Make It Stop :(

[Qwertz]

And ITOE. Don't forget ITOE. It is the most neglected (esp. by academia) and the most crucial.

The Instructor is trying to compartmentalize and perform "logic" in an epistemological vacuum. Only by doing this is s/he able to assert that an argument containing a major premise that is flatly contradicted by self-evident facts is nonetheless "logical."

Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. It presupposes a non-contradictory reality, and a human consciousness capable of identifying it. It is one thing to state as a premise a proposition that may or may not be true. It is quite another to state as a premise a proposition that, if true, would make such identification impossible.

~Q

PS: More questions: Is this an associate professor, a tenured professor, a TA, a grad student, or an adjunct?

(I am saving up all your answers to these questions about the class format and will have something to say about them soon.)

PPS: On the "Rand lacks argumentative substance" crap, I would tell Instructor that s/he is incompetent to offer meaningful criticism of Rand unless s/he has at least read ITOE. Of course, I would not make any friends doing so, and I would not make any decent grades, either.

Edited July 4, 2008 by Qwertz

[KevinDW78]

This is just a grad student.

[musenji]

Did anyone besides Rand (or Rand fans) ever define logic as "the art of non-contradictory identification"?

[KevinDW78]

I believe Rand point to Aristotle in Galt's Speech as being the originator of Identity based logic.

[musenji]

I believe Rand point to Aristotle in Galt's Speech as being the originator of Identity based logic.

Okay, I'll just say what I meant to say. I think the professor is right that you need to clarify what you're defining as "logical". It is logically valid to start with two false premises, apply correct logic, and arrive at a false conclusion. However, it is not logically sound. Whether or not it is "logical" is really a bit vague/unclear. By "logical" do you mean "logically sound"?

[Qwertz]

Metaphysics IV, part 3:

For a principle which every one must have who understands anything that is, is not a hypothesis; and that which every one must know who knows anything, he must already have when he comes to a special study. Evidently then such a principle is the most certain of all; which principle this is, let us proceed to say. It is, that the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect....

Still scouring for the others...

~Q

Edited July 4, 2008 by Qwertz

[softwareNerd]

It sounds like your instructor and the Christian don't understand when you say something is not "logical". So, you either have to get sidetracked into "what is logic", or you have to use their term. Your instructor appears more willing to use the term "rational" as the broad concept, with "logical" being a part of it. For instance, he says "it seems that you want to say that logic and rationality are in some sense intimately connected."

However, I suspect that if you shift to using "rational" to cover a combination of "fact and observation based" and "well deduced", he will shift to attacking even this broader combination. I get this from his other statement: "...it will be hard to show ANY system of rationality to be the right system without begging the question."

What does he think is the point of a thread, or argument with that type of nihilist/subjectivist assumption?

Edited July 4, 2008 by softwareNerd

[KevinDW78]

What does he think is the point of a thread, or argument with that type of nihilist/subjectivist assumption?

lol I wish I knew. I was flabbergasted when he attacked me and left Jason alone to wallow in his absurdity. I did however respond to him with my definition of logic (non-contradictory identification) and then ran with the instructor's statement that "I may be right" by pointing out that I am not aware of any use, utilitarian (small "u") or otherwise, for logic that is irrational. But I said I would be more clear in the future with regards to logic vs rationality.

[KurtColville]

I'd like to expand on what Qwertz and musenji said about logical consistency and with respect to your teacher's syllogism proving God's existence. The "bad" news: his syllogism is logical. The good news: it's also not true! As Qwertz noted, logic applies equally to premises, whether they are true or false. Logic only serves to identify consistency between assertions. Without first appealing to the facts of reality, logic is useless. If you start with false premises, logic will only pass on a false conclusion. It is insufficient to determine the validity of an assertion.

I don't think I saw in your whole exchange the one word that is the most important to your discussion: reason. Reason is the means by which man knows the facts of reality, and logic is but one of reason's tools. Reason also requires a focus on an existent's essentials, and logic alone is insufficient for identifying those essentials. For that, man needs to understand causality.

