tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post8651489119332703195..comments2024-03-10T14:53:15.804-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Normativity and the Primacy of ExistenceBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-69561533215955938632022-11-10T01:07:09.133-05:002022-11-10T01:07:09.133-05:00Wow. So elegantly and succinctly put.Wow. So elegantly and succinctly put.Robert Kiddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00572711301026070701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-27100570969820984082016-11-03T23:28:07.492-04:002016-11-03T23:28:07.492-04:00Jason- I've written a refutation of Bahnsen Bu...Jason- I've written a refutation of Bahnsen Burner's position on this issue, which you might find interesting. <br />https://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2015/05/05/is-existence-really-primary-in-the-way-objectivism-states/<br />Francois Tremblayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04760072622693359795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-15459647044926072502016-11-03T23:19:38.728-04:002016-11-03T23:19:38.728-04:00Hi, I'm new here, stumbled across your blog by...Hi, I'm new here, stumbled across your blog by accident, and got intrigued. Your post raised one question (well, several actually, but we'll start with one!) that I'd be interested to hear you respond to. I'm no philosopher, so forgive me if this seems basic =].<br /><br />In your post you wrote, "In the realm of morality, the primacy of existence informs us that, as biological organisms facing a fundamental alternative (i.e., life vs. death), our existence is conditional and thus certain courses of actions are needed in order to maintain our lives. As biological organisms we need values...morality is thus the application of reason to the task of living."<br /><br />This is the first I've encountered this term, 'the primacy of existence' (evidence of my ignorance, I suppose), but I think I get what you mean - moral norms are what they are because reality is what it is, and without normative values we will perish. Yes?<br /><br />My question is this: isn't there a fundamental 'moral' value that lies behind your position, which isn't based on the primacy of existence? Namely, the moral judgment that life is preferable to death. On what basis do you assume this? <br /><br />The system of values you propose flow from the assumption that humans should seek to preserve our lives. As you say, "Thus man needs morality because his life depends on it." Well, what if we assume that death is preferable to life? Then, proceeding from the same facts of existence, we would end up with completely opposite "normative values."<br /><br />So it seems that a moral value, namely that life is preferable to death, lies behind, or is more primary, than what you call existence. It seems like you presuppose this moral value before you start applying your reason to the facts of existence in order to discover moral values. <br /><br />Again, I'm no philosopher, so maybe there's an easy answer to this. I'd love to hear your response.<br /><br />Full disclosure, I am a Christian. Have a pretty meager philosophy background (a few classes in college, a few books here and there). I did read a little Bahnsen years ago. Just didn't want you to think I was trolling you.<br /><br />Look forward to your response!Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06594115840334348031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-76124658190900738452016-08-26T08:25:25.564-04:002016-08-26T08:25:25.564-04:00Agreed on all points!Agreed on all points!Francois Tremblayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04760072622693359795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-42795882140423426582016-08-26T08:14:27.234-04:002016-08-26T08:14:27.234-04:00Hi Francois,
I may be wrong (and would love to be...Hi Francois,<br /><br />I may be wrong (and would love to be!), but I don’t think Anderson is going to show his face around either your blog or mine. I suspect, even if he were aware of our interaction with his writings (he might not be!), he’d probably not read through them very carefully (let’s not expose ourselves to a different point of view!), and would resist any urge he might have of venturing over into what he would probably consider “hostile territory” to engage in a debate he’d have no chance of winning. As a member of the professoriate, he has a paying audience who come to soak up his pearls of wisdom in lapdog fashion. He surely wouldn’t want to risk being shown up by undereducated brutes like myself. <br /><br />It’s been pointed out by more than one thinker that academics have had it easy, intellectually speaking, and have gotten lazy, given the anti-intellectual climate of university campuses. The professors are the new priestly class – don’t you dare disagree or question them, and don’t learn how to detect bullshit. This is ripest of course in the humanities, which have been corrupted by horrid political programs for the better part of a century now. Think of the buzz words “diversity,” “multiculturalism,” “white privilege,” etc. A nearby community college recently hosted “Whiteness History Month” (see <a href="https://www.pcc.edu/about/diversity/cascade/whiteness-history-month/" rel="nofollow">here</a>).<br /><br />I’m not saying Anderson himself is party to any of these alarming trends (I'd be surprised if he were), but rather making the point that the climate in these “higher learning” institutions lends them more to being places of propaganda and indoctrination than foundries of intellectual excellence.