Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Sinbad]
    #3622903 -

"Cold-hearted orb that rules the night
Removes the colors from our sight
Red is grey and yellow white
And we decide which is right
And which is an illusion?"

-Nights in White Satin, The Moody Blues

This verse sums it up for me.

Our beliefs, our sight, our perception of colors (perhaps we are color blind), are ours and ours alone. No one else can question that "objectively". It is not theirs to question.

Rationality, irrationality, morality, immorality. These terms hold little absolute meaning either way. They are relative, shifting sands of time, floating in a sea of gray.

Here is a ready example. Approximately 50% of the general public believe abortion to be completely immoral, akin to murder, and needs to be made illegal. The other approximately 50% believe abortion to be "moral" in the sense at least that it is the woman's choice to make with her body. Which belief is rational, which is irrational, which is moral, which is immoral? Depends on your perspective, right? It is subjective, not objective, but staunch opposers of abortion would argue that it is clearly objective.

The point is that "rational vs. irrational", "moral vs. immoral", and "truth vs. lies", are all examples of judgements made by imperfect and subjective human beings. Judgements have a way of becoming harsh. The Salem Witch trials come to mind.


--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: LunarEclipse]
    #3622918 -

True!

But judgements are a persoanl neccassety when deciding what to take up and what to abandon in life, arent they?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Sinbad]
    #3623071 -

"But judgements are a personal necessity when deciding what to take up and what to abandon in life, aren't they?"

Sure people will make judgements in their personal lives, and that's good and to be expected. They will also judge or perceive others as well, quite normal. My point about judgements being harsh had to do with groups that reinforce their "morality" by punishment to the offending witches in Salem etc. or Jews en masse in Nazi Germany.

Perhaps 90% of the time, we can benefit by making judgements and decisions in a logical, scientific manner. The other 10% or the time, we can make better judgements by NOT using logic, reason, and science. At those times, such as when zooming, or in a spiritual nether world, science and objectivity need to be thrown out the window. Shall we judge our hallucinations or religious epiphanies under the harsh glare of the scientist's objectivity? I think not. We judge them from the soft glowing light of our subjective subconscious.


--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: LunarEclipse]
    #3623114 -

Excellent! You've really made me smile, Thank you  :grin:



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: LunarEclipse]
    #3623213 -

The point is that "rational vs. irrational", "moral vs. immoral", and "truth vs. lies", are all examples of judgements made by imperfect and subjective human beings.

I see. So there is no difference between a fact and a non-fact. :rolleyes: It is impossible to study electronics then and create a computer because everything is subjective?

Despite your muddying the water, some things are rational and objective.

Rational beliefs may require a base assumption, but everything follows consistently and logically from that.

Irrational beliefs are often self-contradictory and do not follow any sort of objective logic, even given the base assumption.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Sinbad]
    #3623224 -

Thanks I am smiling now too!

I wanted to say thanks to you and everyone else who contributed so eloquently in this thread.  It has been a good read. :smile:  :thumbup:


--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: LunarEclipse]
    #3623737 -

Let me clarify a bit. Swami, your view of an objective reality from which science has advanced upon can still be accepted within the view that perception itself is subjective.

We are clearly percieving subjectively, otherwise we would all have the same perception (assuming a singular objective reality like science proposes). We can say some thoughts and views are 'more objective', but this itself is an opinion based around past subjective experience.

There's no reason to go to either extreme of the spectrum, the "harsh glare of the scientist" nor the "irresponsible denial of reality". One can recognize their reality as a subjective portrait of the all-encompassing objective domain. Science is a study of the objective, but the major flaw is that it is entirely based around an initial assumption of the objective. While it may seem obvious that it was 'right' in that technology has come this far, there are entirely unique worldviews that can still account for reality as we individually know it, as well as what we assume others (themselves within our perception) perceive it.

my $0.02


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Zekebomb]
    #3623781 -

objectivists think they know what reality is, and how it works?

