Rationality: What it is, why it seems scarce, and why it matters

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

...........................

On the other hand, even when major insights are received, I at least did not trust them for the same reason- it was "just the chemical" and not a 'real" insight to me.  So in my opinion, they are less a door out of determinism and more like blind alleys.

Don Juan later made the point to young Carlos that the drugs are not the answer (not essential), but merely useful in getting Carlos to abandon his preconceptions -- to jar him off center,  as it were.  Don Juan's real objective was to take Carlos into ancient nagualism.  Traditional Hindu yogis usually took the same view of drugs as a distraction from the true path (a lesson that a guru had to teach to Dr Peter Alpert, who had been Leary's assistant at Harvard).

[mfbukowski]

32 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Profound, but very clear thinking from Christopher Hitchens.

Peter Hitchens says that "tribalism always trumps reason."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46A1fAss2c0

 

Yes it IS remarkable that he is so honest in displaying flaws in his own position.

I haven't seen the video yet- thanks

Edited December 4, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Analytics]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, that is the whole point.

What is the basis UNDER YOUR POSITIVIST SYSTEM for determining the alleged "truth" of any of those assertions.

First of all, I don’t consider myself a “POSITIVIST” and I reject the negative connotations you are imposing on me. That said, any logical system must have some axioms. That is true for systems of morality that are based on reason, too (it’s even true of theistic morality—what makes good good?). What’s nice about humanists is that they are up front about this.

In the words of Pinker, “let’s just say—irrationally, whimsically, mulishly, for no good reason—that we prefer good things to happen to ourselves over bad things.”

That is the basis. Goodness is an axiom.

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Did Hitler and Stalin and scores of others find peace to be better than war?

No idea.

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What objective evidence have you that ANY of these moral judgments are "true" ?

I don’t know what you are referring to here.

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Is your position on abortion " true" while others are false?

I don’t think about that issue simplistically enough to answer that question.

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You have ignored my other CFR's, I am tired of this

By “CFR’s” do you mean “questions”? I don’t feel obligated to answer your questions, especially when it seems clear you would reject any answer that didn’t conform to your straw man prejudgment of what I believe.

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In the words of Pinker, “let’s just say—irrationally, whimsically, mulishly, for no good reason—that we prefer good things to happen to ourselves over bad things.”

That is the basis. Goodness is an axiom.

Oh my gosh.

The whole thing is then based on an irrational "axiom"- KNOWINGLY

This is a waste of time.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

.............................

By “CFR’s” do you mean “questions”? I don’t feel obligated to answer your questions, especially when it seems clear you would reject any answer that didn’t conform to your straw man prejudgment of what I believe.

CFR is an obligatory call for references (citations of sources), i.e., either support your statements with actual sources or withdraw them.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

CFR is an obligatory call for references (citations of sources), i.e., either support your statements with actual sources or withdraw them.

Well sure, but there has to be an assertion of fact first. The first CFR the esteemed mr Bukowski issued in the thread (the only one I saw) was for Analytics to prove an opinion. How they hell is anyone supposed to provide references for that!? 
 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

17 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Well sure, but there has to be an assertion of fact first. The first CFR the esteemed mr Bukowski issued in the thread (the only one I saw) was for Analytics to prove an opinion. How they hell is anyone supposed to provide references for that!? 
 

 

He was asking about the meaning of CFR.  His reply might have been akin to yours here, but he seemed to plead ignorance instead.  Playing "Let's Pretend" is no substitute for actual discussion.  Especially where rationality is the focus.

[Analytics]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my gosh.

The whole thing is then based on an irrational "axiom"- KNOWINGLY

This is a waste of time.

ALL logic ultimately comes down to unproved and unprovable axioms. 
 

in any case, if you think learning about someone else’s beliefs is a waste of time, why did you ask?

[Analytics]

On 12/2/2021 at 8:12 PM, mfbukowski said:

CFR

Best wishes on proving that I would lose such arguments. Says who? Who is the judge?

After all, there is only one truth, right?

