Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Proverb

Consider This!

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Is this analogy valid?

To see it as valid, I have found, requires one to greatly generalize the terms. However, does this fact (which I think adds to it's eloquence) belie its validity?

"REASON:LIFE::DEATH:FAITH"

Thank You for your considerations!

Edited by Proverb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100% of humans who follow reason will die.

reason:happyness would be more apt (or you could have reason:lifeappropriatetoarationalbeing, which is a bit tautologous).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reason contributes to the futherance of life as death and self sacrifice contribute to the furtherance of faith as it relates to a belief in god and human insignificance.

Does the analogy not hold those concepts, even given 'the stretch' to that end?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reason contributes to the futherance of life as death and self sacrifice contribute to the furtherance of faith as it relates to a belief in god and human insignificance.

Does the analogy not hold those concepts, even given 'the stretch' to that end?

Of course it does. Your only mistake was in reversing the causal order between "death" and "faith".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"REASON:LIFE::DEATH:FAITH"

There’s a valid meaning behind this inversed analogy, but attempting to reduce a highly abstract argument to an analogy smells like useless rationalism to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this analogy valid?

To see it as valid, I have found, requires one to greatly generalize the terms. However, does this fact (which I think adds to it's eloquence) belie its validity?

"REASON:LIFE::DEATH:FAITH"

Thank You for your considerations!

It is a perfectly true analogy, it could be rewritten as "Reason is a requirement of life, just as death is a requirement of faith." The last two (death and faith) could be inverted, but they require one another. The analogy could be written with either pair (reason and life, death and faith) inverted and still remain true.

You are of course, assuming Life to mean "Life qua Man," rather than merely having a heartbeat. It might be clearer to state this as "REASON:LIFE QUA[/i[ MAN::FAITH:DEATH."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There’s a valid meaning behind this inversed analogy, but attempting to reduce a highly abstract argument to an analogy smells like useless rationalism to me.

Only someone who uses their nose rather than their head to evaluate something could make a statement like that. But don't mind me, go on sniffing.

If reducing a "highly abstract argument" to an analogy is useless rationalism, then so is the whole of mathematics. Would a math professor claim that "2 + 2 = 4" is nothing but a rationalism? In other words, don't slap such a label on a perfectly valid method of illustration. The entire purpose of philosophy, or indeed a science of any kind, is to be able to produce such analogies. Think where "E = mc ^ 2" has got us!

And, in response to Tikkun, it does not matter whether one replaces "life" with "happiness," as a proper life entails happiness. No, the original analogy is not "misleading and absurd." I think it's an excellent statement.

Edited by ingok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If reducing a "highly abstract argument" to an analogy is useless rationalism, then so is the whole of mathematics. 

Wrong!

2 + 2 is very different from 2:2

The "plus" operator has a specific meaning.

On the other hand a:b::x:y clearly depends on what type of relationship one is talking about between a:b. Only once that is clearly specified can we answer the question.

The rationalism does not come from expressing the statement consisely as: a:b::c:d, it is inherent in the expanded version: a is related to b as x is related to y.

If a, b, x and y were fairly simple concpets, then we could make a reasonable assumption about the type of relationship and provide an answser -- as is common in IQ tests. However, with concepts like life and reason, leaving the relationship unspecified empties the proposition of all meaning or else has everyone making a guess as to what the author meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong!

2 + 2 is very different from 2:2

The "plus" operator has a specific meaning.

On the other hand a:b::x:y clearly depends on what type of relationship one is talking about between a:b. Only once that is clearly specified can we answer the question.

The rationalism does not come from expressing the statement consisely as: a:b::c:d, it is inherent in the expanded version: a is related to b as x is related to y.

If a, b, x and y were fairly simple concpets, then we could make a reasonable assumption about the type of relationship and provide an answser -- as is common in IQ tests. However, with concepts like life and reason, leaving the relationship unspecified empties the proposition of all meaning or else has everyone making a guess as to what the author meant.

Wrong!

The concepts of "life" and "reason" are just as concise as mathematical numbers, and the operators ":" and "::" are as concise as "+" and "=."

It could be written more concisely as the following, though there is no change in meaning: "The concept of a process of self-generated and self-sustaining action has the same relationship to the concept of a process of non-contradictory identification and integration as the concept of a non-justified belief in a supernatural power does to the concept of the abscence of the process of self-generated and self-sustaining action." That is quite as clear and concise as "2 + 2 = 4."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The concepts of "life" and "reason" are just as concise as mathematical numbers, and the operators ":" and "::" are as concise as "+" and "=."

Is it your contention that all concepts are at the same level of abstarction or equally easy to comprehend?

It could be written more concisely as the following, though there is no change in meaning: "The concept of a process of self-generated and self-sustaining action has the same relationship to the concept of a process of non-contradictory identification and integration as the concept of a non-justified belief in a supernatural power does to the concept of the abscence of the process of self-generated and self-sustaining action." That is quite as clear and concise as "2 + 2 = 4."

Is it your contention that "has the same relationship" is as precise as "addition" or (say) "greater than" in this context, where multiple relationships can exist and it is not obvious which one is implied?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[...] death and self sacrifice contribute to the furtherance of faith as it relates to a belief in god and human insignificance.

I don't understand. How does death contribute to faith? What are examples that you have observed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a perfectly true analogy, it could be rewritten as "Reason is a requirement of life, just as death is a requirement of faith."

How is death a requirement of faith? What are examples of this relationship?

Perhaps defining "faith" would help clarify your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am saying that a blind belief in the supernatural and it's mantras is at the root of many self-destructive actions, such as the thought of one's self as a means to the ends of others. Though the result of self-sacrificial action is not always death, it is the ultimate outcome if such action is continued.

in a way to more clearly define: Reason:Life qua Man::Death:Faith qua God

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...