To hammer home my point about keeping assertions bound to reason and the facts of reality, I wonder if your teacher recognizes the arbitrariness of the first premise in his syllogism. Why is it safe to assume that "If it is not the case that God exist,s [sic] nothing else could possibly exist"? Why? Of what use is this premise? Are we even going to try to evaluate its validity, to ask whether it's true or not? We're just going to take it as a given?

Your teacher, explicitly, and your deluded, dishonest opponent, implicitly, are relying on your own confusion and inability to filter out their garbage. Don't let them. Think for yourself, say only what is true, and know why it is true. This is especially critical when you invoke the three axioms as metaphysically given, as axiomatic. You most know why existence, identity, and consciousness are axiomatic. I've always said that God has the best gig in the universe. He gets all the credit for anything good and none of the blame for anything bad.

Edited July 4, 2008 by KurtColville

[DragonMaci]

I'd like to expand on what Qwertz and musenji said about logical consistency and with respect to your teacher's syllogism proving God's existence. The "bad" news: his syllogism is logical.

No, it isn't. He started from a baseless assumption. Baseless assumptions are illogical. That made his beginning illogical, making the whole thing illogical.

[KurtColville]

No, it isn't. He started from a baseless assumption. Baseless assumptions are illogical. That made his beginning illogical, making the whole thing illogical.

The conclusion follows logically from the assumptions. The assumption is false -- that's the point. The conclusion does not contradict the assumptions, it contradicts reality.

[DragonMaci]

The conclusion follows logically from the assumptions. The assumption is false -- that's the point. The conclusion does not contradict the assumptions, it contradicts reality.

Anything that contradicts reality is illogical.

[FeatherFall]

Kevin, Inspector is right: Identifying what "Logic" and "Logical" mean is supremely important. If something is logical simply because it can be included in the premise statement of a valid syllogism, then it renders the adjective "Logical" useless, as it could apply to anything. "Olihj-iekjl" could be put into such a syllogism and thus be called logical. If your instructor really understands what he is saying, then he must admit that you and Jason are actually arguing whether it is reasonable to believe in God. Your instructor is a solipsist hack and I don't like him.

Your instructor's definition does not lend any credibility to Jason in the general argument that you're actually having; "Does God exist?" You've already given your answer. Based on Jason's "definition" (to butcher the term) of God, no rational argument is possible. In fact, every definition he appears to provide is actually an attempt at slipping the need for a definition, thus slipping the need for an argument.

I know the axioms are apart from the topic you were discussing, but I have something to add. Remember that in every argument against the axioms, the axioms are employed – an example of the fallacy of the stolen concept:

The statement "Existence doesn't exist" assumes truth exists, and if anything exists so does existence.

To say that "there is no consciousness" is to say that you know that consciousness doesn't exist; Knowledge, of course, requires one to be conscious of a truth.

The statement, "Identity doesn't exist", to have any meaning, must have its own identity.

[KevinDW78]

Sorry DM, your suggestion got undermined lol

INSTRUCTOR:

And what do you mean by "art of non-contradictory identification"?

Also, you can just assert "you are using a premise which, if true, would make identification impossible (because nothing would exist)" without explaining what that's supposed to mean. What premise? How does using that premise make identification impossible? What do you mean by identification?

Finally, what is it that you think makes a premise irrational or unsound? (And notice that you can't appeal to "identification"---whatever you mean by that---without begging the question.)

I am somewhat losing track of this conversation since these people are all over the place but this was also a last word I got from the instructor:

INSTRUCTOR:

That's all well and good, but what makes violating one of those "absolutes" [the three axioms] wrong? That is, what makes it immoral to violate one of the absolutes?

ME:

Because to do so is to act on the premise of destruction. That is a premise that an Objectivist accepts as "irrational". The "why" to an Objectivist is simply the commitment to rationality.

