|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent
#5303619 - 02/15/06 03:43 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
By Joseph Rowlands - The Free Radical magazine.
Imagine you're discussing ethics with a friend. You bring up the fact that altruism, the ethics of self-sacrifice, is the current dominant ethical system. Your friend is unconvinced though. He insists he's never met an altruist. Sure, people might say you're supposed to help other people all the time, but none of them practice it consistently. He can point to the most altruistic person you two know and show that he's constantly acting for himself and not others.
The counter-argument being made is that nobody practices it consistently. It seems plausible at first. If they aren't really practicing what they're preaching, there's nothing really wrong with believing it, is there? Doesn't their common sense override their mistakes? And since they're inconsistent with it, we can't really predict how they'll behave, making it a poor tool of analysis. Doesn't the inconsistency prove they don't really believe it?
The first thing to note is that these bad philosophies cannot be practiced consistently. You can't be a dedicated altruist and live very long. You can't be a committed rationalist, believing deduction is the only means of knowledge, because you'd have no knowledge about the real world. You can't be a dedicated empiricist, believing that theory and abstractions are useless, because facts without integration would appear random and chaotic. You can't be a consistent determinist, believing that choice is an illusion, or you'd sit passively while death slowly took you. The big point here is that inconsistency is not optional. It's a necessary by-product of an impracticable philosophy.
So they don't practice it consistently. Is there anything else we can learn from the fact that they hold bad philosophical premises? There are a few things. The first is that their explicit philosophy is usually going to be their guide whenever they consciously try to work something out. An altruist making a major life decision will think about what is right and wrong based on that altruistic premise. It's only during a tough decision that a person focuses on his method of choosing. It's only at that point that his conscious convictions will dominate and his implicit philosophy (common sense) will be pushed to the background. In other words, that bad philosophy will be most dominant when it can do the most damage.
How does it affect some of the other philosophical beliefs? Rationalism and empiricism are both epistemological. They both deal with what we consider proper knowledge. When are we most likely to consider our standards of knowledge? One example is when we try to prove something. A rationalist will want a strong logical deduction in order to be satisfied. An empiricists will want to "see it to believe it." These views will be brought into conscious consideration when someone has a strong desire to be sure about something. Again, it's when the philosophical premises are deemed most important that they have the biggest effects.
Determinism also has an interesting affect. In day-to-day decisions, it can't be taken seriously. When is there a need to pay attention to that particular philosophical premise? One case is the need for moral responsibility or judgment. Moral issues are dependent on man's ability to choose his actions, and determinism negates that. So it is a convenient excuse for any morally dubious actions. That moral excuse works not only to brush off your own moral failings, but to excuse the actions of other people. Justice can be tough to practice, and this lets you off the hook.
I've so far focused on how a bad philosophical belief is likely to be practiced. There is another major side-effect though. It's the unseen effect of a bad philosophical premise. The belief in a false idea precludes you from understanding and adopting a correct idea. You are blinded from the truth, and that can't help but affect your life.
Let's take the case of altruism. By accepting it as a moral ideal, you end up rejecting or ignoring your own rational self-interest. It's not that you'll act against it consistently, but that you won't properly identify it. That's why a dichotomy between helping others (altruism) and stomping on others to get whatever you want (the conventional view of selfishness) is possible. It's why people can say things like "as long as it makes him happy" as if anything a person wants to do is also good for him. The focus on altruism blinds people to a rational ethics in their day-to-day lives, leaving them without an explicit standard to judge their actions by.
We can review other philosophical premises in the same light. Rationalism doesn't really blind a person to the empirical data or facts. A rationalist can't function without these. What it does is blind them to a cognitive standard they can use to evaluate the empirical data. If deduction is all they focus on, they won't have a good idea of the rules of induction. That also limits their ability to form new principles based on empirical data, or to view specific events in all of their context. It's not that they won't do these things, but they'll be hindered in the process by not having an explicit theory of how to do it.
Similarly, empiricism doesn't mean you won't have theories or think in abstractions. It just blinds you to a rational method of doing either of these. Dismissing the validity of abstract theory only prevents you from practicing it in a consistent, rational manner. You may ignore the principles of logic, for instance, because they're "just theory." But in the end that can only limit your potential.
And finally, determinism doesn't mean that you won't make choices. It means that you'll have a ready excuse not to. Determinism favors passivity or reaction to purposeful action. Why go through the effort of doing something difficult if choice is an illusion? Sit around and be lazy. You have no choice anyway.
