Pointless argumentative thread alert

[Pure]

Joe said,
A true "commandments of Reason" would have very little to say about things like prayer, fear, destruction, etc. as Reason is not designed to deal with such things in any way but a strictly analytical one.

Your being subject to, or following the "commandments of reason" is then a fairly simply task,

"if something is logically proven to be necessarily (prayed for, feared, destroyed), then one should".

but, no ordinary acts or events are *necessarily* to be done, prayed for, feared.

No ordinary acts--feeding one's kids, helping the poor, support your local civic 'booster' club, feeding the dog-- are *necessarily any of these things.

The commandments of Reason, per Joe, do not refer to any ordinary acts, one way or another.

The one all embracing commandment of Reason is
It is necessary to do that which it is necessary to do.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Pure
Joe said,
A true "commandments of Reason" would have very little to say about things like prayer, fear, destruction, etc. as Reason is not designed to deal with such things in any way but a strictly analytical one.

Your being subject to, or following the "commandments of reason" is then a fairly simply task,

"if something is logically proven to be necessarily (prayed for, feared, destroyed), then one should".

but, no ordinary acts or events are *necessarily* to be done, prayed for, feared.

No ordinary acts--feeding one's kids, helping the poor, support your local civic 'booster' club, feeding the dog-- are *necessarily any of these things.

The commandments of Reason, per Joe, do not refer to any ordinary acts, one way or another.

The one all embracing commandment of Reason is
It is necessary to do that which it is necessary to do.

That's pretty close to accurate, yeah. Reason is... well, just Reason. It isn't bigotry or malice, it isn't anti-religious or religious, it isn't biased to God nor against it, it doesn't appear to care if one's kids or fed or doesn't.

Reason is just the process by which necessary, possible, impossible, true, and false are determined. That's it. So a "commandments of Reason" that include things like "thou shalt not believe in God" are kinda silly, as true Reason would say "thou shalt believe in God, if and only if it can be logically supported to be a necessary belief"... or something similar.

However, to say that it doesn't refer to any ordinary acts is a tough one. It truly may, and philosophers have attempted to reconcile the two for years... some claim to have succeeded, and I don't think anyone is going to say that they all failed (or they could say that, but that's shortchanging the work, I should think). It may be logically possible that Reason can dictate ordinary life, only because I am as yet unsure that it is impossible by definition.

But, yeah, for the most part, you're right.

 

[The Mutt]

Fascinating arguement, but you guys are using the wrong definition of reason. Reason is also defined as "sanity."
As in-- "That guy talks to fictional characters. He has lost his reason."

 

[Pure]

Good point, Mutt.

But you cant get much of a personal ethic or a religious position out of 'sanity.'

To take two examples, respectively: to cheat on your life partner or defraud your boss is not exactly insane. Neither is believing in 9 choirs of angels who surround a triune God who impregnated a human virgin about 5 BC. (See DSM IV on acceptable religious delusions!)

Another sense of 'reason' that may be relevant is that which equates to 'reasonableness."

But I stick to my original point that anything more that the most basic 'concern' for others (e.g., holding back just a little, to insure they don't take revenge on you for killing their relatives) is not rooted in 'reason' 'rationality' 'sanity' or even 'reasonablness.' It is our empathy for at least some others, or sympathy with their plights and possible plights that points one in a humane (pro social) direction. (Historical note: This is the position of philosopher D. Hume.)

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

People then ought use the word "sanity", instead of Reason. Reason means, more popularly, other things independant of sanity.

And, Pure, if you strike "reason" and "rationality" from the list, I'm inclined to agree with you. Only because (being a huge fan of Hume, as I am, too) it isn't the domain of reason or rationality to be concerned about those things. They aren't designed to answer those questions.

 

[The Mutt]

Maybe you guys are right. Maybe I should have titled it:
The Ten Commandments of Not Being a Complete Tool Who Believes Utter Nonsense and Worships a Genocidal Wanker.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by The Mutt
Maybe you guys are right. Maybe I should have titled it:
The Ten Commandments of Not Being a Complete Tool Who Believes Utter Nonsense and Worships a Genocidal Wanker.

Or "The Ten Commandments of Being Irrationally Anti-Religious"... that's what it reads like, independant of intention.

