Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

No-one Denies that "A is A". Why Is It Such a Huge Theme in Objectivism?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:

Pascal's wager is not a contradiction, it is an appeal to consequences fallacy.

Pascal's wager says you should believe in God ("wager that He is"). It never concludes "therefore it is true that God exists". It isn't an appeal to consequences fallacy. It merely says you should believe in God regardless of whether or not it is true that God exists since both of these are possible..

Now that you've reminded me: appeals to consequences seems to be used a lot in the homosexuality debate (but not in Pascal's wager)..

Edited by human_murda
wrong statement
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

If "Zeus exists" is impossible, then any evidence which supports "Zeus exists" would itself have to be false. But then it would not be evidence, and we would be in contradiction.

I agree that saying Zeus exists is impossible is setting yourself up for future contradictions. Here you may distinguish between the "not possible" and "impossible". The former is a human term while the latter is a "God term". The former refers to human knowledge while the latter refers to omnipotence. They aren't the same concepts.

When you say "not possible", you know the limits of your error. The limits of your error come with the concept. In this context you might even say "impossibility" is an anti concept. In this thread it was used to wipe out the meaning of the term "possible" (and that is perhaps the only use of that anti concept)..

So saying God exists and doesn't exist are possible (in the human sense of the term possible) under the same context (lack of evidence) is a contradiction (unless you introduce terms to wipe out the meaning of these terms)..

Edited by human_murda
elaboration
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some thoughts:

Arbitrary should only be applied to claims that people make about their knowledge. Arbitrary -claims- are neither false nor true because there is no way to evaluate the claim as false or true due to a lack of evidence to evaluate. If evidence cannot be used by an agent for the agent's cognitive needs, there is no evidence in the first place. There is no way to know if it is true or false, there is nothing to make it true or false from your perspective as an agent.

But arbitrary cannot apply to facts. If you say "Santa Clause doesn't exist", that facts can only be true or false. It can't be "maybe true", either he exists or he doesn't. There is no in between. If you want to say it's true, you have to be certain. If it's possible Santa exists, it means you are not certain, which means you might discover it is false as well.

When talking about possibility, you would need to distinguish between beliefs that you have not yet confirmed or validated, versus something about metaphysics, which would say something like the fact is true regardless of you knowing it yet. To say God might exist and might not exist is only a contradiction in the latter sense. It is not a contradiction if you are saying you have not yet validated that god exists (as a fact, god only exists or doesn't exist, there is no third option; there is only true or false).

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, human_murda said:

Actually they are contradictions. Rejecting things based on the arbitrary is merely the method used to resolve the contradiction.

In terms of the fundamental, X has two alternatives. Either X exists, or X does not exist. The law of excluded middle identifies this as an either or. One or the other, not both. The law of contradiction identifies the fact that X cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect.

So far, I'm not raising a contradiction.

The onus of proof principle puts the burden of proof on the positive assertion, in this case, X exists. The nature of evidence, recognizes that there can be no evidence for that which, in fact, does not exist.

The use of the term "possible", requires that there be some evidence in favor that X exists, and no evidence which contradicts the claim.

This is where it usually gets tricky. and where I get selective about engaging the issue. It requires agreement on what is admissible, constitutes, qualifies, as evidence. It helps to have an understanding of what terms such as "proof" and "evidence" presuppose and depend on.

To reject the arbitrary is a time saver, in my book. It is a dismissal based on an absence of legitimate evidence. Sure, I can error and mistakenly dismiss legitimate evidence. This still does not raise a contradiction.

To claim X exists when it does not, is a contradiction.

To claim X does not exist when it does, is a contradiction.

To claim a lack of knowledge as to whether X exists or not, is not a contradiction.

To claim it is possible for X to exists, and simultaneously claim it is possible for X not to exist—what is the nature of such evidence as that it would be able to satisfy both propositions in the same way, and in the same respect. If this is what you mean by they actually are contradictory, I would have to agree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/5/2016 at 0:26 PM, Reidy said:

Do you have a citation on this? The only time I've seen her use the phrase was about Branden in the autobiographical afterword to Atlas Shrugged. Since you use quotation marks I'd hope to see exact words.

No, I do not.

 

Having realized that my own views on "open Objectivism" had influenced my responses, I was trying to make it clear that such opinions may differ from others which are usually called "Objectivist". I thought I would be accused misrepresenting the philosophy, itself (and not without objective merit, this time), and wanted to avoid that.

 

If I've exaggerated the authority Rand gave to Peikoff then I'll gladly stand corrected (and good riddance)!