So bad philosophy has a number of effects, even though it isn't practiced consistently. We don't expect it to be practiced consistently. But we've seen that when it really matters, your philosophical views become important and bad philosophy will impact your life. We've also shown that the more frequent problems come from the unseen effects of a bad philosophical view. What you miss is as important as what you mistakenly believe.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
Deviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
|
You can't be a dedicated altruist and live very long.
this isn't necessarily true. i think you're taking altruism to the extreme, as if it means you should allow yourself to freeze to death so your friend can have 6 blankets, rather than take one yourself and leave him the other five. atruism doesn't mean you neglect caring for your body, in fact letting yourself die would not always be the altruistic thing. for instance on an airplane they always tell you to put your own oxygen mask before assisting anyone else. this is bcause if you pass out before you put your oxygen mask on then everyone dies. but if you save yourself first, you then make yourself available to help several other people. so keeping yourself alive is not in violation of altrusistic principles, even if it means that at time you must ration food or money for yourself that could potentially go to someone else. you have to consider the larger picture.
Edited by Deviate (02/15/06 04:11 PM)
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
Here's how I see it. We adopt philosophies because specific ones help us to reach specific goals. They work to achieve the goal when properly applied.
In the case of consistency, the goal is predictable outcomes that provide a sense of safety and security. In a child rearing philosophy for example, consistent follow through with rule enforcement will provide the goal of raising an obedient child who learns, you mean what you say, and in turn, including things like consistent schedules, they are provided with a predictable reality that offers them a sense of safety and security. They know what to expect is coming next.
However, this reality created for them is an illusion to that of nature itself. There is no consistency to it. It rains for three weeks straight and is dry for 3 months and then, who knows. What was once a river is now a dry canyon and what was once a jungle teaming with tigers is a desert.
There is nothing even consistent with human reproduction. There is no cookie cutter expectant parents can count on. It may be a boy, or girl, have two heads, 6 fingers, a hole in its heart.
Though I use philosophies that deal with consistencies to achieve goals, because they work, I do not confuse the desired realities I can craft (manipulate) with them, with the true nature of things itself.
All philosophies the way I see them are just ways to manipulate reality to your personal suiting.
If you want to get really real and aligned with THE TRUTH of natural existence, you have to throw it call to the wind and let free choice and the natural course of cause and effect do its thing.
Who is ready to live like that with the only rule and law being that of what nature enforces upon us itself-no man made manipulations added it to it?
There are many reasons to adopt philosophical approaches to life and to follow their rules, however, I wouldn't confuse any of them with bearing the natural truth of existence.
The only thing any of them do is bring you to their specified goal and their rules will insure it as long as they are enforced because they do not allow for anything else to fit within them.
Nature is inconsistent. Just like with the magnetic poles of the planet, we've come to learn they have shifted, yet we don't know when it will again, if it will again or what to expect fully if it were to happen again.
No creature of the wild knows when they are going to be stalked and pounced on next or by what. Can anyone tell me how much rain my town will get next year , on what days and for how long so I can start planning out door events early? 
A part of learning how to deal, adapt and cope with the truth of the real world and existance is learning to deal with natural inconsistencies. Any philosophy that tries to control nature is creating a false (unnatural) reality.
Not saying its wrong or bad to do that if you have a goal to meet. The above author was trying to say that consistency is some how in alignment with truth, I ask, what truth? Man made and man enforced or nature made and nature enforced? There's a difference.
Any philosophy that deals with the truth of inconsistencies is closer to natural true reality. The further you stray from that, the further you move into a manipulated man made reality.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Deviate]
#5303774 - 02/15/06 04:41 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
this isn't necessarily true. i think you're taking altruism to the extreme, as if it means you should allow yourself to freeze to death so your friend can have 6 blankets, rather than take one yourself and leave him the other five.
That would be a rather extreme example, indeed. But in reality dedicated and consistent altruism is an extreme, which is why not many people in their right mind will ever carry out such a thing - not for long, and not with 100% consistency - that is the point here. By altruism, we don't mean the general benevolence we all partake in here and there, rather we are talking about the collectivist code of ethic which holds that the welfare of others is the standard of good.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
No two sunsets are ever the same in color or clouds arranged in the sky from day to day or blades of grass and bugs in the lawn from day to day.