<br /><br />However, I think there’s another point here that’s easy for folks to miss. In addition to "it doesn't make sense to me" or "I can't understand how," both of which are statements about the individual himself rather than about the topic at hand (I can't explain how my microwave works, but I use it quite frequently!), Anderson et al. have something else: choice quotes from non-Christian thinkers which play right into their hands and bolster their mystical narrative. You'll see that Christian apologists are happy to cite the words of atheists, but only if the statements they cite can be shown to be a case in point (and often they do, even without being ripped from their original context). This appears to give their ignorance ("I don't see how...") the impression of having some kind of evidential support: "See! One of their own even admits they have no moral foundation!"<br /><br />What's ironic, and what they typically fail to see, is that the folks they're citing are very often guilty of the very thing they like to accuse non-believers of doing, namely "borrowing from the Christian worldview." Many (if not most?) critics of religion have inherited subliminal influences from religion (e.g., primacy of consciousness, anti-conceptual premises, sacrificial ethics, implicit collectivism, etc.) without realizing it. And the apologists, clueless as they so often are, don't even recognize the kinship between what they're scoffing at and their own position. They’re completely blinded by the distraction of “theism good, atheism bad,” never confronting the issues of proper starting point, the subject-object relationship, the nature of concepts, a philosophical understanding of definition, etc.<br /><br />I mean, if you were defending a worldview that has no theory of concepts whatsoever, what would motivate you to quote critics of your position whose philosophy <i>does</i> have a theory of concepts, and a robust one at that? So I don’t think the Andersons of the world will ever be quoting statements I’ve made here on my blog which easily lend themselves to supporting their fantasy-saturated narrative. In that sense, they must see me as a bit of a spoilsport.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-10436381269984345042016-08-26T01:23:40.817-04:002016-08-26T01:23:40.817-04:00Thank you for reminding me of that entry! I didn&#...Thank you for reminding me of that entry! I didn't even remember it. You have a good memory.<br /><br />I would very much like this Anderson fellow to address either of us. Sadly it doesn't seem like he has any interest. He hasn't commented on either. Well, whacha gonna do. <br /><br />Not that I would expect much. It seems he has no argument for the impossibility of secular moral norms except "well, it doesn't make sense to me!"Francois Tremblayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04760072622693359795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-83477281715633550672016-08-25T21:32:26.575-04:002016-08-25T21:32:26.575-04:00Hello Francois,
It's really nice to hear from...Hello Francois,<br /><br />It's really nice to hear from you! I hope you've been well. Thank you for commenting.<br /><br />Yes, it's true that while Anderson does tend to write better than many apologists (one would hope with all that uber-education!), the content leaves much wanting! From what I've observed, Anderson's arguments have not improved at all from the days when he wrote the paper you clobbered <a href="http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2005/03/if-knowledge-then-no-god.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>, back in the good ol' days. (Remember that? I sure do!)<br /><br />But you do raise a good point, namely the apparent inaccessibility of the comment form on Anderson's blog. I even have a Wordpress account it still I could not get in there an post a comment. I did try, too, several times in fact, before putting up my post here. I don't think he is interested in dialogue. Statements he's made about me in particular indicate that he has not found dialogue with me to be very fruitful. That's odd! When I dialogue with mature thinkers, most seem to find something to learn from me, just as I learn from them. I relish the exchange. But someone with a confessional investment is more concerned about protecting something than interested in growing intellectually. Perhaps once one attains a "higher degree" from some pompous institution, he becomes the know-it-all he's always presumed himself to be, and simply has "transcendent excuses" not to condescend himself and discuss things with puny, lowly people like myself. His loss.<br /><br />Of course, I hope I'm mistaken in this impression, and would be delighted to discuss these and other matters with Anderson. Perhaps he could explain certain things to me, such as how one can reliably distinguish his god from something that is merely imaginary, or how one can speak of objective epistemic and moral norms without any consideration of the proper orientation between the subject of consciousness and its objects. Or, perhaps he could explain how Christianity, in spite of its lack of a theory of concepts, can have anything of deep philosophical value to offer on these matters. <br /><br />But I shall not be holding my breath. I have better things to do.<br /><br />Again, nice to hear from you. Chime in again sometime. I'll be sure to check out your blog, Francois.<br /><br />Best to you!<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-43281803721708528372016-08-25T18:12:57.877-04:002016-08-25T18:12:57.877-04:00Anderson's blog doesn't allow for comments...Anderson's blog doesn't allow for comments. Coward much? Not interested in dialogue, more interested in sniping from the safety of his ideological crow's nest, I guess. <br /><br />Anyway, I wrote my own analysis of his nonsense here:<br />https://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2016/08/18/does-atheism-imply-a-lack-of-rational-norms/<br /><br />Thank you BB for pointing this entry out. It was very interesting conceptually, but ultimately it didn't have much more substance than the usual apologetics, it's just better written.Francois Tremblayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04760072622693359795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-69881814893790956662016-08-18T17:14:03.360-04:002016-08-18T17:14:03.360-04:00Dear Dawson
