Reason?

Some partial backups of posts from the past (Feb, 2004)
Locked
Hywel
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 1:06 am
Location: Wales, UK

Reason?

Post by Hywel »

Im writing this because when considering philosophical issues, I can know the nanswer, but not be able to explain why I know. This doesnt seem very logical to me, but nevertheless it is extraordinarily accurate.

As an example, I'm going to use the "fate/free will" issue, since its one I can "look back on" in a way, and everyone should be familiar with it, so I'm free to explain what the hell I'm talking about.

When I first thought about this issue, I "asked myself"(bearing in mind that the question/answer thing didnt actually take place, its just a way to express it) whether fate and free will (as i then understood them), were true :-

Fate (Everything is predestined, I merely obey) = Nope
Free Will (I'm in control) = Nope

This bothered me, I dont mind telling you, traditionally people choose one or the other, but neither were acceptable. When i looked at them, they both seemed to have some truth to them, but they were both wrong. After a while, i modified my definitions until they were true :-

Fate (I'm not in control) = Yup
Free Will (I make decisions, and these influence events) = Yup

So now they were both true in a sense. Admittedly, the definition of "Fate" covered everything ever, and "Free Will" only covered the special case of the things I did. I was pretty much stuck with this problem of how both could be true, yet seemingly unreconcilable, until I read "Poison for the Heart". It inspired me to, among other things, unite the two.

I tried very hard to write a definition of this "united theory", but they all seemed to miss the mark. Here are some attempts anyway :-

"Fate is correct, I am not in control. Free Will is how Fate is manifest through humans."

"All things effect all other things. Free Will is our effect, as seen through a magnifying glass because we are so close."

"Fate = I am not in control
Free Will = I am not in control, but i think I am"

I didnt have a name for this "united theory", so I temporarily named it "karma",but on this forum they call it "Cause and Effect".

But the point is, I can know if something is true or not before I know why. Now I am absolutely sure that my understanding of the Fate/Free Will issue is correct, but I still cannot adequately explain what my understanding is. But i ask myself if my understanding of this is correct, and I get a metaphorical "YES!".

This also applies to my understanding of the term "karma". I have always been absolutely sure that the "literal reincarnation", "literal past and future lives" part of karma was wrong. But i cannot rationally tell you why.

Where do these answers come from? Is this the "voice of reason"? If so, its doesnt seem very reasonable...
Paul
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2003 10:26 pm

Re: Reason?

Post by Paul »

I don't 'know' nothing.
Except for this one: You met love, Hywel,
and with that you are love.
User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Re: Reason?

Post by Rhett »

Hi Hywel,

It is the voice of limited or partial reason, in concert with faith.

Unless you know something fully, you don't know it, and you need to keep reasoning until you reach certainty.

At the moment your concept of will is still in the realm of faith.

Rhett
Paul
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2003 10:26 pm

Reason!

Post by Paul »

Dan Rowden says that I am ludicrous. If there is any truth in it, then it's about time you shut the hell up, Rhett.
Dave Toast
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

Re: Reason!

Post by Dave Toast »

Not that I remember but I'm pretty sure, and I think the evidence bears this one out, that when I was a baby I had all sorts of correct knowledge which followed no path of higher reasoning and had nothing to do with faith. This would seem to invalidate the idea that correct knowledge has to have anything to do with a precisely reasoned definitional path of logic and universe of discourse even. It also seems to invalidate the idea that faith has to be related to incorrect knowledge.

Consciousness, the brain, the genome, evolution, forces, the universe and infinity don't bow to higher reasoning, it courtseys to them, and dances.
User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Re: Reason!

Post by Rhett »


Dave Toast wrote:

Not that I remember but I'm pretty sure, and I think the evidence bears this
one out, that when I was a baby I had all sorts of correct knowledge which
followed no path of higher reasoning and had nothing to do with faith. This
would seem to invalidate the idea that correct knowledge has to have
anything to do with a precisely reasoned definitional path of logic and
universe of discourse even.

Anyone that does not know Ultimate Truth is incapable of determining whether
anything they think is true or not. This statement cannot be falsified, it
is logically valid. Thus, anyone that does not know Ultimate Truth does not
have a single leg to stand on, they exist solely in a web of self-deceit.
They cannot even truthfully declare their own ignorance.

It also seems to invalidate the idea that faith has to be related to
incorrect knowledge.

Correct, faith is irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of the knowledge in
question. Faith is 'belief which is not based on (logical) proof'.

Consciousness, the brain, the genome, evolution, forces, the universe and
infinity don't bow to higher reasoning, it courtseys to them, and dances.