Nature is inconsistent and its the real deal. How can inconsistent philosophy be a bad thing when inconsistency is aligned with the truth of natural law and order? Consistent philosophy is the phony creating false realities IMHO.

.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
Nature is inconsistent. Just like with the magnetic poles of the planet, we've come to learn they have shifted, yet we don't know when it will again, if it will again or what to expect fully if it were to happen again.
Nature is consistent in some respects, and inconsistent in some respects. In fact, I'd say nature is more consistent than it is inconsistent.
If you want to get really real and aligned with THE TRUTH of natural existence, you have to throw it call to the wind and let free choice and the natural course of cause and effect do its thing.
Throw what to the call of the wind and let random chance take control? My life? My goals? Uh no. To be honest, I have done basically just that - and it was a very expensive mistake, and one I'll never make again. I'll take control and responsibility, thank you.
The above author was trying to say that consistency is some how in alignment with truth, I ask, what truth? .
Truth of reality-correspondence. If a philosophy is faulty to the extent that one cannot honestly practice it consistently if they tried, then it is precisely this which it lacks.
Any philosophy that deals with the truth of inconsistencies is closer to natural true reality. The further you stray from that, the further you move into a manipulated man made reality.
Actually, all philosophies remain on the normative level. They derive from the cognitive. And again, your attempt to use illustrate nature as entirely inconsistent - or even mostly inconsistent, is rather unjustified.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
No two sunsets are ever the same in color or clouds arranged in the sky from day to day or blades of grass and bugs in the lawn from day to day.
Nature is inconsistent and its the real deal.
Sunsets occur everyday, as do sunrises. Day and night occurs consistently. The Law of Identity - a fundamental law of existence, is utmost consistent. The fibonacci sequence is consistent in nature. Hell, existence itself is consistent. The molecular structure of existents are consistent. The manner in which light creates the effect of color, is consistent. Ultimately, all percieved inconsistencies, are built upon consistencies.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
Quote:
Nature is consistent in some respects, and inconsistent in some respects. In fact, I'd say nature is more consistent than it is inconsistent.
I don't know about that. The rotation of the planet around the sun is pretty consistent and the tilts and gravity are (except for in anomaly zones like the Oregon vortex). I can grab thousands of inconsistent examples off the top of my head. Consistent ones I think are the few and they are enforced by natural laws.
Quote:
Throw what to the call of the wind and let random chance take control? My life? My goals? Uh no. To be honest, I have done basically just that - and it was a very expensive mistake, and one I'll never make again. I'll take control and responsibility, thank you.
I agree on that which is why I asked, who is ready to live by giving up predictable control or crafting ability over their realities? Not me which is why I use philosophical approaches too. I was just making it clear that it doesn't mean what ever we are doing is creating something truly natural. Just like the Tae Kwon Do practice I do is reprogramming my natural self defensive mechanism to be more effective. Only through repetition will unnatural moves become natural. That new nature was still manipulated though and I don't kid myself about it. Sounds like you realize the difference too. I just wanted to add that for any reader who didn't consider or realize it already.
Quote:
Truth of reality-correspondence. If a philosophy is faulty to the extent that one cannot honestly practice it consistently if they tried, then it is precisely this which it lacks.
True that. If it is that far from being applicable then, yes, it's useless. Doesn't that go without saying? It won't take someone long to figure out and realize that trying to make a bed with a bulldozer isn't an effective method for accomplishing that goal.
Quote:
Actually, all philosophies remain on the normative level. They derive from the cognitive. And again, your attempt to use illustrate nature as entirely inconsistent - or even mostly inconsistent, is rather unjustified.
Its not unjustified, depending on the goal any are being used for. If one uses say, objective philosophy as a means to determine the natural truth of existent reality by measure of what is consistent and repeatable then, it sucks at achieving that goal. No two bushes of the same species even grow the same or pop up in predictable places. Birds can carry seeds for miles and drop then any which where and who knows which will take and grow or when?
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
I don't know about that. The rotation of the planet around the sun is pretty consistent and the tilts and gravity are (except for in anomaly zones like the Oregon vortex). I can grab thousands of inconsistent examples off the top of my head. Consistent ones I think are the few and they are enforced by natural laws.
Upon further thought, I would have to say that, at the very least, there are just as many consistences as there are inconsistencies, for the simple fact that for any inconsistency one finds, there are always consistencies behind it.
