RoR: Forum

Post 100

Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 4:08pm

Link

Edit

Nathan,

About Post 91, I stand corrected. Still, I was referring to the idea of choosing values being the basis of morality. But, I made my second mistake of the year. Dayaamm!

Here is where I get snagged with you. You wrote:

There is no single "human nature."

There certainly is, but it must be understood as a standard nature around which variations sometimes occur.

It would be silly to state that birds don't have wings, for example. Are some born without them? Yup. Bet even they are defined by the standard and considered as an exception - not simply an invalidation of wings being essential to the concept of birds.

There are a few observable species-behavior traits in human beings, flocking, care for the young and so forth. Just because there are exceptions, this does not invalidate the standard.

I really want to open up on this, but it is a bit premature right now (more reading to do). There is a wonderful book about some of these concepts called The Living Company by Aries de Geus. It has been years since I read it and my copy stayed in Brazil, but this book influenced my thinking heavily on human species issues. (It is a study of longevity of entities, comparing corporate entities to living organisms.)

Michael

Post 101

Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 4:20pm

Link

Edit

Mr. Davison wrote:

As to the silly talk on this thread about sacrificing someone for millions of others, it is an absurd premise.

Hardly absurd and hardly silly; it merely illuminates a principle. The number is not the important part.

You and I clearly disagree on the principle.

AR: �My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

Many Objectivists agree with Rand's belief that charity is not a moral obligation, but disagree with her emphasis, i.e., that it is a "marginal issue." (By charity I mean more than merely giving things to other people.)

If our goal is to improve our own life and the lives of our children and other loved ones, the state of the world matters.

I would step in the way of a bullet if it were aimed at my husband. It is not self-sacrifice to die protecting that which you value: If the value is great enough, you do not care to exist without it. This applies to any alleged sacrifice for those one loves.

That's why your persistent use of "sacrifice" when one chooses to help strangers or exchange one's life for a multitude is prejudicial and question-begging. You are forced to assume that such people simply cannot VALUE the lives of others.

Read Ayn Rand's words again: It is not self-sacrifice to die protecting that which you value.

That's exactly the point many have made in this thread, that we DO value the lives of others, and do not consider acting in their behalf "sacrifice."

Anyone who does not share those values is free to act according to his or her own values. That is why I don't claim acting thusly is a moral obligation. And why you cannot logically claim that refusing to risk one's life on others' behalf is a moral obligation.

You ask me, would I be willing to die for Objectivism? I would. But what is more important, I am willing to live for it -- which is much more difficult.� [Emphasis R.D.]

I'm not sure of your purpose in quoting that.

Are you implying that we should act contrary to our own values because it "is much more difficult"?

Nathan Hawking

Post 102

Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 5:27pm

Link

Edit

Michael:

Nathan,

About Post 91, I stand corrected. Still, I was referring to the idea of choosing values being the basis of morality. But, I made my second mistake of the year. Dayaamm!

Michael, I'm more inclined to choose morality on the basis of values, rather than the other way around.

Here is where I get snagged with you. You wrote:
There is no single "human nature."
There certainly is, but it must be understood as a standard nature around which variations sometimes occur.

That's like saying there is only one red, but it comes in lots of shades. It is an arbitrary statistical argument. It is a contradiction in terms, unless one is saying something conceptually mushy like "human nature is everything humans are and do."

If morality is likened to an Operating Manual, and constructed according to the nature of the being, then is there one manual for all human beings? What would the chapter on sexuality say, for example?

It would be silly to state that birds don't have wings, for example. Are some born without them? Yup. Bet even they are defined by the standard and considered as an exception - not simply an invalidation of wings being essential to the concept of birds.

There are a few observable species-behavior traits in human beings, flocking, care for the young and so forth. Just because there are exceptions, this does not invalidate the standard.

One can properly refer to statistical norms in human populations. But unless you are advocating a normative-based ethics, or a morality based upon essentialism, there is no "standard" human being.

Ayn Rand once referred, derisively, if memory serves, to those who 'cannot find the manness in man.' But it is noteworthy that other than alleging that rationality was the human defining characteristic, neither could she 'find the manness in man.'

At best, one can say that humans TEND to be this or that. And that is hardly a fitting basis for constructing a universal human morality.

Nathan Hawking

Post 103

Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 5:43pm

Link

Edit

Nathan,

I ain't gonna let you off the hook this time. You wrote:

That's like saying there is only one red, but it comes in lots of shades.