Yes, and it doesn't courtsey to false or inadequate reason.

Rhett
suergaz

----

Post by suergaz »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Anyone that does not know Ultimate Truth is incapable of determining whether
anything they think is true or not. This statement cannot be falsified, it
is logically valid. Thus, anyone that does not know Ultimate Truth does not
have a single leg to stand on, they exist solely in a web of self-deceit.
They cannot even truthfully declare their own ignorance.<hr>

This is extremely unfortunate. Rhett must have a head like the arse of an animal with a particularly repellent arse. Luckily for Rhett, this is not ultimate, but only truth. He can change it if he focuses his cheese, and burns it off with acid.

Consciousness curtsy?! What a dainty little maid you must be Rhett!
jimhaz
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: ----

Post by jimhaz »

Anyone that does not know Ultimate Truth is incapable of determining whether anything they think is true or not. This statement cannot be falsified, it is logically valid. Thus, anyone that does not know Ultimate Truth does not
have a single leg to stand on, they exist solely in a web of self-deceit.
They cannot even truthfully declare their own ignorance.

Basically what you are saying that those on a journey to enlightenment 'do not have a leg to stand on' and 'exist solely on a web of self-deceit' until at some point they decide they are enlightened. So if they become enlightened everything leading them to this position may in fact be untruthful.

Only an enlightened person can truly declare their own ignorance :)
User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Re: ----

Post by Rhett »

Rhett wrote: Anyone that does not know Ultimate Truth is incapable of determining whether anything they think is true or not. This statement cannot be falsified, it is logically valid. Thus, anyone that does not know Ultimate Truth does not
have a single leg to stand on, they exist solely in a web of self-deceit.
They cannot even truthfully declare their own ignorance.

Jimhaz: Basically what you are saying that those on a journey to enlightenment 'do not have a leg to stand on' and 'exist solely on a web of self-deceit' until at some point they decide they are enlightened. So if they become enlightened everything leading them to this position may in fact be untruthful.

Rhett: No. They cannot be certain about the knowledge that is leading them to enlightenment until they become enlightened, and if they become enlightened then obviously the important truths were contained within the knowledge that lead up to it.

Jimhaz: Only an enlightened person can truly declare their own ignorance :)

Rhett: No. During enlightenment one has no ignorance to declare.
suergaz

----

Post by suergaz »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Rhett: No. During enlightenment one has no ignorance to declare.<hr>

Would one not then be ignorant of ignorance since one would not possess it to know it any longer? I mean, to take heed of ignorance, say in the situation of an encounter with an er unenlightened person, would be inconceivable since a person no longer knowing ignorance would only address that in another whcih knows or is known.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: ----

Post by Dan Rowden »

So, why are you here?
suergaz

---

Post by suergaz »

I'm an explorer from outer space collecting something, like e.t but without the Rhett-head, or trunk. Not vegetables though, nor animal or mineral.
suergaz

---

Post by suergaz »

I'm here to steal your souls suckers!


(:D)
Biggier
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:45 am

Re: Reason?

Post by Biggier »

We can never know if we have free will because, in order to even ask the question, it presupposes we already do.

Besides, even if we don't, we have to live our lives acting as if we do. Why? Because without free will there can be no morality. There can be no way to either praise or condemn anything anyone does, right?

Not, of course, that you have any real say in the matter anyway if free will is just an illusion.

In any event, respecting the REALLY Big [Most Primordial] Questions, we are analogous to the folks in Flatland trying to figure out What Flatland Is. Meanwhile, they haven't a clue about the third dimension at all, right? We do, of course, but according to Brian Green, in string theory there may be as many as 13 separate dimensions. Give or take a few?

Biggie
User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Re: Reason?

Post by Rhett »

We can never know if we have free will because, in order to even ask the question, it presupposes we already do.

Your statement is illogical. Will relates to the conscious directing of one's experiences, or more correctly - the illusion of the conscious directing of one's experiences. Thus, your questioning of whether we have will or not is fundamentally separate to an investigation of the nature of will. In other words, our experiences of consciousness are valid (albeit often deluded) regardless of the nature of our will.

Even though we ultimately do not have will, we can nevertheless determine our experiences, and we can discern and experience truth.

Besides, even if we don't, we have to live our lives acting as if we do. Why? Because without free will there can be no morality. There can be no way to either praise or condemn anything anyone does, right?

Any conscious individual must necessarily make decisions, thus, morality is a valid notion. Just because people are caused to make immoral decisions does not mean that they should not be condemned, in fact, proper consideration of the nature of causality leads one to realise that it is an important aspect of causal forces that action is taken to curb immorality.