Also please show me using that phrase. I believe I have never used it.

This post was addressed to Smac97, not to you; I referred to you in the third person. The way he uses the phrase “reasonable minds can disagree” seems to me to be used a strategy to avoid defending his position. It is a description of my subjective response to what he says.

The best proof I can think of that this really is my subjective impression would be to sign a legal affidavit stating my opinion. Is that what you are asking for?

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and we might include doctoral researchers from Timothy Leary to Carlos Castaneda, who systematically exposed themselves to psychotropic substances in order to truly grasp reality.  We might also include men like Abraham and Joseph Smith, who sought communion with God.  Are these methods mere blind alleys, or do they remove us from our deterministic slavery?

JS-H 1 mentions “feeling(s)” 6 times in 3 verses and once in Oliver’s statement. Most significant, I think, is, “[This] passage of scripture …seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again…” It would be interesting to see what Dr. Leary felt in hid research and in being prompted to try LSD. In any case, their grasping reality does entail seeking and obtaining a “revelation” of some sort.

According to D&C 76, there are no blind alleys, as every road (method) leads somewhere. Whether we choose what road we start and remain on would depend, I think, on the revelation(s) we get along the way. Some people get revelations that they have a choice, and others get revelations that they do not. I think both are right as far as they are concerned.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Well sure, but there has to be an assertion of fact first. The first CFR the esteemed mr Bukowski issued in the thread (the only one I saw) was for Analytics to prove an opinion. How they hell is anyone supposed to provide references for that!? 
 

 

There were others, but my point was that there WAS no rational way for him read my mind.

That was the whole point!!  Here Mr Rational says he can read minds.

And by issuing a CFR, I wanted HIM to revisit the irrationality of his own position.  It's the same self-contradiction we have seen through the entire thread.

Thanks for bringing it up again, and helping me out. You tacitly make again the point, that opinions are often "irrational" and yet we impose truth value judgments, on them all the time.

That is a postmodern view you are illustrating. 

Thanks again!

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

CFR is an obligatory call for references (citations of sources), i.e., either support your statements with actual sources or withdraw them.

And since there WERE no sources, he did not respond.

Neither did he withdraw them.

But that's ok. 

It turned out fine

Edited December 4, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, CV75 said:

JS-H 1 mentions “feeling(s)” 6 times in 3 verses and once in Oliver’s statement. Most significant, I think, is, “[This] passage of scripture …seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again…” It would be interesting to see what Dr. Leary felt in hid research and in being prompted to try LSD. In any case, their grasping reality does entail seeking and obtaining a “revelation” of some sort.

According to D&C 76, there are no blind alleys, as every road (method) leads somewhere. Whether we choose what road we start and remain on would depend, I think, on the revelation(s) we get along the way. Some people get revelations that they have a choice, and others get revelations that they do not. I think both are right as far as they are concerned.

I once saw a paper on Joseph Smith's possible use of hallucinationogenic substances. I don't think that would be well received hereabouts though

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

ALL logic ultimately comes down to unproved and unprovable axioms. 

Oh my gosh!!!!!

THAT, sir is postmodernism.

And again, THAT STATEMENT is itself without evidence!!!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

in any case, if you think learning about someone else’s beliefs is a waste of time, why did you ask?

As the challenge itself clearly showed, I wanted to show you the inherent contradiction in your position, and the essence of postmodernism 

Read it again- I knew you could not answer it, and wanted you to understand that your assertion that you could read my mind was completely without any evidence.

"CFR Best wishes on proving that I would lose such arguments."

Edited December 4, 2021 by mfbukowski

[SeekingUnderstanding]

52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There were others, but my point was that there WAS no rational way for him read my mind.

One, the statement was to SMAC not you. Two he didn’t say he could read SMAC’s mind. He was describing his subjective reaction to SMAC’s statement. That’s why he used the word “seems”. Given that he is explicitly referencing his own experience a CFR for this is beyond stupid (in my humble opinion):

Me: I like the color red

MF Bukowski: CFR

Me:!?!?

