entity and maybe different for different people. So, yeah, maybe I am using reason to point out the weakness of reason. What of it?

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • As i said, I use what I have. But I am aware that "reason" is not this objective entity and maybe different for different people. So, yeah, maybe I am using reason to point out the weakness of reason. What of it?

    Just seems a little conflicting...that's all.
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,053
    Dan said: "And it usually demands a bit over the top belief in man's "reason" for my tastes."

    I agree with him, and the operative words, imo, are over the top belief. I don't find any contradiction for one to be a fan of using reason, and to use it when appropriate, and at the same time to not agree with having an over-the-top-belief in reason.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • angelica wrote:
    Dan said: "And it usually demands a bit over the top belief in man's "reason" for my tastes."

    I agree with him, and the operative words, imo, are over the top belief. I don't find any contradiction for one to be a fan of using reason, and to use it when appropriate, and at the same time to not agree with having an over-the-top-belief in reason.

    That's quite fine. I don't see a contradiction either.
  • LazLaz Posts: 118
    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965


    This quote is funny because it makes 2 absolute claims ("Every judgment...") yet it says that absolute knowledge is 'monstrous.'

    Isn't the 2nd sentence also an absolute? You would have to possess absolute knowledge to truthfully be able to make that statement.

    I don't know maybe it's just me... :)
  • Laz wrote:
    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965


    This quote is funny because it makes 2 absolute claims ("Every judgment...") yet it says that absolute knowledge is 'monstrous.'

    Isn't the 2nd sentence also an absolute? You would have to possess absolute knowledge to truthfully be able to make that statement.

    I don't know maybe it's just me... :)

    It is true that every judgement teeters on the brink of error. Every judgement could easily have gone the other way.

    Can't a person be declaritive anymore? I guess he should have added IMO at the end of his quote.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    Laz wrote:
    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965


    This quote is funny because it makes 2 absolute claims ("Every judgment...") yet it says that absolute knowledge is 'monstrous.'

    Isn't the 2nd sentence also an absolute? You would have to possess absolute knowledge to truthfully be able to make that statement.

    I don't know maybe it's just me... :)

    You know, it's kinda like the only people I'm intolerant against, are intolerant people. An absolute claim to make no absolute claims is fair enough to me. Perhaps it should read "apart from this" at the start or something...

    But it's just being nitpicking and cantankerous, really. The point is what it reads. Claiming absolute knowledge is the first step to becoming a monster, since you will disregard other possibilities and other points of view.

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • Laz wrote:
    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965


    This quote is funny because it makes 2 absolute claims ("Every judgment...") yet it says that absolute knowledge is 'monstrous.'

    Isn't the 2nd sentence also an absolute? You would have to possess absolute knowledge to truthfully be able to make that statement.

    I don't know maybe it's just me... :)

    Well done. Very well done.
  • It is true that every judgement teeters on the brink of error. Every judgement could easily have gone the other way.

    Sigh. Have you no control over those "judgements"?
    Can't a person be declaritive anymore?

    Not according that that quote.
  • You know, it's kinda like the only people I'm intolerant against, are intolerant people. An absolute claim to make no absolute claims is fair enough to me. Perhaps it should read "apart from this" at the start or something...

    Sigh. If one wishes to impugn absolutes with an absolute, one needs a mirror not a pulpit.
    But it's just being nitpicking and cantankerous, really. The point is what it reads. Claiming absolute knowledge is the first step to becoming a monster, since you will disregard other possibilities and other points of view.

    Claiming absolute knowledge doesn't "disregard other possibilities". It chooses one over the others.

    To live life and not commit suicide is to "disregard other possibilities", it is not? It is to make a judgement, is it not? It is to state absolutley that one wishes to live, is it not?
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,053
    It is true that every judgement teeters on the brink of error. Every judgement could easily have gone the other way.
    Sigh. Have you no control over those "judgements"?
    What I hear abook saying is that the first statement is fair, because it is not being absolute--rather it's covering the bases with the qualification that it can potentially go over the brink and at the same time it doesn't have to.

    Great point, abook. The first statement, although using the word "every" is not an absolute because it further goes on to identify that it can go either way. Therefore, as you say, it IS true.

    farfromglorified, how is she in any way implying there is not control over judgment? Rather, she's being objective=every judgement CAN go either way.

    This is about something that appears contradictory on one level--we have the appearance of saying opposite things, and yet when we step to a wider encompassing perspective--in this case the actual message of the quote--he ties the opposites together in a higher order, where they make perfect sense.

    This is how psychological health and resolution of contradictions works. If one cannot look to the higher level, but instead chooses to only look at the opposites, one will not get the message, or the resolution. This is exactly my problem with logic, that if oblivious to the big picture it can be quite innacurate.

    If we can accept this, we can embrace all our inconsistencies--the full breadth of our inner variations--and be our full selves. By embracing what we don't understand, we can then by that acceptance, give ourselves permission to understand.

    On the other hand, with the western propensity to strive to BE logical (as opposed to using logic as a tool), we must reject conflicting, yet existing aspects of ourselves. And by rejecting rather than understanding "contradictory" aspects of ourselves others, we act out inner self rejection. Integrating the rejected shadow of humanity is about becoming whole and about realising it was flawed logic that caused us to reject major parts of ourselves to begin with--logic without a healthy, understanding context.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,053
    Sigh. If one wishes to impugn absolutes with an absolute, one needs a mirror not a pulpit.
    Does this apply to your own statement here?
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,053
    Laz wrote:

    Isn't the 2nd sentence also an absolute? You would have to possess absolute knowledge to truthfully be able to make that statement.

    If you make an absolute claim, and yet if in the linear form of expression that writing is, two sentences later, you are clarifying that you understand that knowledge is: "... an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty", are you to be accused of claiming absolute knowledge?

    Or rather, is it possible that within the context of your assertion, you are claiming knowledge?....with full qualified acknowledgment that knowledge is an unending adventure with uncertainty?
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.