What do you need a, "premise," for, if you aren't going to be using reason? And what do you mean, "no other grounds?" No other grounds for what? You said you cannot use reason to determine right objectives, so once you have your right, "premise," and correct, "ground," what method do you use to proceed, since reason won't work?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:35 pmThey can only be premised on what you actually believe to be true about those questions (anthropogeny, teleology, ethics). There can be no other grounds than reality itself.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 9:56 pm If you say the way to find out what you should want is, "anthropogeny first, then of teleology, and then of ethics," instead of reason, "since you say, "what ends are, or should be, rationality never tells you," what faculty do you use for anthropogeny, teleology, and ethics?
What method or faculty do you use to determine what is more plausible? Do you just guess, go by your feelings, or let whim decide? Reason, according to you, is out.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:35 pm Now, some such beliefs are more plausible, based the evidence reality provides, than are others. And some are not plausible at all, perhaps. But people are odd: sometimes, they insist on acting on a set of beliefs they may even secretly strongly suspect isn't true.
But according to you reason is incapable revealing they should do otherwise. What difference does it make what reason says if it cannot discover what one should do?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:35 pm For example, Socialists today have every reason to know that their creed is contrary to the realities of human nature, sociology and history, but simply refuse to accept any data as sufficient evidence to abandon their Socialism.
"Rational behavior?" Is that suddenly the same as, "right behavior?" Doesn't being a rational person mean one who uses correct reason?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:35 pm Anthropogeny, teleology and ethics provide a "map" for rational behaviour. But they can't guarantee rational people. Some are just not, and prefer to live even with beliefs that are inconsistent or completely in defiance of the available data.
You said:
You said:It's not "irrational" to want to be the Tyrant of Russia. Reason qua reason has no opinion about whether or not you should be. ... Reason only supplies the connection between what you want and how to get there. Reason can tell you that a revolution will serve your purposes most expeditiously, so that becomes the "rational" solution. It can't tell you you "shouldn't" want to be a Russian Tyrant.
I might reason that being "not nice" is the way to get what I want the fastest, with the least cost to me: very rational indeed. To steal, when one can get away with it, is extremely rational as a way of getting what one wants. To cheat, to bully, to deceive, to malign and backstab...all highly effective methods, ...
What difference does it makes what one's premises are or what data they have if reason is not able to tell you what you should and shouldn't do? If that were truly the case, there would be no advantage to rationality over irrationality.
Why do you hate to admit that reason is the only faculty human beings have for discovering anything and of making judgments of right and wrong? It it is not reason, what Is?
If what you believe is not based on reason, it must be based on something else. If you reject reason, I want to know what that, "something else," is.