Now what on earth is wrong with that, if your definition of red includes a range of shades? Red in any of its shades sure as hell ain't blue or green. And when you talk about a shade of red, you are talking about a standard concept to be a shade of - i.e. a shade of something.

Metaphorically speaking, in characteristics that define, there are black and white, and there are shades of gray. One does not negate the other. On the contrary, they compliment each other.

Here's an axiomatic concept I suggest you comtemplate:

Definitions exist.

//;-)

The purpose of a definition is to distinguish a concept from all other concepts and thus keep its units differentiated from all other existents. (ITOE - Rand (p. 40)

Michael

Post 104

Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 6:23pm

Link

Edit

Michael:

Nathan,

I ain't gonna let you off the hook this time. You wrote:

You imagine you have me on the hook, do you? LOL

That's like saying there is only one red, but it comes in lots of shades.
Now what on earth is wrong with that, if your definition of red includes a range of shades? Red in any of its shades sure as hell ain't blue or green. And when you talk about a shade of red, you are talking about a standard concept to be a shade of - i.e. a shade of something.

I have no problem with defining the concept of red as beginning at one wavelength and ending at another. But if you define "red" as 625 to 750nm, what about 624 and 751? Are they magically "not red"?

Sure, per your definition. But your definition has a measure of arbitrariness to it.

So will your definition of what is "standard" behavior for humans. And so will any ethics derived from such a definition be subject to the same flaws.

What kind of thinking do you imagine led Rand to her beliefs about homosexuality?

Here's an axiomatic concept I suggest you comtemplate:

Definitions exist.

The purpose of a definition is to distinguish a concept from all other concepts and thus keep its units differentiated from all other existents. (ITOE - Rand (p. 40)

That's nice. Now define the "manness in man."

I have no problem with definitions. As you know, I use them all the time. But I know their limits.

Many Objectivists have a strong but unwarranted faith in the power of simple definitions, combined with some logic, to present answers to us. But when they are unable to answer difficult questions in real life, rather than question their faith, they simply assume that they are improperly applying the tenets of the faith.

To these I would say: Check your premises.

That has a familiar ring to it, don't you think?

Nathan Hawking

Post 105

Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 6:47pm

Link

Edit

Nathan,

Arbitrary, noooooooooo!

That's wrong. Information about reality is obtained by the senses, identified by integrated percepts in a consciousness and organized (by integration) into concepts. This is a form of information processing. Concepts don't exist in reality as referents (as your would have "red" in this case). They merely identify and group characteristics (removing measurements), and they subsume lesser concepts. If you cited everything that is built into a concept like man, you would have reams of pages of referents.

So a definition is not arbitrary, it is precise, precisely because observable limits are set on it.

But as I said, there is still some reading for me to redo to brush up on this.

What I object to in your thinking is that there is only gray, and no black and white. I don't buy it because it leads to moral relativism. (But even you set the limit at a one billion to one murder, regardless of a lack of precision. Or would you state one billion to one as a precise limit? Or the need for setting a limit at all?)

More later.

Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 6/16, 6:50pm)

Post 106

Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 7:19pm

Link

Edit

Michael:

As I suggested, the proof is in answers to real life questions.

I know the concepts liturgy by heart. Bear in mind your claim that there's a single human nature, a claim I deny has much meaningful and useful content.

This is exactly the issue which gave you difficulty before, you may recall, and sent you 'back to the books.'

So a definition is not arbitrary, it is precise, precisely because observable limits are set on it.

Precise definitions are fine when we are defining precise things. But light spectra and the spectrum which is human nature are not things with obvious boundaries.

What I object to in your thinking is that there is only gray, and no black and white. I don't buy it because it leads to moral relativism.

I wish you'd be more careful about how you characterize my position, Michael. To say that there is gray between black and white is to deny neither black or white.

I think my position is more reasonable than those who deny there's gray, mostly by pretending that it doesn't exist. Or who pretend there are obvious answers but never get around to saying just what they are.

As for your concern about moral relativism, are you advocating moral absolutism? Or just an absolutism dictated by "context"?

Answer the latter if you're inclined. Or wait until you feel more prepared, if that's better for you.

Nathan Hawking

Post 107

Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 10:33pm

Link

Edit

Nathan,

I know the concepts liturgy by heart.

Not liturgy.

I didn't really understand the rest of your post after that.