Certainly I cannot speak for all of them, but what I can tell you, is that objectivism has a thing called ?The Law of Identity?.
Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is. "This leaf is red, solid, dry, rough, and flammable." "This book is white, and has 312 pages." "This coin is round, dense, smooth, and has a picture on it." In all three of these cases we are referring to an entity with a specific identity; the particular type of identity, or the trait discussed, is not important. Their identities include all of their features, not just those mentioned.

Identity is the concept that refers to this aspect of existence; the aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific characteristics. An entity without an identity cannot exist because it would be nothing. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to exist with a particular identity.

To have an identity means a single identity; an object cannot have two identities. A tree cannot be a telephone, and a dog cannot be a cat. Each entity exists as something specific, its identity is particular, and it cannot exist as something else. An entity can have more than one characteristic, but any characteristic it has is a part of its identity. A car can be both blue and red, but not at the same time or not in the same respect. Whatever portion is blue cannot be red at the same time, in the same way. Half the car can be red, and the other half blue. But the whole car can't be both red and blue. These two traits, blue and red, each have single, particular identities.

The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions.

This is the objectivist answer to your question. :smile:

Logic and rationality is the art of non-contradiction.

Subjectivism was introduced in respect of the subject because subjectivism is a form of irrational epistemology.
Epistemology is the study of knowledge, and how we come to achieve it. A proper epistemology allows us to gain valid understanding of the world, and identify incorrect ideas. An epistemology based on reason is our means of successfully acquiring knowledge. An irrational epistemology, though, impairs the functioning of the mind. The more irrational it is, the less valid the knowledge one has is.

Since philosophy is a kind of knowledge, an irrational epistemology is the destroyer of a rational philosophy. It is makes it difficult or impossible to get other parts of the philosophy right, since it is prevents the proper functioning of the mind.

Like all misbegotten notions, most irrational epistemological theories or assumptions are not practiced consistently. The result would be an inability to deal with the world. Instead, an irrational epistemology is practiced inconsistently. It impairs the mind when it is used, but it is often ignored allowing limited real use of one's mind.


so objectivism holds that knowledge is 'generated' from 'reality'

It is the act of founding one's knowledge on reality, and in accordance with the Law of Identity.
What does objectivism hold?

Objectivism holds that objects present themselves to consciousness in such a way that they must be genuinely "other," that is, non-identical to one's own consciousness.
Though Objectivism grants that some particular existents are mental (e.g., minds, thoughts, desires, intentions), it holds that, if what fundamentally exists is independent of any consciousness, then the universe as a whole is neither the creation of a divine consciousness nor itself mental.

Objectivism holds the Law of Identity, which, in case you missed it above, states that everything that exists has an identity. In saying this, Objectivism is asserting more than the tautology of self-identity (i.e., "everything is identical to itself"). It is asserting that everything that exists has a specific nature, consisting of various properties or characteristics (as Rand wrote, "to be is to be something in particular").

Moreover, Objectivism holds that the properties and characteristics in question must exist each in a specific measure or degree; in this respect "identity" also means finitude. According to Objectivism, then, everything that exists has a specific finite nature. To have a specific, finite nature, is incompatible with having a self-contradictory nature. Therefore, the whole of reality is noncontradictory; though contradictions might exist in thought, there are no contradictions in the real world.

