About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Monday, May 8, 2006 - 6:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
An excellent Rationalization Detection Kit, Joe.

Thanks for creating this!

Ed


Post 1

Monday, May 8, 2006 - 7:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
When people  intentionally rationalize  they are basically repressing something that  don't want to deal with, could then rationalizing be a form of neurosis?
(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 5/08, 7:57am)


Post 2

Monday, May 8, 2006 - 10:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Only if deliberately continued.... otherwise is error of knowledge, the lack of understanding the art of thinking....


Post 3

Monday, May 8, 2006 - 10:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One of your best articles, Joe.

One argument given was that since the law may use artistic merit to judge whether something should escape censorship, obviously esthetics is derived from politics
LOL


Post 4

Monday, May 8, 2006 - 11:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
RM:otherwise is error of knowledge
CD:About breach of morality?


Post 5

Monday, May 8, 2006 - 12:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks guys. Ed, glad you liked it.

Ciro, I think you probably mean when people evade, instead of when they rationalize. The two may be related, but they aren't the same. Someone who rationalizes isn't necessarily repressing or evading some truth. It can happen when they feel something is right, and then try to give an explanation for it.

It's true that at other times, they may be trying to deny something. The person who rationalizes his bad relationship is trying to convince himself that things are good so he can avoid facing the facts. In this case, the rationalization is a tool to help the evasion process.

Also, I think neurosis is a description of a psychological affect of repression, not the actual repression itself.

Robert, thanks. Glad you got a good laugh too.



Post 6

Monday, May 8, 2006 - 1:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe, thank you! for your explanation.
Ciao.


Post 7

Monday, May 8, 2006 - 3:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Excellent excellent excellent!   Best thing I've read in many weeks!

Post 8

Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - 12:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ciro, glad you found it useful.

Teresa, wow!  Thanks you!


Post 9

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 6:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joseph:

     Ditto with others: very good summarizing of causes.

     I often check Roger Ebert's on-line reviews of movies, regardless whether I intend to see them or not. He has a fascinating 'way-with-words' where you can't avoid seeing the dripping sarcasm and condescension in his otherwise quite polite way of negatively reviewing something. Often, of course, it's deserved. One time I remember was when some movie (forget the name) was so bad that it had no stars given (not "0"; one or two others over the decade clearly had "0") and the whole colum space was...empty. Now, THAT's bad! I always find him worth reading though, because he is pretty clear on analysis and evaluation.

     That praiseworthiness established, ntl, often I've noticed that for some movies his 'reasoning' clearly fits your Tenuous Link criterion, his erudition nwst.

     Also, for anyone who catches C-SPAN's morning call-in when a politician or reporter is a guest, all your criteria are noticeable with some of them on some subject or other.

     Now if I can just recognize these same criteria you've listed when I read some blogs...

LLAP
J:D


Post 10

Monday, December 12, 2011 - 5:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I love these gems from the past, great article Joe!

Post 11

Sunday, May 5, 2013 - 10:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is a fantastic article and deserves to be brought up again and again.

Post 12

Tuesday, May 7, 2013 - 6:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for the bump Steve!

I am particularly familiar with #5. I have seen this a lot when people move right on from one weak argument to the next. They don't really care if the individual arguments make sense, as long as at the end they can integrate them to one big argument. It's like the argument "cheerleader effect".

The other points were good too and will be a good source to refer back to.



Post 13

Tuesday, May 7, 2013 - 11:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"The Cheerleader Effect" - that great! It captures that argumentative style where the projection of an unflagging support reigns supreme, no matter what the state of the logic, the course of the debate or the intellectual content itself.

Post 14

Thursday, May 9, 2013 - 1:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Joseph!  I see that I voted on this when it first came out.  However, this time, I saved it to files under an "Objectivism" folder an also the folder from my college class in Logic.   Also in that same folder - and not assigned in class - are these:

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

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA WRITING CENTER
http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html
An easy list of about a dozen common fallacies.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
Gary N. Curtis with a doctoral degree in philosophy from Indiana University in Bloomington (majored in logic), to working as the "Ontologist" on an computer language project in Austin, Dr. Curtis offers over a hundred in alphabetical order from Abstraction and Abuse of Etymology down to Weak Analogy and Wishful Thinking.