Michael

Post 108

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 12:06am

Link

Edit

NH
>I have no problem with definitions. As you know, I use them all the time. But I know their limits.

Nathan, do you know there are *two kinds* of definitions? Lord knows, I don't want to start a thread on this...I've already done about 50 million posts prior on the subject some time back. But I will touch on this briefly.

One is "essentialist". The other is "nominalist" (I use nominalist in a methodological sense, not a metaphysical one). This seems like a trivial academic point, but in practice they make the difference between a good discussion and a bad one.

If you are interested, I will Solomail you about the difference. If you already know this one, just ignore this comment.

- Daniel

Post 109

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 3:20am

Link

Edit

[Nathan:] "I think, Joel, that most human beings have the genetically endowed predisposition to value other humans, some far more and some far less than others. I see culture and personal circumstance as something which either enhances or represses and destroys that natural inclination."

I understood (and perhaps misunderstood) that you were talking in a more general sense. Of course motherhood has an undeniable genetic component. I agree with you that "humans care for each other" has a genetic component only at the familiar level.

But I don't think that our values and ideals related to broader human groups (country, mankind) can be encoded in our genes. I maintain that our values/ideals, at that broader level, are defined by our culture. I was referring to that.

[Nathan:] "Using the same line of thinking, one could also conclude that Western society was similarly deficient."

Yes, and in part it still is. The West accepts self-criticism, and that's a very particular feature of the Western mindset.

Actually, that refreshing feature of self-criticism is one of the main reasons that has been boosting the progress of the West.

Best wishes,

Joel Catal�

Post 110

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 4:14am

Link

Edit

Robert, I try to reply your post #45.

(You�re right, English is not my first language.)

[Robert Davison:] "On Moral Relativism for example, he says:

�Without God, each society or individual makes up its or his/her moral standards.�

"In his mind, one has to believe in God or in some form of religion in order that morality can exist."

Robert, as I see it, your interpretation is wrong. What you say would imply that Mr. Prager defends subjectivism, and he does not. Mr. Prager here means �independently of God�, not �without believing in a god�.

He means, I understand, �each society or individual based in Atheism or Idolatry makes up its or his/her moral standard.�

[Robert Davison:] �Morality is the arbitrary whim of the supernatural.�

You can�t know a property about the supernatural. You can only acquire knowledge about natural things.

[Robert Davison:] �Objectivist ethics holds that man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, [...]� [Italics mine]

[Robert Davison:] �Objectivism tells you that you must not accept any idea unless you can demonstrate it�s true by reason.�

How can you demonstrate (by reason) that the following is true:

1.- you exist for your own sake.

2.- the pursuit of your own happiness is the highest moral purpose you could have.

I agree with the first point, if it does not mean that each man exists only for his own sake. I sustain that the existence of other individuals should also matter you.

I don�t agree with point 2. I see man�s own happiness as a good thing, but not as man�s highest purpose. Happiness is a wonderful emotion, a reward in your route towards the fulfillment of your highest moral purpose.
To summarize what I think is possibly the most balanced position on that issue, the Jewish sage Hillel once said:

"If I am not for me, who will be for me? But if I am only for me, what am I? If not now, when?" [Italics mine].

The first question addresses point 1. The second question addresses point 2. (The last addresses the need to act consequently.)

[Robert Davison:] �A set of beliefs accepted on faith without justification or evidence is faith, the opposite of reason.�

The opposite of reason is not faith, nor emotion, but irrationality. But its true that some faiths are irrational: in example, I know that Polytheism, Buddhism, Catholicism and Islam and have irrational basis.

[Robert Davison:] �You might ask yourself, if God created the universe and the universe in the total of all existence, where is God located? If you answer within the universe then he is simply a phenomenon of nature, ultimately observable and knowable, not omniscient. If he is outside of the universe, then the universe is not the sum total of all existence."

You need to be very careful with logics. Robert, if you consider that the Creator exists, the universe is not the total of all existence. Additionally, the Creator cannot be part of His creation!

Moreover, the Creator cannot be �outside� the universe because �inside� --and �outside�-- are physical concepts. In summary: I think that the Creator exists but is not physical.

(If you are interested in the --I think amazing-- concept of Creator accepted by Mr. Prager, it includes a principle of Judaism named "The Denial of Physicality in Connection with G-d".

[Robert Davison:] "As to the silly talk on this thread about sacrificing someone for millions of others, it is an absurd premise."

