RoR: Forum

Dean,

I think that is a fine compromise.

Post 21

Monday, January 16, 2006 - 12:09pm

Robert,

All our ancestors were "ignorant and superstitious" to some degree, but not uniformly. Hell, we are today. (Ayn Rand even had a "good luck" charm of some sort - I think it was a watch.)

What I think Doherty does is to try to think like the people did back then, not impose the way we think now on back then. It is all speculation, of course, but I think his speculation falls well within the plausible. It makes a lot of sense to me that Hebrews and Greeks would have similarities in fundamental outlooks back then.

Take a look at Doherty's site and read a few things if you get the time. His analysis of ancient historical documents is fascinating - as is his analysis of the writings of Paul.

One observation is important, however. Paul is the real founder of modern Christianity, not Jesus. Whether or not Jesus existed is almost beside the point for Christianity, since the role Paul gave to him is poster boy.

Michael

Post 22

Monday, January 16, 2006 - 2:23pm

Michael,
================
It makes a lot of sense to me that Hebrews and Greeks would have similarities in fundamental outlooks back then.
================

But actually, the good book itself makes a distinction between these 2 groups ...
================================================

The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the

Corinthians

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
================================================
source:
http://aol.bartleby.com/108/46/1.html#22

Just note how the vibe changed from Old Testament (fear, gore, & Mosaic law) to the New Testament (love God & neighbor as you do yourself), and you will see that this is in direct response to the superior views of the Greeks (to try to reach them, too).

================
Paul is the real founder of modern Christianity, not Jesus. Whether or not Jesus existed is almost beside the point for Christianity, since the role Paul gave to him is poster boy.
================

This is absolutely correct. HTNOTH (hit-the-nail-on ...). It's the mere story of Jesus (not the man) in the driver's seat.

Ed

Post 23

Monday, January 16, 2006 - 3:11pm

Ed,

The kind of similarities I was talking about was how the supernatural would have been seen by people in general. Although the Greeks had many gods and the Hebrews only one (btw - a concept going back to Egypt) with a bunch of Angels, Demons and Nephilims, how they viewed where their deities at that time transited could have been similar. I find that sensible. For example, the concept of an impersonal God who was pure energy permeating everything (like many believe nowadays) would have been foreign to Hebrew thinking back then, despite the omniscience thing. Their God had a unique personality, as did the rest of the cast.

So I don't believe that the two cultures would have been hermetically sealed off from each other on such fundamental outlooks as "other realm." Please read Doherty and you will see what I mean.

Also, here is an interesting detail for you. There is a 400+ year gap between the last book of the Old Testament and the first book of the New Testament.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 1/16, 3:14pm)

Post 24

Monday, January 16, 2006 - 4:57pm

I have to agree with Ed, Michael, concerning religious philosophy the Greeks and Jews were worlds apart. If it helps any Paul and the Greeks were not.

Post 25

Monday, January 16, 2006 - 5:49pm

Bill,

OK. You got me with the axioms. The axioms are proven simply by the fact that I'm aware of what I sense and what I think. They are affirmed by everything, and its impossible for nothing to measure or sense the contrary, if the contrary were true (and its impossible for the contrary to be true while you are reading this).

I took the remainder of your claims, and adapted them to something I would say, which are all falsifiable:

"Selfishness is a virtue"->"As I become more selfish and less self-sacrificial, my ability to achieve my goals also increases, and more of my goals will be accomplished."

"Man has individual rights"->"As my individual rights (full control over that which I created or was given through consent (my property), less the ability to use them to take control of others property) increase, my ability to achieve my goals also increases, and more of my goals will be accomplished."

"Laissez-faire capitalism is the only rational politico-economic system"->"As the social system becomes more Capitalist, I become more able to achieve my goals, and more of my goals will be accomplished."

Post 26

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 1:11pm

Dean, you wrote,

OK. You got me with the axioms. The axioms are proven simply by the fact that I'm aware of what I sense and what I think. They are affirmed by everything, and its impossible for nothing to measure or sense the contrary, if the contrary were true (and its impossible for the contrary to be true while you are reading this).

Okay, thanks for the acknowledgement! I appreciate your honesty. You continue,

I took the remainder of your claims, and adapted them to something I would say, which are all falsifiable:

"Selfishness is a virtue"->"As I become more selfish and less self-sacrificial, my ability to achieve my goals also increases, and more of my goals will be accomplished."

"Man has individual rights"->"As my individual rights (full control over that which I created or was given through consent (my property), less the ability to use them to take control of others property) increase, my ability to achieve my goals also increases, and more of my goals will be accomplished."

"Laissez-faire capitalism is the only rational politico-economic system"->"As the social system becomes more Capitalist, I become more able to achieve my goals, and more of my goals will be accomplished."

I don't think these paraphrases are equivalent to the original propositions, if that's what you intended. To say that selfishness is a virtue is not the same as saying that as you become more selfish, your ability to achieve your goals increases. What if your goals are altruistic? Then your statement would be false. But let's assume that your goals are selfish. Would your statement then be the same as the virtue of selfishness? I don't think so, for in that case, even an altruist could agree with it, yet he would not agree that selfishness is a virtue.

