Posted on 05/01/2003 8:44:18 AM PDT by RJCogburn
It is proven *to* me, and to you -- I have (as have you) seen a large amount of scientific study, evidence and data on human health and nutrition over the years.
Asking someone to 'prove' that which you already know to be a proven truth means you've already lost on the substance.
It isn't being proven *by* me *to* you because I realize that your call for me to actually post nutrition evidence is just distraction. If I were dumb enough to spend the hours required to gather and post all the evidence about good nutrition you'd just change the subject again, and ask me to prove the sun is hot or that water is wet.
Look, I was really, honestly trying to have an actual deep conversation with you on this topic, yet you just keep repeating, "Can't prove anything to me" like some beginning philosophy student who's never actually heard sophistry before.
Should I drop my hopes of engaging you in something deeper than shear denial?
Point blank -- are you actually claiming that "good" health is not objectively "better" than "bad" health, all other things being equal?
Because you already know the answer, and you know *I* already know the answer, and are only asking *me* to answer it as a distraction.
You already know it *can* be proven, have seen it proven, and know *how* to prove it. You're just hoping I'll get off on an tangent, and you'll never have to admit this is an objective truth.
Objectivism is a very simple idea. Interestingly enough, I'm not even an objectivist. If you had to label me, I think, 'Secular Taoist' might be the closest term I can coin. But I do at least understand it, what it says.
You're acting like objectivism is over your head, too difficult for you to understand. I really don't believe that. I think the truth is that you're refusing to understand on purpose.
OK. I can accept that existence exists. I will even grant "conscious" as real, though I cannot go further to define what it really is.
But I cannot accept that "A is A" is axiomatic, because it requires us to be able to define what A really is in the first place. For example, suppose I have a wooden chair. Is it the same wooden chair that stood before me a minute ago, right down to the very last quark? Can I prove that? And if there's a quark's worth of difference, can I really say that "A is A" in this case? I suppose you can defer to something like Plato's "forms," but then you'd have to prove them, too.
The point is, if we want to actually use "A is A" for anything useful, we need to define in some manner what "A" is in the first place -- which ultimately requires us to make assumptions about A. And what's more, we have to choose the proper "A" from among a wide array of possibilities.
Looking at this from the practical perspective, the problem of defining "A" turns out to be quite difficult. In this thread, the A's in question are things like "self-interest," and "happiness," and as we've seen these particular choices are in no way axiomatic, according to your own definition of the term.
Now let's look at your proposed other axioms. None of them satisfies your conditions for being axiomatic.
Plurality. (There must be more than one thing.)
This axiom requires us to assume that there is in fact more than one thing. You can objectively prove (to yourself, not me) the existence of one only thing: yourself.
Dynamism. (There must be change.)
This contradicts "A is A," and it also requires you to assume a whole bunch of things about the ultimate structure of the universe. Suppose, however, that I posit a viewpoint that lies "in eternity," which sees the universe in the same sense we see a completed book. (The statement "existence exists" seems to suggest that such a viewpoint is logically possible.) In that case, the concept of dynamism may not be meaningful.
Differentiation. (All existents are different.)
A mighty broad statement, the truth of which is muddied by such things as quantum entanglement, not to mention Dr. Heisenberg's little theorem.
I'm not claiming anything. I was merely pointing out that your equating good eating with good health is not universally true.
And I can't help noticing those little quotation marks of yours around "good" and "bad." It's as if you already realize that the definitions of good and bad, as regard health, do not easily lend themselves to objective definition.
So then we find out if that assertion is itself true. And I guarantee it, sooner or later in this process of reductionism, we will find some assertion that cannot be proven true, but must be taken as true in order to sustain the system that it undergirds. And that unprovable assertion will finally put to rest this notion that everything is objectively knowable. QED.
Now, you can believe me, or not - your choice. But if you think I'm wrong, I suggest we put it to the test by taking any moral statement you like - you don't even have to limit it to hedonism versus something else - and see whether we can reduce it to a basis in an unprovable assertion. Your choice of any moral proposition you like. I'll put my claim to the test - will you?