Robert, evading my arguments with those �silly talk� and "absurd premise" brushes was not very fair from you.

Moreover, more than Rand�s argumentations, I would like to see your own argumentations. Anyway, I will comment some of her sentences.

[Ayn Rand:] �What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty [�]�

Who has defended charity in this thread? Besides, charity is not a Jewish moral duty. (The meaning of tzedakah is not charity, but righteousness, justice or fairness.)

[Ayn Rand:] �If one does feel compassion for the torturers, it is an act of moral treason toward the victims.�

Mr. Prager is not a Chrisitian. Laterally, Mr. Prager once wrote a fine article on morality "We all have moral bank accounts".

I agree with this sentence from Adam Smith: "Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent."

[Ayn Rand:] �A man has to live for, and when necessary, fight, for his values.�

That�s �silly talk�, as every man lives for his values. The meaningful question is whether his values are right or wrong.

Scott Ryan wrote in his book "Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality" that �what is good in Objectivism is not new, and what is new is not good." I am getting very persuaded on that.

Best wishes,

Joel Catal�

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 6/17, 4:17am)

Post 111

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 4:49am

Link

Edit

Mr. Kelly, here I reply your post #96.

[Michael Stuart Kelly:] �Objectivism holds man�s life that [man�s] standard.�

I could agree with you depending on what you mean with �standard�. I think that man�s life is one of the top values you can have.

[Michael Stuart Kelly:] �Would you call your penis, for example, an amoral tool?�

Amoral is not the same as immoral. Tools are not morally right, nor wrong, because tools have no volition. Every individual�s acts are morally right or wrong, because every individual embraces (consciously or not) a morality, and has volition.

[Michael Stuart Kelly:] �One man in just about any city in the world, not merely an Islamic city, can appeal for help from strangers and be ignored.�

True, but very difficult to imagine an equivalent situation in a city of the civilized world (by civilized I mean, in example, countries in where the treatment of women as chattel is not legally accepted): or can you imagine an individual shot in a street of Los Angeles, shouting "Help me, I am a Christian", or "Help me, I am an Objectivist"? That was my point.

[Michael Stuart Kelly:] �neither side will gain anything by trying to use reason to prove contempt and hatred for an entire civilization.�

We need to abandon that mesmerizing political correctness and call a spade a spade. Civilization and barbarism are incompatible. I love civilization. I hate barbarism. And that's completely fair.

[Michael Stuart Kelly:] �The ideas are what are wrong and knuckleheaded, not the people.�

I am aware of what you are saying. Let�s talk about ideas.

An Islamic fighter of Afghanistan said, talking about ideas:

1.- �The Americans lead lavish lives and they are afraid of death. We are not afraid of death. The Americans love Pepsi Cola, we love death."

2.- "War is our best hobby. The sound of guns firing is like music for us. We cannot live without war. We have no other way except jihad."

3.- "All the weapons, training and technology of the Russians gave way because they had no purpose in life. They only fought for a salary. We fought for the cause of Islam, because Allah commanded us. We embraced death, we were willing to be martyrs"

That individual was sincere and shrewd. He said the truth. The West has one set of values, and Islam has another set of values. Indeed, very different, you see. Life is one of the most revered Western values. To kill and die for Allah (to wage jihad against the Infidels) is the most revered Islamic value.

Please, Mr. Kelly: inform yourself, and don't defend to quickly Islam (out of naivete, ignorance, fear, or moral relativism), which is a philosophical system that is opposed to your Objectivist ideals.

I would suggest you to read first some apostates of Islam as Ali Sina, or Ibn Warraq, among others. Then you can additionally read Robert Spencer (expert on Islam and director of jihadwatch), Dr. Bat Ye�Or (the scholar of dhimmitude). Afterwards you will have a much more realistic idea of what is utter barbarism and how to face it, and how we the "Infidels" can combat it with a chance of survival.

And yet you will understand better if you dare reading the Koran. There you will find hatred and contempt towards the non-Muslim individuals.

[Michael Stuart Kelly:] �Once that choice has been required, then all the lives have been sacrificed (the one and the millions), as surviving under those conditions implies an evil, anti.-human-being force so great that human living means nothing any longer.�

Well written, Mr. Kelly. By the way, it reminds me of the suicidal attacks of the Islamists, the Kamikaze, or the savage rituals of the Aztec warriors.