I'm trying t find material on the...Dear Dawson<br /><br />I'm trying t find material on the paramountcy'v being human-centred rather than the skandalising'v this by apologists substituting jesus-centredness t find peace, love etc...<br /><br />I'm sure u'v ritn lots on this. please direct/ixplain. <br /><br />thanx<br />Alifpraestanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02343506153156692581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-46245893363409712342016-08-13T10:16:35.504-04:002016-08-13T10:16:35.504-04:00@joe
I think that to specify what God is conscious...@joe<br />I think that to specify <i>what</i> God is conscious of would fall short of providing an explanation of <i>how</i> such a being could be conscious. Lacking sense organs, neural structures, and being changeless (precluding the possibility of learning over time) all cast doubt on the notion.<br /><br />So smart theists will not eagerly accept the burden of having to provide an explanation. The idea of divine consciousness seems unexplainable. A causal explanation, involving time, would contradict divine timelessness. God is defined as being timelessly aware of all facts, and this is taken on faith.<br /><br />As for subjectivity, this comes in to play in God's relationship to 'creation'. Created things conform to God's consciousness of them (as in creation ex nihilo, and miracles). God's 'knowledge' can't come from reason and learning, it's necessarily radically different from human knowledge...<br /><br />(Regarding what this implies for theists, and the possibility of human objectivity, I'll leave for someone else to tackle.)Jason mchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117753894806913150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-12625836956696545482016-08-12T13:23:40.059-04:002016-08-12T13:23:40.059-04:00Hi Dawson,
This is a very insightful post.Thanks ...Hi Dawson, <br />This is a very insightful post.Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.I am trying to imagine how a Christian might respond. I am wondering what your response would be if the Christian brought up the Trinity. The consciousness of God is possible because each person is the object of the other persons of the Trinity. Is this a way to explain how God could be aware and conscious being? Would this avoid theism being subjective? What about those theists who claim that God is the ground of existence or being?Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01261581774826680756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-91977215812373585032016-08-10T16:06:02.144-04:002016-08-10T16:06:02.144-04:00Hi Dawson,
Thanks for the explanation. I think I ...Hi Dawson,<br /><br />Thanks for the explanation. I think I get the concept more fully now. POE is understood to be compatible with facts in reality that happen to be causally dependent on, say, prior states of human conscious, as the chain of causality there necessarily includes bodily, physical interactions. So these facts aren't considered metaphysically dependent on those states of consciousness.<br /><br />Does that seem right?<br /><br />I've been ruminating on a post for my own blog, discussing religion, epistemology and ethics. The basic idea came from watching <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPlfVJUT9W4" rel="nofollow">this video</a>, a few clips from some TV show episode. The post will be about religious suspicion of atheists, and about how differing moral views regarding 'faith' probably hinder communication.<br /><br />I think presuppositionalists are a religious anomaly in this respect: they have to some extent adopted a secular, sceptical view of faith. This is evident in their keenness to ascribe faith to atheists. Like, <i>you're just as bad as us</i>. And when they try to show they have a minimal number of presuppositions/faith beliefs.<br /><br />To contrast, from the video: the atheist offers as a conciliatory statement, "we just have different philosophies."<br /><br />The patriarch responds: "I don't have a philosophy. I have a faith." He's proud of it. <i>I have something valuable, that you don't have</i>.<br /><br />Considering the view of faith a virtue: this could be a matter of dutiful obedience, believing what you're told (divine command ethics leading to divine command epistemology?). But then, some religious communities have probably inherited the ancient conceptions of virtue, as excellence of character, or strength. So by implication, lack of faith would be interpreted as weakness. This would seem to be relevant to cultures that place a high premium on masculinity.<br /><br />(I had the privilege of a non-religious upbringing. I remember once in school, when my non-belief came up in conversation, the somewhat hostile reaction I got from one Christian classmate. This reaction was amusingly baffling to me at the time, but now I think I understand where some of this animus comes from.)