Yes, but then as now, I was using my own wording. Here argument means exactly the same as mine, but is much longer, so mine is meant to give only the essential meaning. I do believe any died-in-the-wool objectivist would disagree with my explication.
Let us first establish that we are discussing moral principles ...
We can certainly get back to that subject if you like, but my post was specifically to your post (that's where it started) 801, where you said, "Judging from the AR quote you posted on axioms, Ayn Rand's definition of axiom is no different than the definition of absolute - are these synonyms? The dictionary defines axiom ...."
I was explaining what objectivists mean by axioms which is quite different from what you and others have implied.
The problem is with all this discussion, no one bothers with fundamental principles. For example, what do you think a value is? What is good? What is bad?
I think we have gone as far as we can with this. Some agreement in the philosophy of ethics, and before that, epistemology is required, I think. We are not going to agree on these, I believe, because you are a mystic and I reject all mysticism.
Hank
Still waiting for you to tell us....
We are not going to agree on these, I believe, because you are a mystic and I reject all mysticism.
.... chortle ....
Since this is a statement is a universal, reasoned to by you, a human, this must not be universal, therefore some finite men must be able to reason their way to universals, else what you said contradicts itself.
Hank
That all 'morality' is 'man made' is evidenced by the fact it is based on a ubiquitous 'golden rule' type principle that all known cultures & religions embrace in one form or another. The golden rule works, as saint, sinner, savage or sophisticate can attest.
(2) Man-made moral codes lead to totalitarianism if carried to extremes since man will revert to evil measures to enforce them if unconstrained by a correct moral system.
Our secular political moral code, our constitution, works well, when honored.
'Moral' absolutists do not so honor, and our drift to totalitarianism can be seen to start with the rise to power of the socialist/prohibitionists in the early 1900's.
the That seems to be the basis of Chambers claim that Rand was advocating "to the ovens go". When I was younger the Chambers critique made no sense to me at all. I just didn't know what he was talking about and nobody I knew was able to explain it to me. It looks like actually Chambers and Rand are fighting over a premise or an assumption on the question "Can there be morality without God?".
'Morality' without a belief in a god is seen to exist in many non religious people. Denials of this fact of life are sheer fanaticism, a sickness, imo.
I believe that for either side to call the other "extremist" or "totalitarian" misses the point. They have an honest disagreement on a fundamental assumption. Both are very good advocates for their views and imho we need every man and woman on board for the ongoing battle against the dangerous Utopian leftists who have shredded our institutions and our culture.
Sorry, but imo it is sick to see your religious or political opponent as 'immoral'.
"The continuous disasters of man's history are mainly due to his excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, nation, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation. We are thus driven to the unfashionable conclusion that the trouble with our species is not an excess of aggression, but an excess capacity for fanatical devotion.
-Arthur Koestler
Really? Which one? I mean, which one begins by saying, "there is not mathematical truth"?
and you believe the way to prove the existence of a thing is to deny its existence, say, God, for instance.
You are a treat.
Hank
I see, you think moral values have nothing to do with actual beings, and there nature is unrelated to values.
In that case, if objectivists are denying that they hold to any moral truth whatsoever (no moral axioms exist). That would make all objectivists moral relativists. No way around it.
This is partly correct. Moral values are both relative and absolute. The are relative in the sense that they are related to real beings living in a real world and define what is good for them and what is bad. Moral values are absolute in the sense the what will be good for those real beings is determined by the requirements of their nature and the nature of the world in which they live.
Objectivist reject arbitrary moral rules based on someone's whim and the principle that might makes right.
Hank
No, I've said clearly that good nutrition is objectively a better choice than eating cake for every meal because there is a cause and effect relationship between good nutrition and good health.
And the general and yourself seem to be afraid of admitting that this is a simple, objective truth. I know you both know it to be an objective truth, and you apply this knowledge as best you can in your own lives.
Then again, I see in your conversation with others you're trying to claim A isn't always A, so forgive me if I don't necessarily spend a lot of time conversing with you on this topic.