Another Objectivist doctrine deserves mention here: Objectivism rejects the mind-body dichotomy, holding that the mind and body are an integrated whole. Though this doctrine may sound like a stance in the philosophy of mind ? a doctrine concerning the relationship between consciousness (mind) and brain (body) ? it is not. Rather, it amounts chiefly to the assertions that (a) there are both mental existents and physical existents, and (b) existents of both sorts have genuine causal powers, though whether entities of either sort, or their causal powers, can be reductively explained is another matter. This doctrine represents a rejection of any forced choice between Marxian materialism and Christian spiritualism. Marxists hold that the material factors of production have metaphysical priority over consciousness. Christians hold that reality is fundamentally spiritual. Objectivism rejects both views: physical entities and mental entities both exist, and neither is more real than the other. Though this doctrine may entail the rejection of eliminativism, Objectivism does not offer any particular metaphysical or scientific explanation of the relationship between mind and body in the philosophy of mind. However, Harry Binswanger, a prominent Objectivist philosopher, argues in his lecture course, "The Metaphysics of Consciousness," in favor of substance dualism. He rejects not only eliminativism and materialism, but even the property dualism of David Chalmers and the emergentism of John Searle.


so does objectivism tell us which values should be accepted?

Objectivism, as was said earlier, is the recognition of reality as the ultimate standard of evaluation. It can be used as a metric for judging values and such; it is essentially a ?ground?, and a very stable, consistent one.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #3623872 -

"It is asserting that everything that exists has a specific nature"

I agree, but by the time that nature is percieved it is now subject to the perceptual 'lens', and hence subjective.

A telephone appears as a functional device to humans in our society, and yet appears as an odd 'rock' to an animal. Clearly both of these portraits are subject to the observer's own perceptual make-up, past experiences with the object ect...

I 100% agree that an objective state exists, and that's why I do not disagree with the main basis of science (besides the degree to which it asserts it's truth). However, this state cannot be known, as knowledge implies a seperate observing entity from the object, and then means of observation in between (photons -> eyes -> optic nerves -> brain for processing, ect...). During this process, differnt portraits of the same 'object' may be painted to different observers, and yet all are essentially 'correct' and 'objective' (in that the perceptual filter exists objectively) and yet are subjective at the same time in the form of observation.

Like, when we see a telephone, we see a mental concept instead of the photons from which we constructed it. These photons themselves only reflect off of the outermost layer of electrons of the "object", and therefore we see like a '2D map' of the 'object'. Not only that, but the differentiation of object to non-object is subjective in nature. I may see an apple, whereas an imaginary microorganism with sight capability might see millions of cells, or trillions of atoms.

Everything is one connecting flowing substance, from which form is observed subjectively by a part of the same substance. Hard to put into words, but you probably know what I mean (think taoism) :smile:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Swami]
    #3624962 -

"I see. So there is no difference between a fact and a non-fact."

Maybe you don't see, as I never said that. The examples I gave of rational vs. irrational and moral vs. immoral do not deal with fact per se. They are opinions, beliefs, and judgements. Subjective things, all.

"Rational beliefs may require a base assumption."

A rational belief might be "thou shalt not kill". Killing could rationally be considered "wrong". Even there, when thou is hungry, perhaps it is time to kill. Maybe it should have been, thou shall not kill unless it is something we want to eat that is not a human, is not treated inhumanely in the process, and is USDA inspected and approved.


--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.

Edited by LunarEclipse (01/13/05 07:39 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Swami]
    #3625249 -

Quote:
A rational belief is one in which the basis for it can by viewed dispassionately and the SAME conclusion could be reached based SOLEY on the data. In this case an expert may be needed to show the methodology by which such a belief was arrived at, but the charisma of the expert has no real importance.



WRONG! if this were true then global warming is both a fact and a myth as the data has been dispassionatly evaluated by different "experts" and completly differing results are arrived at. All data is subjectively interpreted, the thought that ones "dispassionate" evalution creates a"rational" view is ludicrous.
Also you juxtapose rational and irrational beliefs placing rational belief above irrational belief,another flaw in your arguement as as much progress has been achieved following irrational beliefs as rational(how rational is it to greatly endanger oneself for some imagined gain. Well it pushed Christopher Columbus to follow an irrational belief that he could reach india by heading west.It pushed miners to California on the irrational belief that they would become rich in the gold fields.
I would in fact make the statement that man has progressed more from his irrational acts than rational ones.There are timeswhen an irrational belief or act is far more appropriate than a rational act,such as my reply to this post or believing that faith can do what reason often cannot.
WR:wexican:


--------------------
To old for this place

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: whiterasta]
    #3625341 -

I would agree, as rationality is based on past experiences and 'logical' patterns

and so following this soley offers no possiblity for change :smile:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #3625647 -

Quote:
To have an identity means a single identity; an object cannot have two identities.