MFBukowski: Therefore post modernism

Edited December 4, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The best proof I can think of that this really is my subjective impression would be to sign a legal affidavit stating my opinion. Is that what you are asking for?

Uh, no.

Your admitting that even for the allegedly "rational" Enlightened upholders of Modernism, opinions are subjective, was quite enough for me, thank you. 

I subjectively and rationally uphold the tenets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as I see them.

Thanks for the discussion 

it's over finally thank God

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

ALL logic ultimately comes down to unproved and unprovable axioms. 
 

in any case, if you think learning about someone else’s beliefs is a waste of time, why did you ask?

Thanks for this thread.  I picked up Pinker's Enlightenment Now.  Enjoying it very much so.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I once saw a paper on Joseph Smith's possible use of hallucinationogenic substances. I don't think that would be well received hereabouts though

Ha ha, that gets mentioned quite a bit on this board. But if that were the case, I think JS-H 1 would have taken on a very different vibe, and D&C 135:1 would have him saying, "Why not? Yeah."

[Analytics]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

CFR is an obligatory call for references (citations of sources), i.e., either support your statements with actual sources or withdraw them.

I see. 

The specific CFR that @mfbukowski made in this thread was in response to this statement I made to @smac97:

"Specifically, the way you use the catchphrase "reasonable minds can disagree" seems designed to avoid engaging with arguments you know you'd lose..."

So I can better understand CFRs, what types of citations of sources would be appropriate to support my claim that the way Smac uses the catchphrase "reasonable minds can disagree" subjectively seems to me to be designed to avoid engaging with the arguments that reasonable minds are disagreeing about? 

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Thanks for this thread.  I picked up Pinker's Enlightenment Now.  Enjoying it very much so.

I'm glad you are enjoying it! In this book. Note that Pinker saves the best for last. If for whatever reason you down have time to read the whole thing, make it a priority to read the last chapter on humanism.

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Uh, no.

Your admitting that even for the allegedly "rational" Enlightened upholders of Modernism, opinions are subjective, was quite enough for me, thank you. 

I subjectively and rationally uphold the tenets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as I see them.

Thanks for the discussion 

it's over finally thank God

 

Some opinions are subjective. Others are objectively true. Others are objectively false. And others are somewhere on a spectrum of being things that can reasonably be disagreed about. You can believe whatever you want, but rationality really does mean something.

Edited December 4, 2021 by Analytics

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

As the challenge itself clearly showed, I wanted to show you the inherent contradiction in your position, and the essence of postmodernism 

Read it again- I knew you could not answer it, and wanted you to understand that your assertion that you could read my mind was completely without any evidence.

"CFR Best wishes on proving that I would lose such arguments."

I never claimed I could read your mind. I told Smac the way some of his posts come across to me. I said it seems to me that he thinks he'd lose these arguments if he engaged in them, but I wasn't claiming he actually would. I was explaining how things seem to me.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I was explaining how things seem to me.

WIthout any evidence, those beliefs are irrational according to you.

They are perfectly justifiable to me.

It seems to me that God exists, so we agree in our mutual irrational postmodernism 

Everything you believe is "what seems to you", some of that is confirmed by others,= science, and other of those beliefs are purely subjective, like religion.

Both can be justifiable through experience.  You can KNOW that subjective beliefs are "true" according to your own experience

You can know with certainty that your spouse loves you.

That is a subjective observation not accessible to anyone but yourself 

Similarly I know God exists and loves me by personal experience 

Edited December 4, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I never claimed I could read your mind. I told Smac the way some of his posts come across to me. I said it seems to me that he thinks he'd lose these arguments if he engaged in them, but I wasn't claiming he actually would. I was explaining how things seem to me.

That is all irrelevant, why can't you see that???

The issue is that YOU cannot know "what seems to others", if it is me, Smac, Joe Biden or Donald Trump. 

Who cares if it was Smac or me?

Follow the ARGUMENT, not the characters.

The issue is subjective knowledge vs objective knowledge.