:thumbsup:

 

P.S.

 

I don't have citation on the meaning of "open Objectivism" or "Objectivist", either. I frequently use quotation marks to indicate that I'm referring to a concept.

I realize that this is a rather unusual way to use them (and perhaps I have applied them a bit too liberally, of late) but that's really all I meant.

 

I'm sorry for any confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/5/2016 at 11:38 PM, SpookyKitty said:

There is a whole world of a difference between "it is possible" as in "it could happen" and "it is possible" as in "it could be true."

Not really.

 

Existence is Identity. To be (to truly exist) is to be something specific, with a specific nature. Causality is the law of Identity applied to action. An entity can only do one thing, given any individual set of circumstances.

 

Given a large enough mass, any celestial body will gravitate towards it. It cannot do otherwise. Given the proper amounts of water, CO2 and sunlight (et cetera), a plant will grow; given either too much or too little of any of them, it will die. It cannot do anything else.

 

How this applies to people is another issue I won't touch here (@Reidy) but, with regard to any other kind of thing in the universe, its Identity necessarily dictates its actions.

 

This is what "causality" means, in the Objectivist sense.

 

On 5/5/2016 at 11:29 PM, human_murda said:

The same reasoning applies to reject Pascal's wager (are you going to say you believe in that too?)

 

Actually, she's right about that.

 

Pascal's wager begins with the assumption that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God until we die. This isn't actually true (as has been discussed here, before, the concept of "God" contradicts itself) but, given that one premise (which is still widely accepted, to this day), what follows is exactly an "appeal to the consequences".

 

The entire thing hinges on the existential effects of a belief in God. The math is sound; its only flaw (aside from the premise of God's "possibility") is in the idea that ideas, themselves, can influence reality (which is the Primacy of Consciousness). The same reasoning could be used to prove literally anything - but not because it explicitly declares any A to be a non-A. 

 

It has contradictions (as any assertion of the PoC does) but not in any openly-declared part of the actual argument.

 

---

 

Both of you have offered some truly remarkable insights and some smeg. I'm excited to see where this goes.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to Eioul's assertion that possibilities refer to something you have yet to evaluate, I partly disagree. Possibilities only apply when you have evaluated the premises of a situation before, but not the specific incidence of that situation.

In considering probabilities, such as in the case of a dice being rolled, you still talk of possibilities. But here, know exactly the premises of your game: there is one roll of the dice, the outcome ranges from 1-6 and the outcomes are mutually exclusive. You don't account for a seventh possibility where a truck runs over your dice and you don't see it coming. You already know and have evaluated the premises for your possibilities. Only under certain premises, which you have already evaluated, can you talk about possibility.

Consider a fire in a building. If your colleague informed you about it, you would get the hell out. This is because you already know that things can catch on fire and that the fire can spread. Therefore it is possible that the building's on fire.

Now if somebody said the water in the pool is on fire, you can dismiss him. Even the premise is not correct in this.

This isn't what some "scientists" do. They are already talking about possibilities when they don't even know about the premises of what they are dealing with. Drake's equation ("possibility of alien life") is the worst example of this. The premise for the various ways life can originate hasn't been established. In the case of homosexuality (a psychological phenomenon) the premise is knowledge of psychology. "Born gay" or not, they make all their assumptions and evaluations without any reference to psychology or consciousness. They mostly talk about (epi)genetics/hormones or social conditioning. The same goes for "evolutionary psychology". You shouldn't attempt to evaluate possibilities while your premise takes a back seat or doesn't even enter the discussion. It is your basic premises that guide you about the possibilities.

Edited by human_murda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

The entire thing hinges on the existential effects of a belief in God. The math is sound; its only flaw (aside from the premise of God's "possibility") is in the idea that ideas, themselves, can influence reality (which is the Primacy of Consciousness). The same reasoning could be used to prove literally anything - but not because it explicitly declares any A to be a non-A. 

 

It has contradictions (as any assertion of the PoC does) but not in any openly-declared part of the actual argument.

I'm not sure about ideas influencing reality in Pascal's wager. I think it asks you to believe in things though sheer will, i.e., it asks you to trick yourself into belief while simultaneously realising that God need not exist. I think the argument is sound once you get past "possibility" of God existing.

I still maintain that that is a contradiction. In the case of a rolling dice what is the probability distribution? The distribution arises from the fact that you can repeat the experiment many times. Now what is the probability distribution of you going to heaven/hell? None. Here the possibilities refer to the same entity: you. Thus, your assumption that God exists and doesn't exist applies to the exact same case. This is a direct, explicit, A is non-A contradiction.