<br /><br />I don't want my piece to be totally speculative, so I got the idea to visit one or two of my local churches and ask someone who preaches faith. And it'll be cool visit the local Masjid and get an Islamic take too.Jason mchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117753894806913150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-72045829622682214992016-08-09T21:10:24.120-04:002016-08-09T21:10:24.120-04:00If a panel of judges has been invited to cast vote...If a panel of judges has been invited to cast votes in a beauty pageant, do they just *think* “that one’s the winner because I want it”? I doubt it. Rather, they have certain criteria that they will need to consult in their evaluation (i.e., conforming their judgments to a given standard) and go through the active process of actually registering and delivering their votes, whether it’s filling out a card and placing it into a hat or dialing it into a handheld device, etc. Reality doesn’t just automatically adjust itself to conscious activity. We need to take action. And since multiple individuals are involved in the whole process, the outcome is a sum of many, many actions, not just a sum of desires.<br /><br />Similarly in the marketplace. You’ve probably heard the expression that people “vote with their pocketbook.” It’s not just the conscious actions of sellers and buyers, but their physical actions that count. If I’m a seller and my sole action is conscious in nature (“Damn, I hope someone comes in and buys something today!”), how long am I going to survive? If I’m relying solely on conscious actions, what will I have to sell? I don’t even have anything in my shop; I won’t even have a shop! I need to <i>act</i>. <br /><br />Objectivism teaches that we need to guide our choices and actions by rational principle. That’s the primacy of existence applied to the task of identifying and integrating what we perceive in reality further applied to the task of living, given our nature as biological organisms. Bacon’s dictum – “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” – while rather metaphorical, is pregnant with implications. Since nature cannot be commanded simply by conscious activity, but by consciously directed action, we need to apply our reason to our actions to achieve our goals.<br /><br />We are not just conscious beings floating around in some hypothetical Ethernet. We are real physical beings with real attributes and real abilities. Man is, as Rand put it, an integration of matter and consciousness. In accurately understanding reality, we cannot divide man into two warring halves and focus only on one or the other half. This is what virtually all the philosophies throughout history, prior to Objectivism (and many since), have done to one extent or another.<br /><br />Fascinating questions. But they’ve all been raised and addressed before, Jason. Please, continue exploring. I can tell you’re a willing learner. That will benefit you more than anything else. <br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-57968974804449545602016-08-09T21:10:16.244-04:002016-08-09T21:10:16.244-04:00Jason,
Yes, I understand what you’re saying, and ...Jason,<br /><br />Yes, I understand what you’re saying, and I’ve seen this kind of objection raised before. But it is a rather elementary mistake. The primacy of existence does not deny the fact that we have consciousness; it does not deny the nature of the kind of consciousness we have (i.e., a volitional consciousness); it does not deny the fact that we have volitional control over many of our own body functions (e.g., moving our own limbs and fingers, speaking out loud, pushing buttons, handling tools, driving vehicles, etc.). <br /><br />Yes, human beings do <i>act</i>, and since this is an obvious fact of reality, the primacy of existence would be very poorly formulated if it denied this or were somehow incompatible with it. But the primacy of existence does not deny this. Not even close!<br /><br />Take for example the desire to take a sip of coffee. Does the desire by itself serve to satisfy itself? Does desiring as such satisfy the desirer’s desire? Does just desiring to have a sip of coffee produce the desired results? Of course, it doesn’t. Reality doesn’t obey our desires (again, POE). If I want a sip of coffee, I need to <i>act</i> - I need to apply my volition to my own movements in goal-oriented fashion to achieve what I desire, and even this is not foolproof – e.g., I might drop the cup of coffee or someone might knock into it as he clumsily tries to reach for his coffee, dangerously close to mine!<br /><br />So clearly conscious activity by its lonesome is not sufficient to affect the objects we perceive. We need to grasp the concept of productive labor, and all its philosophical implications (and importance!).<br /><br />Consider: I look at a coffee cup and it happens to be empty. If I want the cup to be full of coffee again, does just wishing, commanding, imagining, emoting, saying “hocus pocus” or getting angry fill the cup with coffee? No, clearly it does not. Why not? Objectivism identifies the reason why this does not happen with a self-evident principle, the primacy of existence, which identifies the relationship we actually find between our consciousness and the objects of our consciousness.<br /><br />Does this principle mean you can’t take volitionally-guided action to fill the cup with coffee? Of course not. <br /><br />[continued…]Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-92095324899435623272016-08-09T18:49:25.882-04:002016-08-09T18:49:25.882-04:00I appreciate the detailed response, Dawson.