 

[The Mutt]

Or "The Ten Commandments of Being Irrationally Anti-Religious"... that's what it reads like, independant of intention.

There is nothing irrational about being anti-religious.
And that was my intention.
Children cross their fingers and wish real hard.
Adults press their hands together and pray.
Children blow out birthday candles and make wishes.
Adults light votive candles and pray.
Children talk to imaginary friends.
Adults pray to gods.
All are equally effective.
The world needs to freakin grow up.

 

[doormouse]

There is nothing irrational about being anti-religious.
And that was my intention.
Children cross their fingers and wish real hard.
Adults press their hands together and pray.
Children blow out birthday candles and make wishes.
Adults light votive candles and pray.
Children talk to imaginary friends.
Adults pray to gods.
All are equally effective.
The world needs to freakin grow up.

You mean there's no Santa??

 

[The Mutt]

You mean there's no Santa??

Santa yes. Satan no.
Come sit on my lap, little girl, and tell me what you want when I come down your chimney.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by The Mutt
There is nothing irrational about being anti-religious.

Of course not. Being against religion can be a reasonable stance, but the way you proposed was irrational. Your commandments, by nature, are irrational ones.

 

[The Mutt]

Of course not. Being against religion can be a reasonable stance, but the way you proposed was irrational. Your commandments, by nature, are irrational ones.

So, which of my rations do you find ir? The giving prayer in place of medicine? The killing in the name of a fictional character? Fearing things that don't exist?
Or is it the "thou shalt nots" that you have trouble with? If so, I suggest you give Kant and Hume a rest for a while and make a study the collected works of Guest, McKean and Shearer. You know, The Giants.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by The Mutt
So, which of my rations do you find ir? The giving prayer in place of medicine? The killing in the name of a fictional character? Fearing things that don't exist?
Or is it the "thou shalt nots" that you have trouble with? If so, I suggest you give Kant and Hume a rest for a while and make a study the collected works of Guest, McKean and Shearer. You know, The Giants.

That they are mandates that exist independant of actual reason make them irrational. My initial response (commandment by commandment) are my reference as to why... praying instead of medicine could be a metaphysically accurate way of dealing with sickness, that God is yet unsubstantiated as a fictional character or not, fearing things that may or may not exist. You made conclusions that, had they been based strictly in reason, would have included possibility instead of dogma.

As for which philosophers I ought read (or whatever that point is supposed to mean, from you), I'll bite... why do you recommend those you recommend over Kant and Hume (whom I like, but aren't actually my field).

 

[minsue]

Just popping in amazed that this thread is still going and seems to be somewhat still on topic

 

[The Mutt]

As for which philosophers I ought read (or whatever that point is supposed to mean, from you), I'll bite... why do you recommend those you recommend over Kant and Hume (whom I like, but aren't actually my field).

Man, you really need to get out more.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by The Mutt
Man, you really need to get out more.

Which is kinda funny because my company pays me to actually go out... but, as I'm really curious, can you just answer the question about the philosophers? I mean, will you answer... but also, can you?

 

[The Mutt]

Which is kinda funny because my company pays me to actually go out... but, as I'm really curious, can you just answer the question about the philosophers? I mean, will you answer... but also, can you?

The point is that you need to develop a sense of humor.
And am I understanding your earlier post correctly? That it is reasonable and rational to believe anything so long as it has not been proven not to exist? That it would be reasonable and rational to believe that there is a Clown College in the center of the moon where they train organ grinder's monkeys and ship them to earth in banana boats? Nobody has proved there is not.

 

[The Mutt]

Recommended Philosophers:
William Shakespeare
Robert B. Parker
Bill Hicks
Frank Zappa
Garth Ennis

 

[poohlive]