INSTRUCTOR:

So what makes it wrong to act on a premise of destruction? If I sacrifice my life to save the life of my child, it looks like I'm doing something moral that is acting on a premise of destruction.

What you need to show, in order to answer the question without begging it, is that there is some intimate relationship between rationality and morality. And there are further problems you're going to encounter in trying to do that. As I've suggested in response to one of your other discussion board posts, you need a notion of rationality that doesn't beg the question, and that's going to be hard to come up with.

Now, suppose you can come up with some non-question-begging notion of rationality. Since you seem to be enamored of Rand's views, let's suppose that that non-question-begging notion of rationality is based on some type of egoism or self-interest (loosely construed). On this notion of rationality, it's going to be rational to do all and only things that benefit the particular individual, but our generally accepted sense of morality has to make room for acts that look like expressions of altruism. So what you'll need to explain is how an individual can be both rational and moral when it looks like your presupposed notion of rationality is going to exclude a considerable portion of what most people take to be genuinely moral actions---that is, altruistic actions.

At this point, both these topics have been locked on the borad, so I have no more opportunity to debate these in the class. Oh well. It's a shame since there ARE answers to his final questions which the other student's could have gotten to see.

Edited July 6, 2008 by KevinDW78

[Qwertz]

That's all well and good, but what makes violating one of those "absolutes" wrong?

Nothing. They cannot be violated. They cannot even be denied. Why is this an issue? What would a violation of an axiom even look like? Instructor is trying to make an ethics issue out of axioms? The cart goes behind the horse, Silly Mr/s Instructor.

~Q

[KevinDW78]

lol. It's probably my fault for blathering out my attempt to argue Objectivist ethics while still being such a noob. I think ultimately what it came down to is he wants to know why Objectivist ethics are immoral? The problem is there is no magic answer - no deity or magic ball that determines that. If you want to be moral, then you simply have to act rationally. It's not because of some "duty" like Kant or a "God" like Devine COmmand theory. It's just the choice to act rationally. Oh well. People like him will never understand. He just views us as people "enamored" with what in his opinion is "pop-philosophy"

[volco]

lol. It's probably my fault for blathering out my attempt to argue Objectivist ethics while still being such a noob. I think ultimately what it came down to is he wants to know why Objectivist ethics are immoral? The problem is there is no magic answer - no deity or magic ball that determines that. If you want to be moral, then you simply have to act rationally. It's not because of some "duty" like Kant or a "God" like Devine COmmand theory. It's just the choice to act rationally. Oh well. People like him will never understand. He just views us as people "enamored" with what in his opinion is "pop-philosophy"

well no philosophy can be more popular than a religion.

The main difference is that while religion in essence is propagated "vertically" from parents to their children (or by any other force) , philosophy (but also sects!) is propagated by dissuasion, that is by the rational (or irrational) judgement of individual grown ups.

[themadkat]

lol. It's probably my fault for blathering out my attempt to argue Objectivist ethics while still being such a noob. I think ultimately what it came down to is he wants to know why Objectivist ethics are immoral? The problem is there is no magic answer - no deity or magic ball that determines that. If you want to be moral, then you simply have to act rationally. It's not because of some "duty" like Kant or a "God" like Devine COmmand theory. It's just the choice to act rationally. Oh well. People like him will never understand. He just views us as people "enamored" with what in his opinion is "pop-philosophy"