Similar objections can be made against your other two statements: To say that man has individual rights means that others ought to respect his freedom of action, if they want their own to be respected; it does not simply mean that as his individual rights (or more precisely their scope) increases, his ability to satisfy his goals increases. To say that laissez-faire capitalism is the only rational politico-economic system means that people ought to adopt it in preference to an alternative system. It does not simply mean that as the system becomes more capitalist, you will be able to achieve more of your goals. What if your goals are universal health care, an equal distribution of income and other egalitarian objectives? Then, as the system becomes more capitalist, you would be less able to achieve your goals. Yes, your statements are falsifiable, meaning that one can conceive of circumstances under which they would be false (such as those I indicated), but that's because they are not equivalent to the original propositions.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 1/18, 1:16pm)

Post 27

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 7:41pm

Bill,

Note that all of my statements have "I" in them. I didn't say anything about an altruist's goals etc.

Yes, your statements are falsifiable, meaning that one can conceive of circumstances under which they would be false (such as those I indicated), but that's because they are not equivalent to the original propositions.

Indeed, they are not the same as the original propositions, they are all adapted to something I would say.

Post 28

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 7:44pm

Bill-
What makes you think the statement "A is A" is not falsifiable?

Post 29

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 8:21pm

From wikipedia,

For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be at least in principle possible to make an observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that observation had not been made.

A is A. A part of reality is the same thing as itself. Can you make an observation that in principal could show that a part of reality is not the same thing as itself? You could repeatedly observe it, and compare the data to see if there are differences. Is "A" different now? Nope. Now? Nope. ...

But then Bill might say "'A' is 'A'", so in principle its impossible to make an observation that would show the proposition to be false.

What does "in principle" mean? Is there a better definition of "falsifiable"? Is it even useful to determine whether something is "falsifiable"?

Post 30

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 8:28pm

It would be possible to make an observation that "A is not A" in a world where reality did not hold, but was instead chaotic and transient. This would prove that A is not always A, or identifiable on any reasonable basis as being A. Overwhelming proof for a statement does not mean that it is in the realm of "unfalsifiable." A is A is one of the most simple falsifiable statements there is.
(Edited by Jody Allen Gomez on 1/18, 8:30pm)

Post 31

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 11:11pm

Jody:
You say:

It would be possible [to do X, such as draw a square circle] in a world where reality did not hold, but was instead chaotic and transient.

     A long time ago, L. Piekoff wrote an article called The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy. He used an example of how to properly, and improperly, be meaningful...or meaningless...in using the term 'possibilities,' which I never forgot. His example was in terms of problematic contemporary philosophical views showing one or another metaphysical (though the point of the article had to do with epistemology) view. He pointed out that some views were equivalent to confusing 'metaphysics' with Walt Disney. This is the way I interpret your use of the term 'possible'. Rephrased, you imply that if it's, no matter what else, at least 'imaginable'...then it's 'possible.'

     Your use of the term 'possible' (arguing about 'falsifiability') is not a very...rational,,,use of the term, methinks, hence causes more confusion than clarification. --- In short, your argument lacks a bit.
     (As an aside, LP also clarified, elsewhere I believe, [maybe one of his audio lectures] about the difference when using the term 'possible' in distinguishing between whether or not one is talking about 'metaphyical' possibilities vs 'epistemological/epistemic' possibilities, where, for the latter to be meaningful, the former has to be established first...to insure that all debaters are on the same...meaningful...page of discourse.)

     Indeed, "...a world where reality did not hold..." sounds like a world that is not real, no? Hence, such is an UN-'real' world, hence...it is ToonTown from Who Framed Roger Rabbit? where one can draw a square circle (and even disappear into it)--- and here we are, back at Disney (or Warner Bros.) again. A 'world where reality did not hold' is...imaginable, but, unless one is merely Rationalizing in terms of pure word-usage (ignoring whether there are 'real' referents or not), it actually/'really' is...meaningless.

J:D

P.S: I do believe that re your idea of a world (universe?) where reality was chaotic and transient (in a way more than the one we presently live in, I presume, where there are NO physical 'laws' inhering within entities or actions), that Rand covered this somewhere in her ITOE; methinks the implication of what she argued about the place of 'causality' implies that such a universe COULDN'T be real/actual/existing.

(Edited by John Dailey on 1/18, 11:17pm)

(Edited by John Dailey on 1/18, 11:32pm)

Post 32

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 11:27pm

Jody wrote,

It would be possible to make an observation that "A is not A" in a world where reality did not hold, but was instead chaotic and transient. This would prove that A is not always A, or identifiable on any reasonable basis as being A. Overwhelming proof for a statement does not mean that it is in the realm of "unfalsifiable." A is A is one of the most simple falsifiable statements there is.

What you are saying, in so many words, is that it would be possible to make an observation that "A is not A" in a world that isn't possible. Well, then, it isn't possible to make such an observation, because a world in which A is not A isn't possible.

- Bill

Post 33

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 11:44pm

R. Davidson:

     Got so wrapped up in Jody's post, I forgot to thank you for the VERY thought-provoking article you wrote.

     You definitely re-hooked me into going back and re-checking the latest re the origins of "The" bible writings as the varied contemporary scholastics see them.

     More!

J:D

Post 34

Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 6:37am