I'...I appreciate the detailed response, Dawson.<br /><br />I'll try to restate the main point of my argument more clearly, as it's clearer to me now. It comes down to an apparent tension between the concept of the POE and free will.<br /><br />Some objects of consciousness, some objective facts of reality, are what they are as a result of causes which include some subject's conscious, <i>volitional</i> activity. So we have facts that seem to obtain not 'independently of conscious actions'.<br /><br />Cf. the idea of objectivity, defined similarly to POE: 'In metaphysics the objective position is the view that the objects of consciousness are what they are independent of any subject’s conscious activity' (from <a href="http://www.katholon.com/Logic.htm" rel="nofollow">your essay here</a>.)<br /><br />To illustrate, two non-magical examples:<br /><br />1. Someone wins a beauty contest. A panel of judges picks the winner out of 100 contestants. The winner won, because of the judges' conscious actions (their liking, disliking, preferring, emoting, in this case).<br /><br />2. Similarly, the conscious actions of buyers and sellers (their preferences, likes and dislikes, wishes, perhaps fantasies inspired by advertising material) influence their economic decisions, and these ultimately cause prevailing market prices to arrive at whatever particular dollar values they are at any given time.<br /><br />Till next time.Jason mchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117753894806913150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-66561462590701600192016-08-09T08:05:16.812-04:002016-08-09T08:05:16.812-04:00But a broader point here to keep in mind is that p...But a broader point here to keep in mind is that philosophy is hierarchical, beginning with metaphysics (e.g., the issue of metaphysical primacy), then epistemology, then morality/ethics, then politics (the application of moral principles to interpersonal relationships) and then finally art. <br /><br />In his book <i>Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand</i>, Peikoff makes the following point (p. 130):<br /><br /><< Human knowledge is not like a village of squat bungalows, with every room huddling down against the earth’s surface. Rather, it is like a city of towering skyscrapers, with the uppermost story of each building resting on the lower ones, and they on the still lower, until one reaches the foundation, where the builder started. The foundation supports the whole structure by virtue of being in contact with solid ground. >><br /><br />Using this analogy, art is not on the ground floor. Perhaps it’s up on the 50th or 70th floor. Or higher. (Even this may vary from individual, given how much thought he has devoted to informing and developing his understanding of the more fundamental provinces of philosophy.) It’s not difficult, once one is on the 50th floor, to lose track of what’s happening on the street level. This is why Rand stressed the importance of a fully integrated philosophy. Art, she maintained, is a vital human need that brings to bear the sum of one’s implicit philosophical convictions. (See some pointers <a href="http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/art.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.)<br /><br />Regarding personal tastes, there’s a lot involved in what goes into developing one’s artistic preferences or leanings. It’s an enormous context, which makes the whole topic both exciting and extremely delicate. The point is that those preferences are not irreducible primaries. If they were, I could just as easily decide to like Ansel Adams as well as Lady Gaga dressed in a side of beef. I don’t think I’d ever find a portrait of a chocolate cake with the rotting carcass of a dead squirrel draped over it aesthetically pleasing. I don’t think I’m unique in this.<br /><br />Anyway, if I’m not speaking directly to your question, my apologies. But if you’re interested in the topic of art, personal tastes, and the role philosophy plays in this area (an interest that I strongly encourage), please get a copy of Rand’s book <i>The Romantic Manifesto</i>. Just be careful here: it’s best to have a strong grasp of her metaphysics, epistemology and morality before diving in. <br /><br />Okay, I need to head off to work.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-2163517152113778642016-08-09T08:05:09.165-04:002016-08-09T08:05:09.165-04:00Hi again Jason,