Just curious: have you ever taken an upper level undergraduate math class -- something involving math analysis or complex variables?
As it happens, the technique is quite common, and easy (in the abstract) to understand. Suppose we want to prove A. If we assume ~A, and can then demonstrate that ~A leads to a contradiction, then A must be true.
Is it a universally applicable approach? I don't think so. But it does have its uses.
The nature of our existence.
We are here, therefore we had a source. One offered source of our existence is God. It is either true or false that God is the source of our existence.
If there is no God, then there is another source of our existence. That other source may also have absolutes, things that are the source of man, and which man may not be able to change. That is, they may not be "relative".
The absolutes possible due to the source of man's existence may be of the sort that we have come to know as "moral" things. According to our understanding of things, they would be "moral absolutes".
In fact, I contend liberty is just such an absolute. That it is a condition of our existence, it is moral, i.e., good, and it is absolute. You may disagree, but I doubt you'll get very far in making a case for the absence of liberty. I'd be very interested in hearing such a case, though.
As I pointed out several times -- yes, down underneath it all, I can't prove this isn't all just a dream. I can't even prove reality exists.
That was fascinating to me when I was 18, and new to philosophy. Now I see that as a shallow attempt to avoid actual, difficult analysis of the world around us.
In any universe in which the law of cause and effect exists, as it does in this one, then things are knowable based upon observation.
A thing is what it is.
Causes have effects.
"Beneficial" effects are a "good" choice, "detrimental" effects are a "bad" choice.
This is knowable, and provable -- assuming cause and effect.
You could best describe me as a 'Secular Taoist'. A Taoist without all the mysticism.
The core principle I live by is the idea that reality is what it is. There's an old story of a student asking his teacher what the truth was, and the teacher slaps the student in the face and says, "That was the truth".
What is, is. It is our challenge to see the objective, real truth and make choices that are most beneficial to our long-term self-interest. This is hard, perhaps impossible in many cases and for many people. But, objectively, obviously, it is the only choice, and everyone plays by that rule.
Admit it or not.
What you've stated is not objectively true.
The preponderance of evidence suggestst it, but the fact is that there are healthy people with wretched diets, and sick people with good diets. While I agree that the preponderance of the evidence points to a corellation, it is also clear that diet is not the sole basis of good health.
Also, it is a fact that what is a good diet for person A, may be deadly for person B. So you're left having to define "good diet" on an individual basis -- which rather inhibits your ability to define for us an objectively "good" diet.
I'd say that your "objective" basis, isn't.
Much like the rest of objectivism.
A is A is not "metaphysical" it is epistemological. Your father is your father, no matter how much he changes. If this is not true, you could not even state your criticism. What you mean by, "same wooden chair?" does that have a meaning? If it does not, your quesion is meaningless. If it does, apply it to the present case.
If we want to actually use "A is A" for anything useful...
Are algebra and symbolic logic a problem for you. I'll humor, your father is your father.
Plurality. (There must be more than one thing.)
Your criticism begins, This axiom requires us ... and falls down there. Remember, you cannot use or imply the concept you are trying to deny in its refutation. You've already implied a plurality.
Dynamism. (There must be change.)
Your criticism, This contradicts "A is A," (your father never did anything?) and it also requires you to assume ... an assumption (or any other mental phenomenon is an action and all action requires change)You cannot imply an action in your refutation of dynamism.
Differentiation. (All existents are different.),p> Your criticism, A mighty broad statement, the truth of which is muddied by such things as quantum entanglement, not to mention Dr. Heisenberg's little theorem.
You've made way too much of this, and your criticism is totally irrelevant. (It might not be irrelevant to what you think it says.) It only means if there are two things which are really two things and not aspects of the same thing, for example, there must be something different about them, or they will not be two things. There must be some quality that is different for any two things, even if every other quality is the same and the only difference is their location, for example.
Hank
You're being dishonest. The question is not whether or not "A is A," but whether we can accept it as an axiom. Unless you're prepared to give us a means of knowing what A is, then you can't accept it as an axiom, either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.