If you don't understand this: the case is exactly the same in Quantum Mechanics. In usual probability theory, what do probabilities refer to? It refers to an ensemble of particles. But quantum theory asserts that the entire probability distribution can be attributed to a single particle. Then they conclude that a single particle must travel through all possible paths so that the entire distribution can be dumped on one particle. The "all possible paths" involves A is non-A. The situation is exactly the same in Pascal's wager. It ascribes possibility to a single situation. Therefore if you can make any statement about wagers or expectations, which involves the entire probability distribution, then all these possibilities must be simultaneously true (the single situation is the entity, you. You don't have multiple lives). This is explicitly A is non-A, atleast as much as quantum mechanics is.

So I think Pascal's wager is explicitly a contradiction: it assigns distributions to a single entity. In the case of saying "born-gay" and "choice-gay" being possible: it assigns both possibilities to the same entity (gay people). There aren't several instances of the same gay person. These are all explicit contradictions. They all make the mistake of assigning distributions to the same entity.

As for the building fire: the entities are different. You say a fire is possible this time. Time and place are what makes the instances different. In the case of a dice, the different instances are the different rolls of a dice. These don't make the mistake of assigning distributions/possibilities to the same entity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something more on the drake equation: is it basically A is non-A in that it assigns distribution to a single entity: extraterrestrial life. Now if you are a space voyager, and have travelled various galaxies and know the premises of existence of life in these galaxies, then saying it is possible that life exists on a new galaxy is merely an instance of your premise. However, saying extraterrestrial life itself is possible is a contradiction. You are applying a distribution to a single entity.

Also, if you make the case that different people are the different instances in the case of Pascal's wager, that doesn't hold out. If one person can get to heaven by believing in God, another person can get it heaven by believing in God. You are talking about the same entity/characteristic even with different people. The same applies to gay people: there are several gay people. However, if you assume that if one person is born gay, then all are born gay, you are talking about the same characteristic in all these people. So, the distribution still talks about the same entity (which is not necessarily the person itself, but much more abstract).

If the case of a rolling dice, if my dice shows up one, that doesn't mean yours should too. So probabilities for these don't talk about the same entity. Just because my building catches on fire doesn't mean yours should. These are actually different entities/instances.

Edited by human_murda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, human_murda said:

So I think Pascal's wager is explicitly a contradiction: it assigns distributions to a single entity.

So does the probability distribution of the roll of a die. There's only one entity (the die) - but it's understood that it must do one of six things, which we simply don't have enough information to narrow down further (usually).

 

I think what you mean about the flaw in QM (and which you're right about) has much more to do with something like Schrödinger's cat, where we don't interpret the probabilities as being "it could either be dead or alive" but as "it's both dead and alive, in the same sense and at the same time".

A thing cannot be all red and all blue at the same time. It cannot freeze and burn at the same time. However, to say that it might be freezing or burning, and we just don't know which, isn't necessarily invalid.

 

5 hours ago, human_murda said:

I'm not sure about ideas influencing reality in Pascal's wager.

 

1: Either God exists or he doesn't

2a: If God exists then those who believe in Him recieve infinite pleasure, after death, while those who don't recieve infinite pain

2b: If God doesn't exist then nothing happens to anybody after they die

3: The best thing that can come from a belief in God is infinite pleasure, while the worst thing is equivalent to the best that could come of disbelief (nothing) and the worst that could come from a disbelief in God is infinite pain

4: It is in everyone's best interests to believe in God, just in case

 

At first glance this seems like perfectly sound reasoning (and many people never take it any further than that first glance). However, the very same sort of argument might run...

 

1: Either there exists a Flying Spaghetti Monster, who punishes Christians and rewards atheists, or not

2a: If this FSM exists then those who believe in God recieve infinite pain, after they die, while those who don't recieve infinite pleasure

...

 

The "after death" part isn't necessary, either; it would work the same way for ideas which have consequences here and now (such as the argumentum ad baculum).

 

The root error is not the attribution of consequences to ideas, per se (because, as demonstrated in Atlas Shrugged, they actually do have them), but that ideas do not have existencial consequences except through the choices and actions of the individual who holds them.

 

The cosmic irony is that the actual effects of ideas (on the actions, experiences and very lives of their adherents) are exactly what's left out of Pascal's wager, when it declares that God's nonexistence would leave nobody any better or worse off than anybody else. 