I guess I’m not quite grasping wh...Hi again Jason,<br /><br />I guess I’m not quite grasping what you’re asking. If you’re asking whether there are people who are irrational and make subjective choices regarding what they find aesthetically pleasing, clearly the answer is yes – probably no one is completely immune to this. The difference here is one of what people actually do and what people should do (cf. is-ought). <br /><br />And yes, there are people, especially in the entertainment world, who are always trying to exploit the culture’s vulnerabilities in these areas, and to make those vulnerabilities even weaker, to bring them down. Often this come in the form of “shock value.” Take for example the magazine cover featuring a nude Lady Gaga wrapped in meat. This was some years ago now. Perhaps you remember it. Unfortunately I do.<br /><br />I think my immediate point here is to caution you from supposing that ‘personal taste’ is inherently subjective simply because it varies from individual to individual. I don’t think that’s true. Everyone having the same taste would not make taste objective. The standard of objectivity involves an orientation between consciousness and the facts of reality, not invariance with other minds. Rational philosophy teaches an individual that, even if everyone else is irrational, you can be rational, and here’s how. I think that’s pretty powerful.<br /><br />Clearly the topic of my blog entry above is about the basis of normativity in epistemology and ethics, and I tried to constrain my points to just this. (Thought I have no problem with comments spinning off into different orbits, so don’t worry about that, Jason. I enjoy it!) <br /><br />[continued…]Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-32743409809050309002016-08-09T00:36:20.749-04:002016-08-09T00:36:20.749-04:00Hi Dawson,
I appreciate the response. I'll tr...Hi Dawson,<br /><br />I appreciate the response. I'll try to be clear and specific in my follow-up.<br /><br />To the question, 'what would justify a mixed metaphysics'? I agree that neither PoE nor PoC would. But I point to the mentioned evaluative phenomena as possible mixed examples.<br /><br />I take your point in the objective basis of moral values. But there's also personal taste. And there's a massive marketing industry working to change tastes. Businesses can't ignore market reality, but they work to mould it to their interests, on a psychological level.<br /><br />The Romantic Manifesto - another one for my reading list. <br /><br />I was unclear in my point there. I actually had in mind standards of physical human beauty. The objective part would include visible bodily health. The subjective part seems to vary from person to person, and with the masses across time and world cultures.<br /><br />And again, it seems to be partly malleable by deliberate effort. The activist groups striving to change the culture in this way certainly hope so. E.g 'fat acceptance'.<br /><br />I realise I've strayed pretty far from the main topic of IP here...<br /><br />But if anyone wants to try to formulate a transcendental argument for the existence of God based on fat acceptance, I'd like to read it.<br /><br />All the best<br />J<br />Jason mchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117753894806913150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-42977158396786511612016-08-08T21:41:46.927-04:002016-08-08T21:41:46.927-04:00Hi Ydemoc,
As always, great to hear from you!