And I just now realized that you caught me off guard there, and sucked me into your little black witch voodoo magic, missus. We're talking about two entirely different consistencies here. You are talking about the inconsistency that pertains to irregularity, and erraticness - whereas Rowlands and I are talking about consistency that pertains to correct logical relation, non-contradictivity. This doesn't negate what has been said thus far, but it does add much more clarity to this discussion.
So the fact is, by being consistent, it isn't as if we are furthering ourselves from nature - rather the opposite. The Law of Identity fundamentally governs all reasoning and logic and the Law of Identity isn't something man arbitrarily created - rather, it is an direct, verifiable observation based in reality, read: in nature, read: in existence itself.
This is why an inconsistent philosophy is "bad" - because it conflicts with nature - not because nature itself is bad ["good" or "bad" doesn't apply to the metaphysically given].
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
Quote:
Upon further thought, I would have to say that, at the very least, there are just as many consistences as there are inconsistencies, for the simple fact that for any inconsistency one finds, there are always consistencies behind it.
And one finds inconsistencies behind those consistencies. Nature contradicts itself. Any philosophy not in recognition of that is lying to itself about the inconsistent/consistent contradictory/dictorial nature of reality and existence.
Quote:
And I just now realized that you caught me off guard there, and sucked me into your little black witch voodoo magic, missus. We're talking about two entirely different consistencies here. You are talking about the inconsistency that pertains to irregularity, and erraticness - whereas Rowlands and I are talking about consistency that pertains to correct logical relation, non-contradictivity. This doesn't negate what has been said thus far, but it does add much more clarity to this discussion.
The bolded part is funny Skorp. Why would you even need to be on guard and from what? I can't believe you even said that. I pegged you as a rational and logical scientific thinking type, not someone who lives in fears of superstitions.
Did you or did you not say your personal philosophy allows you greater control over your life, opposed to an approach that assumes zero control? It doesn't matter if you are working with natural laws to gain control over your reality. What do you think the spooky dark arts do? Work with laws that don't exist? If they did, they would be highly ineffective, don't ya think? Sort of like using a bull dozer to make a bed. The difference between white and black magic would be intent of use of natural laws, sort of like how one uses free will to choose to look out for their own well being first. *cough Ayn Rand cough*
That would be an example of black magic use where as white magic looks out for the well being of all involved and often puts its own well being at risk to help others, like those running the under ground railroad.
Black magic hoodoo voodoo scientists manipulate seed genetics to create unnatural hybrid flowers and seeds guaranteed to bloom.
That would be working against the laws of nature in that, they are manipulating the seeds go against their true grain yet, working within natural laws to get them to work.
If you want to put a dark sinister aspect on humans doing that, then go right ahead. If one can get a manipulation of nature to take hold, then, it must be working with a natural law built into place as well.
Quote:
So the fact is, by being consistent, it isn't as if we are furthering ourselves from nature - rather the opposite. The Law of Identity fundamentally governs all reasoning and logic and the Law of Identity isn't something man arbitrarily created - rather, it is an direct, verifiable observation based in reality, read: in nature, read: in existence itself. This is why an inconsistent philosophy is "bad" - because it conflicts with nature - not because nature itself is bad ["good" or "bad" doesn't apply to the metaphysically given].
Exactly. So why did you label such manipulations of what is natural to become something else natural in accordance with the fundamental laws as something dark and hoodoo voodoo? Its science plain and simple.
It would be impossible for anything to logically be wrong if it can truly be, like the hybrid flower.
You can teach a rat to get through a maze and to the cheese, using natural laws, even though at first, it naturally doesn't know where its going or why. Is that black magic hoodoo voodoo?
What are you even talking about? If something can be done, then it would follow, a logical order of natural identity law and be science.
That goes without saying too. If something can be done then, it is following some law of nature and identity.
Take the laws of thermodynamics. They are all natural laws and they are not consistent relative to each other and they contradict each other.
How else can I put this. A law to be a law of nature will be consistent within itself. True. In some cases, the law is inconsistency of movement. Thats what you mean by identity. Laws are not consistent with how others operate and they therefor contradict each other, though, not themselves.
A philosophy has to recognize that to be useful and applicable in discovering how reality works on many levels, with who knows how many yet to be discovered.
Gravity is a law and birds exhibit a means for contradicting that laws force working with other natural laws of lift.
Same with fish that can propel themselves to the surface, against gravity using laws of resistance and propulsion.
Do things consistently get sucked down by gravity or not? If there are laws that can defy it then gravity alone is not THE constant force and there are natural laws that contradict its identity. They are all real and true simultaneously.