So is an electron a wave or particle?

Quote:
The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions.



Reality is only knowable within our limited sensory input.It's definate nature is our determination of observations, not an absolute(absolutes can only be approached asymtotaly) I may be knowable but only by the criteria of our senses. As for contradictions in reality ther is the speed of light which at this point is an irrational concept or absolute zero(again the absolute is only approached asymtotaly)paradoxical contradictions in the view of reality which logical evaluation produces irrational results.Rationality itself is a subjective determination of information which provides a consistant consensual result.
Quote:
Objectivism holds that objects present themselves to consciousness in such a way that they must be genuinely "other," that is, non-identical to one's own consciousness.
Though Objectivism grants that some particular existents are mental (e.g., minds, thoughts, desires, intentions), it holds that, if what fundamentally exists is independent of any consciousness, then the universe as a whole is neither the creation of a divine consciousness nor itself mental.




Your making a subjective determination of what is separate from consciousness and what is a creation of consciousness.
If you can prove that any of this exists separate from our own minds then the objective view will hold up, however if even the objective must begin with an assumption then objectivity is a functional subset of our subjective interpretation of sensory information, a modeling tool only , like mathmatics. Objectivity is simply a functional tool to give continuity to our subjective experience,that we share input and hardware is the reason we share consensus(mostly)

Quote:
According to Objectivism, then, everything that exists has a specific finite nature. To have a specific, finite nature, is incompatible with having a self-contradictory nature



A black hole has been determined to exist yet has no finite nature so does not exist objectively only in the subjective determinations of astrophysicists.an example of a non-finite non-specific object in "reality" that was realized by objectivism only not by subjective opinions?

The realization that objectivism is mearly a tool to give consensus and continuity to the shared subjective experience called reality is a far more realistic view than that objectivism will reveal all through logic and reason.
This is my subjectively objective opinion.
WR :wexican:


--------------------
To old for this place

Edited by whiterasta (01/13/05 09:15 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: whiterasta]
    #3625665 -

nice post, made a well-argued case :smile:

I agree completely :laugh:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: deff]
    #3625804 -

I understand what you are saying. But be mindful that an entity can have more than one characteristic, but any characteristic it has is a part of its identity.

In regards to the statement that, ultimately beyond our framework, that absolutely, your brain, and your mind, your knowledge are valueless, I agree. All your examinations, all your struggles, all the things that you have gathered through years and years, centuries, are absolutely worthless. Virtue, abstinence, control, everything - and at the end of it, it's all valueless! Absolutely, we have no relationship to the Ground/Void/AbsoluteObjectivity in any fundamental sense. It has relative value, but only within a certain framework, which in itself has no value.
Thought, has relative value... but the framework in general has no value.
The ground says, whatever you have done 'on earth' has no meaning, is this an idea or an actuality? Idea being that you have told me, but I still go on, struggling, wanting, groping. Or is it an actuality, in the sense that I suddenly realize the futility of all that I have done. So, one must be very careful to see that it is not a concept; or rather that one doesn't translate it into a concept or an idea, but recieve the full blow of it.

In regards to Taoism as you referenced, Taoistic Objectivity, which can also be described as  Animal Objectivity, is one philosophy that I am particularly fond of.  :smile:

Teach Animal Ojectivity



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: whiterasta]
    #3626370 -

whiterasta:  The realization that objectivism is mearly a tool to give consensus and continuity
uh huh...
to the shared subjective experience called reality
Whoa...
Let's see what this means.
Do you mean shared as in "we are all one being"?
Or shared as in "individually, we all experience life subjectively"?

is a far more realistic view than that objectivism will reveal all through logic and reason.
It is impossible to live completely objectively.
It just is.  But one could live relatively objectively.