Yo...Hi Ydemoc,<br /><br />As always, great to hear from you!<br /><br />You think you're behind on your reading? I can do one better: I'm behind on my blogging!<br /><br />Well, I'll try to remedy that soon!<br /><br />We need to catch up one of these days.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-17858005002086263712016-08-08T21:40:11.891-04:002016-08-08T21:40:11.891-04:00You wrote: “Or cultural beauty standards, as anoth...You wrote: “Or cultural beauty standards, as another example. Both objective facts, and subjective feelings, together seem to determine the facts here.”<br /><br />I’m inclined to think that aesthetic judgments are far more complex than many would likely suppose off the bat. For example, I find “rap music” horrendously offensive to my tastes (it almost hurts), and I know that many folks would probably find my tastes to be offensive as well. (For example, I LOVE Webern’s music, and have since the mid-1980s when I first discovered it; since then I’ve met really only one other person who appreciates it as I do). But I think that the reason why an individual likes one set of aesthetics and not others is not something one can just dismiss as merely “subjective preference.” There is a constellation of causes here, one which Rand summed up with her concept of ‘sense of life’, which very much can be objectively informed. She gives many insights on this in her book <i>The Romantic Manifesto</i>. Check it out sometime. It’s a life-changer, and for the better! <br /><br />Let me know if you still have some lingering questions on this. But please be specific if you can.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-7765988130531693812016-08-08T21:39:48.785-04:002016-08-08T21:39:48.785-04:00You wrote: “Instances of correct PoC seem to arise...You wrote: “Instances of correct PoC seem to arise in things called social constructs. Like market value. The prices of things depend, partly at least, on how much people value them.” <br /><br />In the realm of values, it is very common for thinkers to assume that values are inherently subjective, unless of course (as in the case of religious apologists) they’re said to have been handed down by some sort of divine fiat decree. This stems from the assumption that values are simply products of preference and desire (where preferences and desires are treated as irreducible primaries having no contextual relationship to a mind-independent reality). In fact, contrary to this assumption, there is such a category as objective moral values, and their basis is the facts pertaining to man’s nature as a living organism which possesses a volitional consciousness capable for conceptual integration. Man needs food, water, shelter, protection, reason, work, philosophy, happiness, etc., regardless of what anyone desires or prefers; one can “prefer” that man can survive without work, for example, but that won’t make our need for work go away. This category of values is what I’m talking about when I’m talking objective moral values. Specific preferences and desires are essentially irrelevant. The primacy of consciousness has no place here. This is pure primacy of existence all the way.<br /><br />As for price-setting, in a free market, prices can be set as a consequence of a broad context of factors, with approaches to price-setting ranging from arbitrary notions (e.g., “I should be able to get $1000.00 for this soiled napkin autographed by C. Abner Forkenheit” – who the hell is he?) to very broad analyses which take into account production costs, storage and transfer expenses, damage and loss rates, marketing expenses, packaging, third-party resellers, etc. A company which takes the former, arbitary route, probably won’t stay in business very long (i.e., reality can’t be cheated, given the primacy of existence). But one which does its homework will stand a better chance of remaining competitive (cf. Bacon’s dictum, “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed”). <br /><br />[continued…]Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-65957796815203323132016-08-08T21:38:17.391-04:002016-08-08T21:38:17.391-04:00You asked: “My question is: what's wrong with ...You asked: “My question is: what's wrong with a mixed metaphysics? I.e. the view that in some acts of consciousness, PoE holds, and in others, PoC holds?”<br /><br />Well, in a profound way, this is what most people try to achieve in the way they divide their “mundane” activity from their “spiritual” activity. It’s as though they have two diametrically opposed worlds that they think they’re inhabiting, one governed by the primacy of existence, the other by the primacy of consciousness. A consistent metaphysics in terms of metaphysical primacy is not under consideration, because they’ve never explicitly considered it before, and even if they did for a moment or two, most people have been taught ways to evade conflicts between thoughts and suppress the resulting psychological fallout (e.g., instead of identifying and dealing with their internal conflicts, they take drugs or “prescription meds,” or go to church, turn the music louder, watch an extra hour of reruns, and what have you).