Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:34 am
What do you need a, "premise," for, if you aren't going to be using reason?
I didn't say you shouldn't use reason. I said that reason qua reason did not have an opinion which premises you might take.
The premises come first. That's true of all logic. One must have at least two premises, both presumed to be true, before logic has any chance of resulting in a sound argument ("sound," meaning both true
and logical).
We start with the empirical. We take the data of our experience to be true. That is presumptive, not certain. Out of this, we form premises. The premises are what we have to have before the first syllogism can be formed -- in other words, before reason can have any contribution to the situation.
But reason comes to the party late. The basic premises are already in place. Reason can tell us what to do with our premises, if we want to treat them reasonably and logically; but it does not dictate the premises themselves.
What method or faculty do you use to determine what is more plausible?
I was giving you one, actually. Empirically, we know that Socialism is a universal failure. We know it has inevitably issued in human rights disasters. So Socialism is not plausible, even if people insist on believing in it.
And the EXACT SAME can be said for "christianity". That is; empirically, we know that "chrisitanity" is a universal failure. We know it has inevitably issued in human rights disasters. So, "christianity" is not plausible, even if people insist on believing in it.
See, how, so called, "logic" and "reason" can be TWISTED and DISTORTED in just about ANY way, when one's BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS become involved. "immanuel can" is an EXPERT, and a PRIME EXAMPLE, of this way of Wrong and Incorrect behaving. But this is just the natural result of those with the STRONGEST HELD ONTO BELIEFS.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am
But according to you reason is incapable revealing they should do otherwise.
Reason qua reason has no particular opinions, it's true.
But reason, once supplied with at least two premises from the empirical, can tell us what is reasonable to make of our two premises, and what is not reasonable to try to make of them.
WHAT??
You just gone through explaining that;
"We take the data of our experience to be true. That is presumptive, not certain. Out of this, we form premises. "
Therefore, if whether the 'data' is NOT even known to be true or false, from the very outset, then EVERY thing else afterwards could also be completely and utterly true, or False, or anywhere in between.
So, how can 'reason' be applied to what could inevitably just be False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect anyway?
I suggest that ALL of 'you', adult human beings, go back to 'the beginning' and start all over again. Next time look at the, so called, 'data', properly AND correctly, discern what is ACTUALLY True and Right, and then, from there, proceed. The way you are all going, in the days when this is being written, is further, and further DOWN a never-ending spiral of CONFUSION.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am
"Rational behavior?" Is that suddenly the same as, "right behavior?"
No.
"Rational" merely refers to the sort of mathematical consistency of one's thinking -- in other words, to how well one is using one's premises.
But HOW could one use one's OWN premises 'well', if the premise is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY Wrong to begin with?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am
But "right" refers to moral quality. And a thing can be very "rational" and yet totally not "right."
REALLY?
Will you provide ANY examples of a 'rational behavior' with is NOT a 'right behavior'?
OBVIOUSLY, you could provide countless examples of this if the "premises" are NOT right to begin with, but then they would not be REAL "premises" ANYWAY. But let us SEE if you can provide an example of a 'rational behavior', which is based on True and Right premises, but which is NOT a 'right behavior', itself.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am
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?
But that's the part reason CAN do. It can tell you what you can reasonably deduce from the premises you have.
Remembering for the FACT that those, so called, "premises" could be False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect anyway.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am
But it can't tell you that those premises themselves are good or evil, right or wrong. Reason can only tell you what conclusion you can sensibly draw
given your premises.
But HOW can you actually draw something sensibly from 'that' what is evil or wrong?
This seems Truly CONTRADICTORY.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am
To put it simply: reason doesn't dictate what the premises are. It only dictates
what one can do with the premises one has, and still have a rational conclusion.
But you can NOT have a 'rational conclusion' if the, so called, "premise" itself is 'irrational', False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, correct?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am
So, for example, if your first two premises are:
All women are evil.
And all evil things should be killed.
...then reason
cannot tell you whether or not those premises are true. But it can tell you
what the logical conclusion is...even if that conclusion is immoral.
Is a 'rational conclusion' the same as a 'logical conclusion'?
If yes, then HOW?
But if no, then WHY integrate the two here the way that you have?
This appears to be a DECEPTIVE behavior to 'try to' 'rationalize' your OWN DISTORTED and TWISTED thinking and BELIEFS here, as well as 'trying to' TRICK "others" into BELIEVING the same things that you do.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am
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?
False premise.
I'm not "hating" anything, nor am I obligated to "admit" what is simply not true. Reason is not a
moral faculty, but rather it is a logical procedure. Like mathematics, it passes no judgments on the material (or numbers) its' working with: it just does what it does.
So, 'what', EXACTLY, to you, DOES discover and make judgments about 'moral' issues?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am
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.
As I say: we all get our premises from the empirical.
Is this like we all get "our" "premises" like; "the earth is flat", "the earth began only a few thousand years ago", "the earth is at the center of the Universe", "the Universe began", and/or "the Universe is expanding", et cetera, et cetera, "from the empirical"?
If this is so, then I would suggest NEVER using the, so called, "empirical" again to obtain 'your', so called, "premises".
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am
And I don't "reject reason" at all. I merely point out what it is, and what it is not.
Is this a UNIVERSAL "what it is" and "what is it not"? Or, just your OWN relative perspective of "what it is" and "what it is not"?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am
The danger of not realizing what reason is, is simple: one starts to think that one's own conclusions are pure products of
the only reason possible. One starts to think, "In every situation, I'm the rational guy, and everybody else is idiots."
WOW, that explains 'you', "immanuel can", 'to a T', as some say.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am
And what one thinks proves it is no more than that they disagree, or that they arrive at different conclusions from one.
I AGREE.
And what one KNOWS is what EVERY one "else" could AGREE WITH, and ACCEPT as well.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am
But people can reason from different premises: and the problem in their judgments (if a problem exists) if often not so much in their reasoning process as
in their premises. So they also know (and perhaps correctly) that they are being rational and reasonable, in that they are acting consistently with their own premises. So they remain unconvinced when one calls them "idiots," and they become aware that you simply don't know HOW they are reasoning...but they are well aware that they are.
They are also likely to see one as imperious, prejudiced, and oblivious to their reasoning...which would be quite correct, actually. So they'll dismiss one immediately.
On the other hand, if you want to change minds, most of the time you have to change people's
premises. Telling them, "You're unreasonable" just won't work -- especially if they ARE being reasonable.
Let us SEE if this will ACTUALLY WORK or NOT.
So, IF you provide your OWN
premises here, then we can take a LOOK AT them, and then 'we' can decide if they NEED changing or not.
But this still does NOT have to have ANY thing to do with "wanting to change minds".
By the way, thinking, "changing minds", is an ACTUAL thing, is a "premise", which NEEDS changing.