Hey Kevin,

I know this process can be frustrating. When I was taking my 8 or so philosophy classes in college, I actually had a pretty good experience with the professors. Even when they clearly didn't agree with me, they heard me out and engaged my views in a constructive manner, which is what I would expect in an academic setting. It was some of the other students that really drove me up a wall. I'll always remember the guy from my philosophy of science class who was like "everything in the universe is reducible to particle physics and initial conditions therefore hard determinism." Aargh. He seemed a nice enough guy otherwise but I just couldn't stand it every time he opened his mouth in class. It sounds like your instructor is operating from a background of moral intuitionism, a school of thought which holds that the basis of morality is our common intuitions about what is right and wrong, i.e., just about everyone feels bad when you maliciously hurt someone, so clearly this is wrong. The easy argument against that is, though, "well, what if I genuinely don't feel these 'common moral intuitions' that you speak of? Why should I be moral? It really doesn't bother me to take things, blow stuff up, etc." And they really have no answer for that. Eventually they retreat to some kind of a position that more or less says, "There's something wrong with you if you don't feel this way," which is a line of thought I feel has no place in a philosophical conversation. I remember a lecture I attended a couple months ago where Harry Frankfurt (a very notable philosopher out of Princeton, for those who don't know) came to my college and I was so excited to hear him speak. But I was disappointed, because even though I agreed with his basic point, he was defending it so poorly that it really left a bad taste in my mouth. It was a moment at the end of the lecture that really struck me. Someone in the audience brought up 9/11 and how we could know the hijackers were wrong in what they did, if they were just following a different morality. At least Harry Frankfurt did not totally give up the ghost and say "well we can't say they were wrong", but even though he clearly believed they were wrong and that those actions were evil, he was powerless to defend that assertion in any meaningful way. It was so bad that I actually walked up to the student after the lecture was over and said, "Forgive me for being presumptuous, but yes, they were wrong, yes, it was evil, and yes, we can know that." And the guy said, "OK, but how?" And I said, "Because morality is objective. It is based upon the nature of reality and of humans and it is known through reason." And unfortunately I didn't have much time after that so that was really the end of it, but unfortunately the guy didn't seem to get it anyway.

In my experience (admittedly mostly with college students), most people really do care about what is moral and what is not. They may say morality is subjective but they are clearly uncomfortable with the consequences of that assertion, as they have a genuine desire to stand against that which they consider evil. From what I can tell of most college students, they accept moral relativism only because they are smart enough not to want to believe in fairy tales and truly believe they have no other option if they want to reject a divine-command type morality (which the vast majority do reject). These people are DYING to hear a rational defense of morality, one that really sticks. Obviously you will always have those who want to evade reality and obtain the unearned, and there's really no talking to those folks. But I don't honestly believe most people are like that, at least when they are younger.

[KevinDW78]

Well I am not quick to assume that what the instructor says is what he personally believes. Indeed he said as much at the begining of the semester. He views his role as that of an underminer. That is whatever we argue, he is going to try to challenge us, regardless of how he personally feels. That being said, he has been very cursory and dismissive of Rand without being fully aware of Objectivism. Which is at the least, annoying.

[DragonMaci]

(And notice that you can't appeal to "identification"---whatever you mean by that---without begging the question.)

As I've suggested in response to one of your other discussion board posts, you need a notion of rationality that doesn't beg the question, and that's going to be hard to come up with.

These are merely attempts to make you think you are begging the question when it in fact he is the one doing so. He is questioning every you say, even the axioms, which are the lowest level of knowledge there is. Everything else relies on them, they rely on nothing else. They cannot beg the question because there is nothing below them on the hierarchy of knowledge. That os why they have to be explained in a circular form such as "existence exists" and "A is A". There is nothing below them so there is no other way to explain them. For the same reason they cannot beg the question; there is nothing below them. To me that he says they beg the question anyway shows he doesn't want you to know he is begging the question and will keep doing so no matter what you say so he says you are begging the question instead and will find it hard to give a notion of rationality that doesn't beg the question (sic).

Since you seem to be enamored of Rand's views, let's suppose that that non-question-begging notion of rationality is based on some type of egoism or self-interest (loosely construed).

Now he is mixing up the hierarchy. Ethics comes after epistemology not before. Rationality is not based on egoism and self-interest. Self-interest and egoism are based on rationality.

On this notion of rationality, it's going to be rational to do all and only things that benefit the particular individual but our generally accepted sense of morality has to make room for acts that look like expressions of altruism.