Every single African who died in the recent Ebola outbreak, after angry mobs attacked the local hospitals and executed the doctors as "witches"; every horrible, agonizing death, which could've been prevented by any attempt at some rudimentary sort of hygiene, is an example of the error in Pascal's Wager. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

So does the probability distribution of the roll of a die. There's only one entity (the die) - but it's understood that it must do one of six things, which we simply don't have enough information to narrow down further (usually).

The characteristics involved in each throw of the die are different. The characteristics involved may be the angle with which the die hits various things, its linear and angular momentum etc. These are different for each throw. The "entity"/instance are these quantities. Different rolls of the dice corresponds to these quantities. Not the dice. Even though you use the same dice, the entities involved are different. The dice sets the premise though.

Probabilities don't refer to single experiments. One throw can only give one output (stating probabilities don't help you predict this single output. Probabilities are irrelevant for single experiments. You have to use the above quantities).

Edited by human_murda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, human_murda said:

Probabilities don't refer to single experiments. One throw can only give one output.

Nor do probabilities really refer to multiple experiments.

 

There's a latin saying, "ceteris paribus", which means "all else being equal". If a certain die cast a certain way, on a certain surface, rolled a "six" then, under exactly the same circumstances, it must always roll a "six" - ceteris paribus.

The probability distribution only comes in when things aren't all the same; when there are unknown variables involved, which might alter the outcome (which is almost always).

 

So it can be rational to speak of the "probability" of a single event, when we don't have enough data to make any 100% certain prediction. If it was otherwise then we couldn't sensibly speak of the probability of any number of events, either.

We can and should use probabilities when things are not ceteris paribus.

 

By isolating and identifying an ever-expanding range of relevant factors, good science should be devoted to the goal of gaining absolute, 100% certainty. However, we cannot pursue this lofty goal without recognizing that it isn't easy or automatic; that it must be earned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, human_murda said:

Probabilities don't refer to single experiments. One throw can only give one output (stating probabilities don't help you predict this single output. Probabilities are irrelevant for single experiments. You have to use the above quantities).

Statistics in science primarily refers to populations. Probabilities can refer to single entities. Probabilities really just refer to how things can end up for a specific entity if you only know limited information. You know a dice will end up as some number. Since you can't know the angular momentum, it is massively helpful to talk about probabilities, which are determined only by counting the number of faces.

All this to say: If you say "I am possibly right", it also means "I am possibly wrong". This would be epistemic possibility, as in "not yet certain". Metaphysical possibility would refer to what an entity is able to do given its identity. "A is A" is a statement about the latter. A problem comes in if you import epistemic possibility into metaphysical possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrt Shcroedinger's cat.

Quantum superposition is not "the cat is both dead and alive", but "the quantum state of the cat is a superposition of the states 'dead' and 'alive".

Quantum states are vectors. They can be added. When you add two vectors, the result is called a 'superposition' of the two vectors. The result is not both the one vector and the other, but an entirely different vector.

For example, the direction 'North-East' is a superposition of 'North' and 'East'. When you travel North-East you are not traveling both North and East at the same time. You are simply traveling North-East.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Nor do probabilities really refer to multiple experiments.

Actually, they do. With multiple experiments, you can "pluck" out hidden variables. But you can still talk about the ensemble as a whole. You know there are only six outcomes for a dice, that these are mutually exclusive etc. You know a lot about the population as a whole.

But what if you "pluck" the hidden variable out of a single experiment? All you've got left is a dice which turned up 3 with no way of knowing how. Removing hidden variables are useless in a single exmeriment. Its only useful in the context of an ensemble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Statistics in science primarily refers to populations. Probabilities can refer to single entities.

Consider an example: You found 32 trees in a 2km*2km area. Then you may conclude there are 8 trees per unit area. The unit area is the entity. You are trying to find the expectancy for other unit areas.

 

Quote

You know a dice will end up as some number. Since you can't know the angular momentum, it is massively helpful to talk about probabilities, which are determined only by counting the number of faces.

But possibilities refer to different throws of the dice. Possibilities don't refer to the same throws of the dice. It's a big mistake to say the entity of statistics refer to the single entity of populations. Suppose you throw a die 36 times and get side-6 5 times. Then you may conclude that the probability/expectancy for getting 6 is 5/36. But this is inaccurate. You may take larger and larger populations to get more accurate results. All this means is that populations aren't what you're concerned with. They are merely used to discover expectancy for different throws. You may use any population whatever to come to the same conclusions. You may observe one part of a forest. I may observe another. You may observe throws of the die in the morning. I may observe throws of a die in the afternoon. The populations are irrelevant, but they all refer to the same entity: a unit area of a forest or a throw of a die. You are concerned with expectancy for different throws of a die.