Best wishes,

Joel Catal�

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 6/17, 6:49am)

Post 112

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 6:39am

Link

Edit

Joel, you wrote:

And yet you will understand better if you dare reading the Koran. There you will find hatred and contempt towards the non-Muslim.

Ditto for the Talmud.

I reject them both.

You presume that I have not "dared" to read the Koran, going so far as to say I should inform myself. I have only read parts of it, not all of it, that is true, but I am informed in that sense. You should inform yourself about whom you are talking to before making statements like that. (I used to be married to an Brazilian-Arabian woman in Brazil for five years. You do not marry a woman in that culture, you marry a whole tribe. They were mostly Catholic, but still I was exposed to many cultural values that have nothing to do with jihad and all that. I also read a good part of the Koran due to the ones who were still Islamic. I have stated these things in other posts. You just did not "dare" to read them, so you were not properly informed. //;-)

You said that I defended Islam. I do not and I resent that. I will not be dragged into this hatred thing by knuckleheaded thinking. I defend people, all people, and will not buy a package concept of hatred. As I stated, I reject the tenets of any and all organized religions, Islam, Jew and Christian (and the others).

Let me state it a different way. I love many Jewish people I know. I love many Islamic people I know. I abhor the Talmud and Koran as moral guidance. They are both evil documents in many places.

btw - The soldier you mentioned was only echoing what Bin Laden said very clearly earlier. It was all over CNN. That particular idea in Islamic thinking is extremely repugnant. But so is the idea of a chosen people (just to mention one). These are not proper ideas for spreading peace and good will and they all must be fought.

Michael

Post 113

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 7:31am

Link

Edit

[Mr. Kelly] "Joel, you wrote:

And yet you will understand better if you dare reading the Koran. There you will find hatred and contempt towards the non-Muslim.

"Ditto for the Talmud."

Can you bring any proof of that?

[Mr. Kelly:] "You presume that I have not "dared" to read the Koran, going so far as to say I should inform myself. I have only read parts of it, not all of it, that is true, but I am informed in that sense."

In what sense?

[Mr. Kelly:] "(I used to be married to an Brazilian-Arabian woman in Brazil for five years. You do not marry a woman in that culture, you marry a whole tribe. They were mostly Catholic, but still I was exposed to many cultural values that have nothing to do with jihad and all that."

I am not speaking about the Arabs. I am speaking about the ideas in the Koran. Please don't blur the issue.

[Mr. Kelly:] "I defend people, all people, and will not buy a package concept of hatred."

Where I asked you to hate any individual? I told you that I hate evil ideas.

[Mr. Kelly:] "As I stated, I reject the tenets of any and all organized religions, Islam, Jew and Christian (and the others)."

Perhaps you should say that you reject all religions, independently of their tenets.

[Mr. Kelly:] "Let me state it a different way. I love many Jewish people I know. I love many Islamic people I know."

Again you go ahead with that straw man argument... I am attacking evil ideas, and you, as a reply, speak about individuals.

[Mr. Kelly:] "I abhor the Talmud and Koran as moral guidance. They are both evil documents in many places."

Do you know a thing about the Talmud? What is in the Talmud that you abhor so much?

[Mr. Kelly:] "btw - The soldier you mentioned was only echoing what Bin Laden said very clearly earlier."

So what? Are those ideas wrong or not?

[Mr. Kelly:] "That particular idea in Islamic thinking is extremely repugnant. But so is the idea of a chosen people (just to mention one)."

What is so repugnant in the idea of the "chosen people", do you see that concept any close to the Islamic love of death?

Why you evade my point of the evil nature of the Islamic ideology by attacking the Talmud, without any argument, evidence, link, or citation supporting your attack?

By the way, thank you for the fact that you assume I am a Jew. I am not a Jew.

Best wishes,

Joel Catal�

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 6/17, 7:35am)

Post 114

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 8:33am

Link

Edit

Sorry, Joel,

This whole subtext of yours of constantly focusing on strictly negative things in one culture only and ignoring the negatives in others smacks way too much of a cultural, not intellectual bias. You say that the problem is ideas, but your focus is cultural. I ain't buying it.

What is wrong with the Talmud? Faith. (You really need proof of that?) What is wrong with the Koran? Faith. What's wrong with all religions? Faith.

That's the main evil idea. The rest is derivative.

Michael

Post 115

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 10:05am

Link

Edit

[Mr. Kelly:] "This whole subtext of yours of constantly focusing on strictly negative things in one culture only and ignoring the negatives in others smacks way too much of a cultural, not intellectual bias."