I understand consistency within a law and the law of natural identity. That is not to be confused that one law of identity consistently applies to all laws of identity.
I bring this up because I see people here try to use the "one size fits all" philosophy argument and it doesn't.
Is it not arrogant or presumptuous of any modern human to believe we have discovered ALL natural laws in existence? Who knows what laws we will be discovering and working with 100 or 1000 years from now, that a few, may already be, and they get written off, because they haven't become known or self evident to all?
What will the fabric of reality look like when hyper dimensional laws are discovered and become applicable to us?
If a philosophy is based on rubbish it won't work and that will quickly become self evident.
P.S. BOO!
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
Quote:
Skorpivo said:
Truth of reality-correspondence. If a philosophy is faulty to the extent that one cannot honestly practice it consistently if they tried, then it is precisely this which it lacks.
I also got to thinking that the ease of applying a philosophy is relatively subjective and not indictive of its lacking. Like how most child care experts know the importance of consistency when following through with your words or else, a child won't trust a thing you say.
It's a philosophy that works well for establishing a trusting bond with a child.
A parent with zero patience and short fuse or little time, will find such a philosophy extremely difficult to follow and apply. Does that mean the philosophy is a bad one and lacking or that a persons inability to follow it is what is lacking?
If everyone but Joe can get a coffee maker to work, are the directions to it lacking or is Joe just lacking in ability to follow written directions?
Ease of following something or not isn't necessarily a one size fits all indicator of a philosophies use, lack, or worth to all.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
|
jiggy writes:
Quote:
Nature contradicts itself.
No, it most emphatically does not. Nature NEVER contradicts itself. Ever.
The physical laws of the universe are non-contradictory. If you think you have discovered a contradiction, check your premises. Upon more careful inspection you will invariably find that what you first thought of as a contradiction is in fact an error either in your observations or in your analysis of your observations.
Phred
--------------------
|
NerdleWombanger
Stranger

Registered: 02/14/06
Posts: 34
Loc: Nerdleton
Last seen: 17 years, 10 months
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Phred]
#5304724 - 02/15/06 09:04 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
If you think you have discovered a contradiction, check your premises.
You Randians are so lovably predictable.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Phred]
#5304932 - 02/15/06 10:09 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
That comment didn't come from my personal observations. It came from those of scientists who are making discoveries in quantum mechanics.
I gave one example, that can be researched with the 3rd law of thermo dynamics contradicting Newtons Laws of physics. Others have given them here with Bells theorems, and others have with what happens on the Plank scale.
I agreed that a law won't contradict its own self to my current knowledge (unless there is a law of identity self contradictory I am yet unaware of ) If a law appears to contradict itself, then a new law has been discovered is all. Maybe thats what you mean. I agree with that.
That aside, my main argument had to do with nature itself not being consistent and predictable. If one formulates a philosophy that provides predictable consistency, they are working against nature and are forming man made and controlled environments. I didn't say anything was wrong with that, as its useful for obtaining goals.
The fact that nature is inconsistent may serve as evidence that it has no goals of its own.
People approach life from different law levels and will either contradict each other and or, one working with many different law levels will contradict themselves.
I did it here.
In one reply, coming from a base level for the simple, I said any philosophy that doesn't produce results is rubbish (useless to you personally of course).
I took it up a few levels in a later post and said, that sometimes, it is not the philosophy that is lacking, as many others found it useful, but the one can not apply it consistently, is lacking an ability to do so. That should hold no direct reflection of truth unto the philosophy itself for others.
From one view, a philosophy that does not work for one when they try it to the best of their ability can be seen as a lacking philosophy.
From another view, the philosophy itself may not be lacking, rather, the user of it is.
Which is it the author is talking about? A bad philosophy or a bad user? A good philosophy and a bad user? A bad philosophy and a bad user? A bad philosophy and good user? Whose to say what philosophy is good or bad other then the individual using it?
I simply don't see them as being universally practical and user friendly to all even if many call them "good". One can be good in its methodology and have lousy followers of it. Maybe they are lousy followers because it is not in the nature of their identity to follow a specific one.
I think the author was giving a subjective opinion presenting it as some sort of objective universal truth applicable to any Good philosophy. Any time I am told that only one way is right, I know I am getting as partial truth. I start shifting view points around to see more of it.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
Nathaniel Branden said: Philosophical principles are no substitute for thinking, yet many Objectivists act as if they were.