Not, of course, that you have any real say in the matter anyway if free will is just an illusion.

It might help for you to think of the mind as a 'well of causes', it has so many internal causal happenings that it has an exceptionally large capacity for acting independently of its immediate environment.

In any event, respecting the REALLY Big [Most Primordial] Questions, we are analogous to the folks in Flatland trying to figure out What Flatland Is.

You are, not me.

Meanwhile, they haven't a clue about the third dimension at all, right? We do, of course, but according to Brian Green, in string theory there may be as many as 13 separate dimensions. Give or take a few?

Science is not about truth. It's nature is wholly separate to a truthful investigation and understanding of the nature of Reality.

Rhett
suergaz

Immorality

Post by suergaz »

Rhett:--Quote:Quote:<hr>Even though we ultimately do not have will, we can nevertheless determine our experiences, and we can discern and experience truth.<hr>

How is that Rhett if we have no will?


Quote:Quote:<hr>Any conscious individual must necessarily make decisions, thus, morality is a valid notion. Just because people are caused to make immoral decisions does not mean that they should not be condemned, in fact, proper consideration of the nature of causality leads one to realise that it is an important aspect of causal forces that action is taken to curb immorality.<hr>

You think the making of decisions makes the notion known as morality valid?! If it is only a notion, then what is it really but the prejudice of punishers? Morality is the safe-guard of bad conscience. It does nothing to celebrate the supramoral, the amoral, which (as I've said long ago here before) pleases to side with what is immoral.


Are you religious Rhett? Edited by: suergaz at: 11/28/03 3:10 pm
Paul
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2003 10:26 pm

Re: Immorality

Post by Paul »

Rhett is an ex-Jehova's Witness.
N0X23
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 8:21 pm

Re: Immorality

Post by N0X23 »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Rhett: No. During enlightenment one has no ignorance to declare.<hr>

In Enlightenment one has no one to declare.
Biggier
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:45 am

Re: Reason?

Post by Biggier »

Rhett,

What does logic have to do with our futile attempts at grappling with the biggest of the Big Questions---the most primordial of them all?

Why does anything exist at all? Why as it does and not some other way? Is existence infinite? If so, what does this mean objectively?

Or, instead, was existence created? If so, by what or whom? Out of what? Our of nothing at all? If so, what IS "nothing at all"?

Is there a teleological purpose behind existence? if so, what is it? how would we begin to grasp it? how does this very exchange we are having "fit" into it?

When you think about time and space either starting and stopping....or simply "being there" forever and ever...both "explanations" are beyond what we are capable of grasping Rationally or Logically or Epistemologically.

The question of having or not having "free will" is, in my opinion, just as far out on the metaphysical limb as all of the ones above. And once you go out that far into the ontological relam, reason itself is sucked down into a kind of intellectual Black Hole. Our ignorance is such that we would not even know how to frame the relevant questions let alone imagine we can derive the Most Rational Answers.


Human "will" relates to far, far more than our "conscious" attempts to ensnare it philsophically in Definitons and Concepts and Theory. It is embedded, as well, in our biological and psychological predispositions, in the evolutionary interactions that engendered genetic predispositions. We are, after all, still just naked apes, right?

People are "caused to do immoral things"....but should be "condemned" anyway? Okay, let us take the example of Hitler and the Holocaust. Situate your abstractions and definitions in this particular historical reality.

In any event, sans God, even if it is assumed we are "autonomous" individuals able to "freely choose" our behaviors, there is no way to differentiate right from wrong. At least not objectively, essentially or universally. The only way, for example, Kant was able to delude himself that we are was to posit a manifestation of God that was construed from "pratical" rather than "pure" reason. But God is God is God to me. Without him, human moral interactions are merely an exchange of particular existential vantage points only.

Biggie
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Reason?

Post by Dan Rowden »

You sound like you got overwhelmed and gave up on thought.

Welcome to the forum btw.

Dan Rowden Edited by: drowden at: 11/29/03 2:27 am
User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Re: Immorality

Post by Rhett »

Suergaz wrote:

How is that Rhett if we have no will?

Read David's book.

You think the making of decisions makes the notion known as morality valid?! If it is only a notion, then what is it really but the prejudice of punishers? Morality is the safe-guard of bad conscience. It does nothing to celebrate the supramoral, the amoral, which (as I've said long ago here before) pleases to side with what is immoral.

Read David's book.

Are you religious Rhett?

Not in the common sense of the word.

Rhett
Locked