Yes, I express my "cultural" bias because I don't want to adopt a pose of neutrality while talking about a cult of death: Islam is an ideology promoting the murder of innocent people every day. I assumed this was a reasonably uncensored philosophical forum (hey, Linz, I still do!.)

I have also a "cultural" bias against Nazism, Communism, and Pacifism (which is a suicidal cult). And I feel really proud of it.

[Mr. Kelly:] "You say that the problem is ideas, but your focus is cultural. I ain't buying it."

But do you subscribe objectivism, or a form of cultural relativism? Not all cultures are good per se: it depends on their morality and values. Non-judgmentalism is immoral.

[Mr. Kelly:] "What is wrong with the Talmud? Faith. (You really need proof of that?) What is wrong with the Koran? Faith. What's wrong with all religions? Faith.

"That's the main evil idea. The rest is derivative."

Your flawed reasoning here is rooted in that you think that reason and faith are always opposed. Let me explain:

The two examples I will draw here are related to two entries of "faith" taken from dictionary.com .

A.- First example. I don't have any faith in Polytheism. That's because, that faith would be anti-rational. This example is included within the second entry of "faith", which is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." Concretely, to have faith in Zeus would be a belief opposed to logics, among other things.

B.- Second example. I have a total faith in reason. I think that reason always works when properly used. I am totally persuaded that reason works: and that's precisely the kind of faith that I accept. The first entry of "faith" is "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." Will you think now that reason is an evil value?

My refutation of your position is based in the fact that you actually place a total trustworthiness in reason (I assume), and that is contradictory with your absolute rejection of all entries of the word "faith".

Then, your accusation of the Talmud is baseless because you assumed, incorrectly, that faith is always wrong.

I hope my explanation was clear enough.

Best wishes,

Joel Catal�

P.S.: For the interested: The Talmud is the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament, and was written placing a total trust in reason and in a benevolent Creator of the universe.

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 6/17, 10:16am)

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 6/17, 10:32am)

Post 116

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 10:58am

Link

Edit

Justin,

That was an enriching discussion, and I understand we have already defined our (current) positions, as well as Mr Prager's view, on the relationship (or lack thereof) between reason and morality.

Have a nice weekend,

Joel Catal�

Post 117

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 11:43am

Link

Edit

Joel, with all due respect, you refute nothing.

Three quotes from your last post:

Your flawed reasoning here is rooted in that you think that reason and faith are always opposed.

I have a total faith in reason.

For the interested: The Talmud is the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament, and was written placing a total trust in reason and in a benevolent Creator of the universe.

You muddle up the definitions of faith and reason to sneak in a deity, and then sneak in the chosen people.

That is the snake oil you are peddling. I ain't buying.

Faith as a tool of cognition is evil.

Michael

Post 118

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 12:47pm

Link

Edit

[Mr. Kelly:] "You muddle up the definitions of faith and reason"

Wrong, Mr. Kelly: I did not make up those definitions for the simple reason that I did not write that on-line dictionary.

Everyone interested can find those different entries of "faith" at dictionary.com , and judge by themselves.

I am not the issue. The issue is that in order to reject all faiths, you need to refute the validity of "faith" for all its existing meanings. But you can't do them (those refutations), because a total trust in reason is itself a type of faith.

Besides, the last post-scriptum quote --I see you deliberately deleted the "P. S." acronym-- is strictly a description.

[Mr. Kelly:] "Faith as a tool of cognition is evil"

With this sentence you are saying that a total trustworthiness in reason is evil. Lets use the cognitive tool of logics in order to see it:

A: A rational individual places a total trustworthiness in reason in order to gain knowledge.
B: According to dictionary.com , "total trustworthiness" is one of the definitions of "faith".

If A and B are true, then C:

A rational individual uses faith (in one of his definitions [1]) in order to gain knowledge.

Best wishes,

Joel Catal�

[1]: The first entry of "faith" you can find in dictionary.com , which I cited in point B.- of post #115.

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 6/17, 12:52pm)

Post 119

Friday, June 17, 2005 - 1:18pm

Link

Edit

Joel,

I am not going to argue with you on tangents. May I suggest you read Atlas Shrugged? After all, you are on an Objectivist forum and you should at least be aware of what the basic issues and definitions are.

Michael

Denis Prager poses a question