|
Aswad -> RE: Now God intended rape to happen. (11/7/2012 7:23:27 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GotSteel
I really don't want to get into the conspiracy theory that is solipsism but I am having trouble buying that "I think" is an assumption and not a direct observation.
Actually, even the notion "I" is seriously questioned by modern cognitive science, on hard grounds. And the perception of consciousness seems to be a self-referential illusion that is provided by certain parts of the brain integrating discrete moments in a manner that allows reality testing to fail to notice that we have no consciousness or identity, sowing doubt about the validity of perception as a phenomena. These are not my inventions, so we need not turn to solipsism to question the foundation of Descartes' reasoning.
But if we do turn to hard logic, we are left with both "I" and "think" presupposing "am", making his statement circular.
I've recently been made aware that Søren Kierkegaard- with whom I'll assume you're familiar- had a similar criticism, which is no doubt going to be more thoroughly reasoned than mine, but I haven't read it yet, so I can't verify that. Even Nietzsche rejected Descartes on this point, with an interesting observation, and you would be hard pressed to argue that his have been abstract inquiries compared to his peers in the field of philosophy; few Western philosophers have been as vital, concrete and life affirming in their positions. Quite simply put, Descartes' is not a convincing argument, except in the rhetorical, holistic sense that we're used to dealing with what we believe to be reality. Again, this doesn't require solipsism, although I maintain that your attitude to solipsism is faith, not fact.
C'mon... even mathematics are axiomatic; are you really going to dispute that?
Cuz I don't see that going anywhere.
And here's what it comes down to: belief is about sets of axioms.
Once you wrap your head around that and come to terms with it, you'll see that the better question is one of which belief systems are based on atomic, consistent axioms and which beliefs are conducive to accomplishing what the system they're part of sets forth as desireable. That is, of course, if indeed said system prescribes such a thing. Not all belief systems have any inherent motive force. Science doesn't, for instance, which is why most will apply some subset of Christian values to it, often what we call Humanism. As a sidebar, and in the interest of heading off arguments about antecedent belief systems, I will cede that, genealogically, we might posit a seperate entity that is included in both Humanism and Christianity, rather than Humanism starting from a subset of Christian values, but also note that pursuing that is redundant as far as the point made is concerned. Whatever the origins, there is a set that provides a motive force to most Western people's belief systems. And like all sets of beliefs, it is axiomatic.
There's nothing wrong with having axioms. But some sets thereof can be inconsistent. And that we can argue about. Arguing that science doesn't use axioms, however, is indisputably a dead end. What distinguishes it is that a lot of its axioms are atomic, that they are mostly consistent (entirely so if we go with only the incontrovertably established science, rather than the living body of scientific knowledge) and that they are conducive to accomplishing goals provided by whatever additional beliefs and values are added as a motive force by those that use science as a method.
One of the things that occured to me in processing the Gorean stuff is that values are a fairly hard subject to deal with.
You have to step out of your own frame of reference to usefully analyze another, which is made difficult by the fact that values and the like are so deeply embedded that we're not aware what our values are, not really; some superficial values, certainly, but not enough to negate our native frame of reference entirely without substantial effort. Furthermore, you have to zoom out enough to encompass both your own frame of reference and that of the paradigm you're trying to reason about. Otherwise, you only get to work with interactions between paradigms, not work with the paradigms themselves. It's much easier to step into another's frame of reference, which is why I usually do that when posting here, rather than taking it up a level. But if you're getting into the sort of thing you're touching on here, you really have to go all the way to grok it.
This was obvious, for instance, in the "A quandry" thread (Off Topic section), where I commented on how we're missing the point (sinning, if you're going to play with the religious terminology) in objecting to people insisting on dressing hijab (lit. modestly). We have our own standards, which contain the same imperative of hijab (modesty), the same response to failing to obey the imperatives (punishment), the same character judgments ("dressed like a whore" anyone?) and so forth. When we fail to see eye to eye, it becomes impossible to find a good shared resolution. And rejecting any frame of reference but one's own is a surefire way to walk into that trap, sabotaging attempts at building bridges between people and leading to conflicts that are, traditionally, resolved by one group obliterating the other in some way, rather than people coming together constructively.
My religion calls on me to take such things into consideration (surely, understanding is part of the divinity one should aspire to), whereas yours might not. That's why I seek coexistence on common ground and try to be at least moderately respectful when others have beliefs (including the belief in the absence of divinities) I don't share. Sadly, the courtesy is rarely returned.
Dismiss me as an ignorant, superstitious fool if you (the generic extrorse pronoun, not you-you) like, or whatever else comes to mind, or dismiss my views as you (you-you this time) have, but it's been my observation that such is a shortcoming of reasoning on the part of the one making the assessment, not a sign of greater enlightenment.
And, yes, I do nominally entertain the solipsist position, but it has no bearing on my everyday living.
In summary, Descartes reinvented an aspect of ehyeh asher ehyeh, and it ain't no improvement.
My apologies for wandering.
IWYW,
— Aswad.
|
|
|
|