I do have a question though.  You wrote:
Criterion 5:  If the stated reason fails, they resort to a backup.

We have to be a little careful with this one.  Life is not simply one long deductive chain of reasoning.  ...   I may have hundreds of reasons for believing that Capitalism is a good idea.  Refuting one of these reasons will not change the overall assessment.  ... 
Can you give an example of one of your reasons for believing that Capitalism is good having been refuted?

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 5/09, 1:24pm)


Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Sunday, June 16, 2013 - 3:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for the bump and the nice words.

Michael, you asked:

"Can you give an example of one of your reasons for believing that Capitalism is good having been refuted?"

I can think of many different arguments for Capitalism that are really empirical claims, and so may not be true. Let me throw some examples out.

1.) Charity will increase with lower taxes.
2.) The quality of television programming will increase with more freedom.
3.) Without the disruptive force of government monetary policy, the boom/bust cycle would end.
4.) Market pressures would naturally lead to lower levels of pollution.
5.) Without minimum wage laws and other government distortions in the labor market, unemployment would virtually disappear.

I think there are a lot of arguments for how things would change if we moved to a more capitalist society. And while many of the argument appear sound, there could be other factors as well. Maybe open immigration would cause all kinds of effects like increasing unemployment, lowering real wages, etc. Maybe it'd be "temporary", but is that years or decades or what? Or maybe the culture leans to much towards irresponsibility right now and that might take generations to change. And maybe it'd change in profoundly different ways.

These empirical questions don't necessarily refute the case for capitalism, depending on the moral justification one has for it. A morality of individualism and self-interest might see the argument that a free society would be a generous society as a nice bonus, but not critical because capitalism isn't a means to altruistic ends. But a conservative might view that point as crucial, and would be willing to accept less freedom if it meant helping others.



(Edited by Joseph Rowlands on 6/16, 3:52am)


Post 16

Sunday, June 16, 2013 - 8:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Great answer, Joe.:
1.) Charity will increase with lower taxes.
2.) The quality of television programming will increase with more freedom.
3.) Without the disruptive force of government monetary policy, the boom/bust cycle would end.
4.) Market pressures would naturally lead to lower levels of pollution.
5.) Without minimum wage laws and other government distortions in the labor market, unemployment would virtually disappear.
But I think Mike's question deserves re-wording. He asked:
Can you give an example of one of your reasons for believing that Capitalism is good having been refuted?
But the proper question would be something more like this:

"Can you give an example of one of your reasons for believing that Capitalism [helps more people more than any alternative does] having been refuted?"

On the one hand, it is morally good because it is the only social system that respects individual rights -- which is a requirement for something to be morally good (at least in the human sense of moral goodness). On the other hand, it is utilitarian because it helps more people more than any alternative does. While related, there is a hierarchy of importance when it comes to the moral judgment of capitalism.

For instance, even if, say, 3 of the 5 items that you listed actually unintuitively turned out to be false (upon attempts at empirical validation) -- then capitalism would still be morally good for mankind. This is because its moral goodness does not rely on narrowly-circumscribed "life-boat" scenarios where choices and outcomes are severely limited to merely a couple of dichotomies.

Ed


Post 17

Sunday, June 16, 2013 - 8:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
...capitalism isn't a means to altruistic ends...
Well said, Joe!

That's the heart of it. Capitalism is the best system for humans because we make choices (the very heart of our nature) and those choices require that we separate force from choice. And capitalism is the best answer for doing just that.

But much of what happens in our society is a product of culture and of the predominate philosophies and is beyond what government does, and is beyond various economic artifacts. Capitalism may be far superior to any other system, but that doesn't make it utopia. The main factor getting in the way of people achieving their utopia is that it requires other people giving up their own utopia. The unrealistic assumption at work there is that people should all be the same - like and dislike the same things. The cure is understanding that under freedom (Capitalism) we can get closer to a realistic utopia, as long as we understand that other people will always be different and must be free to pursue any utopia they want (as long as it doesn't require force).

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.