Statistics as such don't refer to populations. Populations are used to study some other unit (measurement omission). You can use any population whatever to study the same unit, which means that the statistics don't talk about any specific population as an entity. The same statistics can refer to any population whatever. They don't refer to "single entities".

Statistics aren't "attached" to any specific population.

The concept of sampling itself derives from the fact that statistics don't refer to a specific population.

There is no single sacrosanct entity known as population to which a statistic applies.

Edited by human_murda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Guys, I'm still not seeing "A is A" 's relevance. It is nothing but a theorem in formal logic, and formal logic affects no-one's life except for the very small percentage of the population engaged in either writing proofs or writing computer code.

In a nuclear post-apocalypse type scenario, nobody would care about "A is A" or any of formal logic at all for that matter. To real people trying to survive and rebuild what they can of their homes and their lives in such a scenario, formal logic would be only an ivory-tower curiosity, existing as nothing but scribbles in whatever pre-armageddon logic texts survive, to be passed on from generation to generation until enough of civilization had been rebuilt to support professions such as full-time mathematicians and philosophers once again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dustin86 said:

Guys, I'm still not seeing "A is A" 's relevance. It is nothing but a theorem in formal logic, and formal logic affects no-one's life except for the very small percentage of the population engaged in either writing proofs or writing computer code.

In a nuclear post-apocalypse type scenario, nobody would care about "A is A" or any of formal logic at all for that matter. To real people trying to survive and rebuild what they can of their homes and their lives in such a scenario, formal logic would be only an ivory-tower curiosity, existing as nothing but scribbles in whatever pre-armageddon logic texts survive, to be passed on from generation to generation until enough of civilization had been rebuilt to support professions such as full-time mathematicians and philosophers once again.

It's nice to see you publicly lauding the indispensable role of logic in the lives of the individuals, regardless of their pursuits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dustin86 said:

Guys, I'm still not seeing "A is A" 's relevance. It is nothing but a theorem in formal logic, and formal logic affects no-one's life except for the very small percentage of the population engaged in either writing proofs or writing computer code.

And that one idiot trolling a website written with computer code...he needs it too. But yeah, no one else is reliant on science or computer code. No one at all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As many here have already pointed out, lots of people deny the Law of Identity on a daily basis. It's not stupid, being the basis of valid inference through non-contradictory identification, and it's not a theorem, it's a tautology. It impacts everyone's life all the time. Aristotle formulated the Law of Non-Contradiction, not the Law of Identity, although the LoI is implicit in the LoN-C. So Aristotle indicated the LoI, by implication, as the basic principle of logic, in his explication of the LoN-C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/5/2016 at 0:59 AM, human_murda said:

Pascal's wager says you should believe in God ("wager that He is"). It never concludes "therefore it is true that God exists". It isn't an appeal to consequences fallacy. It merely says you should believe in God regardless of whether or not it is true that God exists since both of these are possible..

Now that you've reminded me: appeals to consequences seems to be used a lot in the homosexuality debate (but not in Pascal's wager)..

It's an ad baculum fallacy. Is appeal to consequences another name for it?

Another point of note is that there is no wager, since there is no evidence or data that would provide for the calculation of a probability. Since god is an invalid concept, not one derived from sense-perception, there is nothing indicated and therefore nothing to wager.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Doug Pridgen said:

It's an ad baculum fallacy. Is appeal to consequences another name for it?

This was the argument I meant:

"Homosexuality is a choice. It would be convenient if the above was true (politically, because you can't be held responsible for something you did not directly or indirectly choose). Therefore you must believe that homosexuality is a choice if you support gay rights." - this is an appeal to consequences.

If it went like:
"Homosexuality is a choice. It would be convenient if the above was true (politically, because you can't be held responsible for something you did not directly or indirectly choose). Anyone who doesn't believe that homosexuality is a choice is a bigot and must be prosecuted somehow." - this is an ad baculum fallacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2016 at 11:12 AM, Dustin86 said:

Guys, I'm still not seeing "A is A" 's relevance. It is nothing but a theorem in formal logic, and formal logic affects no-one's life except for the very small percentage of the population engaged in either writing proofs or writing computer code.

If you want to consider it in terms of psychology, which I'm sure everybody thinks about daily, consider a fundamental issue (fundamental because everybody either falls on one side or the other): appeasement. Appeasement is derived from a belief in the primacy of consciousness (and therefore rejects the law of identity).

