Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
dustyjames

Question about philosophy and carrying an ideal out to its logical conclusion

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Hey everybody this is my first post.

I don't know how or when I figured it out, but at some point I learned to be consistent with my logic. If I state an ideal, then I must be able to carry that idea out to its logical conclusion and be able to defend that. To me, that's a fundamental characteristic of any true philosophy (even bad ones).

Rand Paul recently did this with Bernie Sanders who constantly says people have a "right" to health care, etc. He explained that saying people have a right to health care is basically saying you believe in slavery and think you should be able to force someone to perform labor on your behalf, etc.

My question is, I don't know where I learned this (but it probably wasn't until I was well into my 20s). And I wonder if there's a book that teaches how to be logically consistent in this way with philosophy. For most people, they cannot grasp how to do this.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Textbooks on logic are easy to find. With help, you can discover what follows or not from a set of statements, and from there you can go on to apply it to the statements you come across in conversation or in the news. David Kelley is an Objectivist, so his textbook might be a good place to start.

A technique I've learned (but can't really teach) is to ask, when somebody makes an asserition (typically about ethics or politics), what the principle behind it is. If your interlocutor can't or won't, then the assertion isn't worth taking seriously. If he does, use your book learning to spin out the consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think the issue is more *why* rather than *how*... logical consistency is more of a Western and Christian characteristic. You would only believe logical consistency is worthwhile if you have certain metaphysical premises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Logical consistency is something important to many cultures, even if Romans (and Christianity evolving out of Roman values of reason and none of its values of eudaimonia and personal well-being on Earth) were explicit about it. Ancient China was as powerful as Ancient Rome, if not more powerful than Rome. This would not be possible unless reasoning was important to the Chinese.

Dustyjames, the best thing to do is practice. Read arguments from good philosophers and bad philosophers. Challenge people on their arguments. Read some books on reasoning. Most of all, always ask why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Eiuol said:

This would not be possible unless reasoning was important to the Chinese.

That really doesn't follow. Also, the standard being discussed here is logical consistency, not "power". Logical consistency is not something eastern cultures are known for. They prefer "both-and" to "either-or".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, epistemologue said:

Logical consistency is not something eastern cultures are known for. They prefer "both-and" to "either-or".

No, that's just primarily Buddhism and Taoism as far as I know that advocate "both-and". Christianity has some of that, too.

Power being technological advancement. That takes reasoning, which takes logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×