This is my subjectively objective opinion.
:stoned:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Sclorch]
    #3627566 -

Individuals experiencing life subjectively of course :wink:
WR


--------------------
To old for this place

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: whiterasta]
    #3628014 -

Okay... I dig.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #3628641 -

I think our views on this are probably closer than the semantics are showing.

I acknowledge an objective state existing beneath all form (the substance - the Tao)

But I also acknowledge that it cannot be known, as knowledge is an abstraction of our subjective view of the objective conditions we are placed in.

In this sense, our perceptions are subjective and our entire realities are subjective (subject to our perceptual filter, whatever). However, they are subjective portraits on the same objective canvas.

Refers back to a favourite quote of mine, "we are each a unique instance of the same set of infinity".

(unique to imply subjective, and yet all based around the identical set of objective reality)

Also, this quote exemplifies the degree to which we are all connected and objectively inseperable. Like in mix's recent post about the fungus whose stomache is the the entire earth itself, that sort of idea. There is no end to each unique instance, each unique subjective reality (portrait). Even down to the finest degrees, such as the gravity that is in effect between atoms of your skin and atoms on the furthest stars in our gallaxy, they are all interconnected as they are all of the same substance. :smile:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #3629470 -

Quote:
Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is.


The boundries to delineate an object or creature are illusory. There is no cat, there is no leaf. It's all atoms. As such, we are not seperate beings. Reality is an amorphous blob of atoms (of course more subdivisions can be made).

When we - as individuals - perceive reality, our minds create an image of what it looks like based on sensory input. Let's analyse this situation.
Our brains create our reality. Science would have it we are beings designed to optimally cope with reality, to survive.
Logical conclusion: our brain (as a part of us, the creature) is designed to allow us to survive.

For a creature to survive, it has to be able to focus on its surroundings. For focus, you need distinctions, boundaries, hierarchies (such as dangerous -not dangerous, edible-inedible and fight-flee).

Rationality is an effect of the design of our brains. We categorize reality, make up rules to govern it (as seen in religion, philosophy and science) and assign an objective truth to it.

The question is whether reality looks the same from a perspective outside of our own existence. If the question can be answered affirmatively, there's an objective reality. If not, there is no such thing.

A follow-up question is who's doing the investigation. All scientists are humans, so they can never escape the human perspective.

You answer this: can science ever prove objective reality, taking into account the type of creatures that are involved in it?


--------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

- Aristotle

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Rationality, Objectivity and Logic
( 1 2 3 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 6,964 45 10/15/05 11:19 AM
by BlueCoyote
* Are Believers Rational Beings?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Swami 8,557 60 04/22/02 03:23 AM
by infidelGOD
* Desperately Clinging To The Irrational: Terri Schiavo
( 1 2 all )		 DiploidM 3,364 24 06/18/05 12:43 AM
by DF2K
* Terence McKenna's beliefs about time-telescoping
( 1 2 3 all )		 question_for_joo 5,979 44 07/25/05 03:46 AM
by alsey
* Determinism & Objective/Subjective Morality TinTree 2,889 13 01/24/05 10:34 AM
by shroomydan
* how would u change an ingrained belief ?
( 1 2 all )		 lucid 1,538 21 12/30/04 06:33 PM
by Moonshoe
* Swami's Annual Summation on Belief
( 1 2 3 all )		 Swami 4,245 53 06/20/04 11:10 PM
by Swami
* The Unprovable Nature of Faith and Belief
( 1 2 all )		 DoctorJ 3,086 33 08/11/03 07:13 AM
by fireworks_god

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
10,731 topic views. 1 members, 28 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.047 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 16 queries.