I tend to agree.
--------------------
|
NerdleWombanger
Stranger

Registered: 02/14/06
Posts: 34
Loc: Nerdleton
Last seen: 17 years, 10 months
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5305017 - 02/15/06 10:41 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I Nathaniel Branden
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5305085 - 02/15/06 11:11 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Just to elaborate, I'd like to say that it is not just inconsistency which makes a bad philosophy, but also rigidness and simplicity. A good philosophy should be flexible and adaptable. In fact, I'm not even so sure it's good to have a philosophy at all. When you buy into some philosophy, whether it be Objectivism, Marxism, or what have you, there is a tendency to use it as a substitue for thinking, as Nathaniel Branden pointed out. There is a very human tendency to look for easy answers, and such philosophies will readily provide you with them. But the truth is there are no easy answers. The world is a complex place, and to assume that because a philosophy is consistent that it is therefore right is to do yourself a great disservice. Never surrender your own freedom of thought to the shackles of others' philosophy.
--------------------
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
The bolded part is funny Skorp. Why would you even need to be on guard and from what? I can't believe you even said that. I pegged you as a rational and logical scientific thinking type, not someone who lives in fears of superstitions.
Did you or did you not say your personal philosophy allows you greater control over your life, opposed to an approach that assumes zero control? It doesn't matter if you are working with natural laws to gain control over your reality. What do you think the spooky dark arts do? Work with laws that don't exist? If they did, they would be highly ineffective, don't ya think? Sort of like using a bull dozer to make a bed. The difference between white and black magic would be intent of use of natural laws, sort of like how one uses free will to choose to look out for their own well being first. *cough Ayn Rand cough*
That would be an example of black magic use where as white magic looks out for the well being of all involved and often puts its own well being at risk to help others, like those running the under ground railroad.
Black magic hoodoo voodoo scientists manipulate seed genetics to create unnatural hybrid flowers and seeds guaranteed to bloom.
That would be working against the laws of nature in that, they are manipulating the seeds go against their true grain yet, working within natural laws to get them to work.
If you want to put a dark sinister aspect on humans doing that, then go right ahead. If one can get a manipulation of nature to take hold, then, it must be working with a natural law built into place as well.
Oh boy.I'm glad you at least found it funny - because that was the point. I was saying I made a slip, an oops, with a little sarcasm at the end. I realized that there was a semantical confusion, and admitted that I got caught up in your definition without considering the actual definitions, plain and simple. Sorry, I won't kid around with you anymore. Amazingly, you didn't even respond to the salient part of my response, and focused only on that silly tidbit. Well, at least we both found something funny.
Exactly. So why did you label such manipulations of what is natural to become something else natural in accordance with the fundamental laws as something dark and hoodoo voodoo? Its science plain and simple.
It would be impossible for anything to logically be wrong if it can truly be, like the hybrid flower.
You can teach a rat to get through a maze and to the cheese, using natural laws, even though at first, it naturally doesn't know where its going or why. Is that black magic hoodoo voodoo?
What are you even talking about? If something can be done, then it would follow, a logical order of natural identity law and be science.
That goes without saying too. If something can be done then, it is following some law of nature and identity.
Yup. You've lost me. And your voodoo accusations are strawmans - but that's what I get for being astray from the dead-serious side with you.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Silversoul]
#5305147 - 02/15/06 11:42 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Philosophical principles are no substitute for thinking, yet many Objectivists act as if they were.
Note Branden's precision of wording here. He is not questioning the validity of Objectivist principles (or the principles of any philosophy for that matter), but rather criticizing some Objectivists for not thinking properly -- i.e. for failing to apply the correct principles in a given case. Note that this criticism is applicable to any other philosophy as well.
Phred
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent [Re: Phred]
#5305155 - 02/15/06 11:46 PM (17 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: Note Branden's precision of wording here. He is not questioning the validity of Objectivist principles (or the principles of any philosophy for that matter), but rather criticizing some Objectivists for not thinking properly -- i.e. for failing to apply the correct principles in a given case.
Actually, he seems to be criticising them for holding too strictly to those principles. Certainly Branden has not strayed too far from Objectivism, but he has committed the Objectivist sin of open-mindedness, for which he was ostracized from the Rand's inner circle.
Quote:
Note that this criticism is applicable to any other philosophy as well.
Agreed. See my elaboration two posts down.
--------------------
|
|