<br /><br />But what would justify a mixed metaphysics, namely a metaphysics which tries to strike a compromise between the POE and the POC? On what basis would such a compromise be rationally defensible? Certainly not on the primacy of existence; it holds that truth, rational judgment and moral norms presuppose the primacy of existence without compromise. (Some have faulted Objectivism for being even more strict than Christian ethics just on this point.) <br /><br />What about on the basis of the POC? Can the primacy of consciousness – i.e., the primacy of wishing makes it so, of emotions, of imagination, of “hopes,” of looking inward over looking outward – offer something that’s at all consistent and reliable, enough so to justify choosing one alternative over another? Suppose one consciousness claims “The primacy of existence clearly applies in case X, but the primacy of consciousness applies in case Y” (presumably because he wishes; could the primacy of existence support this? No). Then another consciousness could, assuming the primacy of consciousness, come along and say, “No, the primacy of consciousness applies in case X, and the primacy of existence applies in case Y” (again, presumably because he wishes). Here we would have ultimate subjectivism battling ultimate subjectivism. But if you survey the history of human thought, we have example after example of just this, in just about every guise you can imagine (since the imagination is not only the limit, but the final arbiter).<br /><br />All of this misses the fact that truth as such presupposes the primacy of existence, as demonstrated in the examples I’ve given. If this is not clear, please let me know. It may simply be that there’s a misunderstanding operating in the background here. If so, I want to help correct that.<br /><br />[continued…]Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-12265572920115563902016-08-08T21:36:24.632-04:002016-08-08T21:36:24.632-04:00Hi Jason,
Thank you for your recent comments, and...Hi Jason,<br /><br />Thank you for your recent comments, and for your questions here.<br /><br />You wrote: Probably, the urge to 'deepen people’s philosophical self-destruction' arises from the apologetic strategy of denigrating rival worldviews. None may be allowed to stand as live options, lest they tempt the believer to stray into them.”<br /><br />Yes, I think this is a fairly accurate summary of the motivation behind Anderson’s urge that non-believers who make one philosophical mistake multiply the destruction of that mistake by repeating it in another area. But Anderson does something quite insidious here: he uses the idea of consistency as his outward justification for doing so. But in response I say that consistency as such is not an end in itself, and consistency applied to vice is no virtue. The casualty here is virtue, and this makes Anderson’s encouragement all the more vicious. I think he’s just allowed his apologetic ambitions blind himself to these points, however temporarily, for I don’t think he’s essentially a bad man as such. But his worldview doesn’t help! That’s my point.<br /><br />You wrote: “Regarding the issue of metaphysical primacy, I want to challenge you a bit.”<br /><br />Sure, go ahead.<br /><br />You wrote: “You refer to 'the proper orientation between consciousness and its objects'. You say that the proper position is the primacy of existence, and give some examples to support this view.”<br /><br />Yes, I do. I can offer more if it’s not clear. But I’m curious why this would not be clear once it’s pointed out. That’s okay – devil’s advocate is a welcome sparring partner (until he overstays of course).<br /><br />You wrote: “The alternative view, the primacy of consciousness, has exhaustively been shown to be impossible to consistently hold.”<br /><br />Yes, it has. Consider: if one were to say, “the primacy of existence is false because I want it to be false,” who would find this convincing? Typically people who embrace the POC find more subtle ways to peddle their craft.<br /><br />[continued…]Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-69983034889677751432016-08-08T21:10:43.414-04:002016-08-08T21:10:43.414-04:00Hey Dawson,
I'm way behind in my reading righ...Hey Dawson,<br /><br />I'm way behind in my reading right now (and with this entry, it looks like I'll be even FURTHER behind!). <br /><br />But I just wanted to say: Thanks again!<br /><br />YdemocYdemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-48592715453755553442016-08-08T09:06:31.629-04:002016-08-08T09:06:31.629-04:00Probably, the urge to 'deepen people’s philoso...Probably, the urge to 'deepen people’s philosophical self-destruction' arises from the apologetic strategy of denigrating rival worldviews. None may be allowed to stand as live options, lest they tempt the believer to stray into them.<br /><br />Regarding the issue of metaphysical primacy, I want to challenge you a bit. You refer to 'the proper orientation between consciousness and its objects'. You say that the proper position is the primacy of existence, and give some examples to support this view.<br /><br />The alternative view, the primacy of consciousness, has exhaustively been shown to be impossible to consistently hold.<br /><br />My question is: what's wrong with a mixed metaphysics? I.e. the view that in some acts of consciousness, PoE holds, and in others, PoC holds?<br /><br />Instances of correct PoC seem to arise in things called social constructs. Like market value. The prices of things depend, partly at least, on how much people value them. Or cultural beauty standards, as another example. Both objective facts, and subjective feelings, together seem to determine the facts here.<br /><br />(I haven't yet made my way through the whole IP archive so if you've already tackled something like this... Cool. I'll read it gladly.)<br /><br />I know John Searle has written on this topic. I doubt his account makes explicit use of the PoE concept... but it might be compatible with it, him being a direct realist. It's on my reading list...<br /><br />All the best.<br />JJason mchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117753894806913150noreply@blogger.com