Wrong. It is sometimes in our best interest to help our spouse, children, friends, and even neighbors. One can even donate to charity for selfish reasons. These acts are not altruism and don't look like such if done out of self-interest. If I buy my friend the spark plug he needs to fix his car but cannot afford I will benefit from that in such a way. If I have children and buy them presents for Xmas I will benefit from it by seeing their joy and their gratitude, as well as by seeming them valuing. I could help my neighbor by mowing his lawn one week when I mow mine and him do mine the following week when he does his. Many people without the time to mow their lawns often enough make such arrangements. I have donated to charity to help a value of mine remain in existence. These are all selfish acts that benefit all parties involved not altruistic acts. Not do they look altruistic.

So what you'll need to explain is how an individual can be both rational and moral when it looks like your presupposed notion of rationality is going to exclude a considerable portion of what most people take to be genuinely moral actions---that is, altruistic actions.

Now he is trying to draw you into his error of placing ethics before epistemology. Don't take his bait. No theory of epistemology or ethics will work if you try that. You cannot derive epistemology from ethics and you cannot derive a proper system of ethics if you have no theory of epistemology.

At this point, both these topics have been locked on the borad, so I have no more opportunity to debate these in the class. Oh well. It's a shame since there ARE answers to his final questions which the other student's could have gotten to see.

I think he subconsciously knows he is on shaky ground and wants to end all debate so he will not have to consciously admit it.

[brian0918]

Can god's morality be subjective? The answer is yes.

Are you sure about that? I would have said the answer is 7.

When a person sees a painting, is it illogical for him to suppose that there was a painter? ... In the same way, the universe exists - and it must have had a creator

No. Following his examples, someone might suppose that the universe has a creator. That doesn't mean there actually was a creator, just that someone, somewhere, is supposing there was. So what? Or is he trying to spawn a god into existence through thought alone, like Anselm?

a creator who exists outside of its reality

Is he sure this creator is outside of reality, and not upside of reality, or left and to the back of reality?

Edited July 29, 2008 by brian0918

[FeatherFall]

Is he sure this creator is outside of reality, and not upside of reality, or left and to the back of reality?

Ha!

[prosperity]

OMG. The instructor finally got involved in this discussion but attacked ME:

As a side topic, in another post at the same time, this conversation took place involving the instructor:

ME:

INSTRUCTOR:

To which I responded:

He then replied with:

He also challenged my previous argument with:

I don't care too much about responding to his criticism of my argument, but I really don't want to let his condemnation of Rand pass by. Especially since some students have responded to this post being interested and curious where the axiom come from. I don't want the instructor's predjudice to potentially deter potential future Objectivists.

Demonstrate that the axioms are self-evident. This is where many critics of Objectivism "trap" well meaning Objectivists by demanding proof of the axioms. The axioms cannot be proven, so the critic believes they have won. They assert that everything must be proven or taken on faith. And you don't want to fall into the latter. It's a choice of false alternatives - another clever fallacy.

The axioms are self-evident. By trying to deny them, you must accept them. You can evade them, but you cannot avoid them.

[prosperity]

Okay, I'll just say what I meant to say. I think the professor is right that you need to clarify what you're defining as "logical". It is logically valid to start with two false premises, apply correct logic, and arrive at a false conclusion. However, it is not logically sound. Whether or not it is "logical" is really a bit vague/unclear. By "logical" do you mean "logically sound"?

I was actually wondering if there was a syllogism that would prove the first proposition made in the professor's "god proof". The problem is that his first proposition does not use universals.

For example, if I said "All men are mortal". We can prove that that statement is true. However, we will get into a discussion of universals (which is a good reason to understand ITOE).

The first proposition that the professor made is an arbitrary statement. Also, I'm not sure that starting your proposition with "If" is a proper format. I'm not a professional in this area, so I don't know for certain. I was under the assumption that you started these things with "All" or "No", "Some", or some kind of definitive statement.

Edited October 13, 2008 by prosperity