Fundamentally, because you are a living organism, you can either possess a virtue or try to appease the need for it. For example:

With regards to the virtue of having a purpose: you can either have a genuine purpose in life or try to appease your own psychology (i.e., your need for a purpose) by wagering a belief in God, who would help in faking your purpose.

The cause of this is the belief in your ability to appease your own psychology as though it has no identity, i.e., as though a genuine purpose is equivalent to a fake one as far as your need for a purpose is concerned. This proceeds from a belief in primacy of consciousness, of an infinite power over your own psychology.

In self-esteem people try to appease that need by seeking an automatic claim to it (racial/familial/cultural). Then they act as though this pretension is equivalent to a real one, wondering why they need constant approval from others and defending irrational racial claims as though they need it like air. This is again an attempt to subvert reality by attempting to appease it.

Sensing a need for reasons for their beliefs, they attempt to cheat it using rationalizations, as though reality can be cheated, i.e., as though the law of identity can be cheated. They ignore the fact that pretending won't change reality.

Using the same reasons, other people cannot be, ultimately, appeased since they exist and follow the law of identity.

Then there is the "scientific" claim by psychologists: that your unconscious manufactures a need for you (and these needs are determined by your genes). Since it is a manufactured need, most people believe that this unconscious monster can be appeased through sheer will. These manufactured needs of the unconscious directly gives "scientific" support to the necessity of the primacy of consciousness (you need to appease your pedophilic urges don't you, through porn or whatever means?). People think they actually need to appease some unconscious monster, which is further disregard for the law of identity. Appeasement, ultimately, is the belief that the law of identity can be bent to your will. (Of course, emotions are manufactured by your subconscious, but not by your genes. The constant use of emotions as a scapegoat makes their arguments seem semiplausible, but it isn't so).

These manufactured genetic need also includes the supposed genetic need to merge with a collective (and you would be unhappy if you don't appease this need). Of course all talk of manufactured needs is destroyed by the fact that your needs are determined by the law of identity applied to your faculties and cannot be manufactured. All needs proceed from the relation of your existence to reality (and these needs can't be manufactured). Your brain can't manufacture a need that doesn't exist in reality (i.e., your brain can't create a need that doesn't proceed from the law of identity applied to a particular faculty. It cannot create any and all "needs" without a corresponding faculty for it).

There is nothing in your brain that creates a need to merge with the collective (self, ego, sex have nothing to do with collectivism). Love for others is an emotion (and not an unconscious, manufactured need that needs to be appeased as many altruists want you to believe. It is a response to values).

The need for reason, purpose and self-esteem proceed from the fact that you are a being of volitional consciousness. They can't be manufactured (by your brain without possessing volition) or appeased, by the law of identity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, human_murda said:

This was the argument I meant:

"Homosexuality is a choice. It would be convenient if the above was true (politically, because you can't be held responsible for something you did not directly or indirectly choose). Therefore you must believe that homosexuality is a choice if you support gay rights." - this is an appeal to consequences.

If it went like:
"Homosexuality is a choice. It would be convenient if the above was true (politically, because you can't be held responsible for something you did not directly or indirectly choose). Anyone who doesn't believe that homosexuality is a choice is a bigot and must be prosecuted somehow." - this is an ad baculum fallacy.

Are these your arguments?

Not being homosexual, I cannot speak on their behalf, but I know that in my own case the fact that I am sexually attracted to females is not a choice. I would therefore conclude the same is true for those who are attracted to people of like gender, or people who are attracted to both.

Do you believe homosexuality is a choice? We are perhaps getting off topic. I'm just curious if this is what you believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Doug Pridgen said:

Are these your arguments?

I made a mistake in these statements. It should start as: ""Homosexuality is not a choice. It...". These are fallacious arguments.

 

3 hours ago, Doug Pridgen said:

Do you believe homosexuality is a choice? We are perhaps getting off topic. I'm just curious if this is what you believe.

I believe that all desires are a choice, that all desires are the psychological manifestations of your values and that your values are not genetic. Of course, you can't 'will' your sexual desire but that's just the law of identity in action and doesn't disprove the fact that your sexuality is ultimately a choice. The fact that you can't will it merely means that it's an entity of specific nature.

You can't will yourself into loving mathematics or physics. That doesn't mean there is no choice involved. Values have to be discovered first (and values can't be willed). It ultimately comes down to your choice to think and find out.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...