I think there is a philosopher's way to argue something, and a regular average joe way.
You see, philosophers can take nothing at face value. Everything needs to be stripped down and looked at, taken apart, inferenced, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. If a philosopher makes an opinion about God, he better have his own evidence to support why god exists, and what he's doing here. (even if it's just.... look at this other philosopher, he got it right, I won't go into detail).
In that way of thinking, yes, anything that hasn't been proven not to exist, could exist. Clown colleges on the moon... hell, even the moon itself, before we stepped down on it in '69, no one had proven it had not been made of cheese.
But, then an average Joe argument would think these things are ridiculous. The moon can't be made out of cheese, that's a stupid thing to even think. Quit being stupid.
There was a famous philosopher, who was following a doctrine that realized no one could look at anything objectively, because the only way we interact with the real world is through our senses, which can decieve us, so we have something like a second hand version of the world, which we could never really know, only infer, and this guy was going off on the argument so far as to realize we could not even draw any conclusions whatsoever about the world, and other weird things (if you really want me to find what he was talking about, I'll go look it up in one of my philosophy books) but that's not the point.
The point was something he realized when he made all of these references. In philosophy you can think the world of possibilities in and out, but at some point you have to come out and eat, or take a shit, or get a hair-cut or go to a party, and he said, when you do that, leave the philosopher in the closet (next to the coats) and go out, quit thinking about all that stuff. You live life, and then, when you want to ponder whether or not we exist in a plane of reality or a hyper dimension that may or may not contain moons made of cheese, go to your closet, take out your philosopher, and think all you want.
The world will be waiting for you when you're done.

 

[The Mutt]

To me...

I can only perceive the universe through my senses.
To me, a rock has no intinsic properties. It exists only as I perceive it.
To me, the universe is only what I perceive it to be.
It is my universe.
When I die, the universe dies with me.
Therefore, God does exist.
And I am he.

 

[Fastidious Kinky]

Re: To me...

I can only perceive the universe through my senses.
To me, a rock has no intinsic properties. It exists only as I perceive it.
To me, the universe is only what I perceive it to be.
It is my universe.
When I die, the universe dies with me.
Therefore, God does exist.
And I am he.

That's some Dogma, Mutt.
*Tee hee*
If I worship you, will you take me to heaven?

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Re: To me...

I can only perceive the universe through my senses.
To me, a rock has no intinsic properties. It exists only as I perceive it.
To me, the universe is only what I perceive it to be.
It is my universe.
When I die, the universe dies with me.
Therefore, God does exist.
And I am he.

Can I put this on my tombstone???

 

[The Mutt]

Re: To me...

I can only perceive the universe through my senses.
To me, a rock has no intinsic properties. It exists only as I perceive it.
To me, the universe is only what I perceive it to be.
It is my universe.
When I die, the universe dies with me.
Therefore, God does exist.
And I am he.

God exists and he can't spell!

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by The Mutt
The point is that you need to develop a sense of humor.
And am I understanding your earlier post correctly? That it is reasonable and rational to believe anything so long as it has not been proven not to exist? That it would be reasonable and rational to believe that there is a Clown College in the center of the moon where they train organ grinder's monkeys and ship them to earth in banana boats? Nobody has proved there is not.

The point of "put down these philosophers and start reading these other people" was that I ought develop a sense of humor? Well, by all means, allow me to retort... see, our conversation hasn't been about humor, but your insistance on endorsing irrational things as Reason. If you're backing off that stance, by all means, do so.

As to you understanding my earlier post, if that is your take on it, then you do not. It is my position that it is most reasonable and most rational to accept that unless a thing is logically and undeniably true, it is possible that it is false (in addition to it being possible that it is true). It isn't "logic", "reason", "rationality", or any other rephrasing that says "God doesn't exist"... its opinion. Mere opinion. And its an annoyance to the actual philosophical community when people substitute "I think X" for "Logic says X".

Logic (reason, rationality, etc.) does not say the things you proposed. Opinion does.

Originally posted by The Mutt
Recommended Philosophers:
William Shakespeare
Robert B. Parker
Bill Hicks
Frank Zappa
Garth Ennis

Those sound like fine cultral references... but ultimately sub-par philosophers. People reading should, please, take note that this list blows for actual philosophical reading in anything resembling an academic or peer reviewed sense.

Recommended Philosophers:
Plato's later dialogues
Whitehead
Russell (of course)
Copleston (for the history)
Any scholastic period Mulsim philosopher in Divine Illumination studies
Hume (best skepticism)
Michael Shermer (editor of Skeptic magazine and accomplished philosopher)

 

[poohlive]

Ha ha, Mutt, that's my point exactly. I think that's what the philosopher I had in question was trying to say. There wasn't a universe, there was your universe, and whether or not you knew how it worked, you were thinking it up as you went along.
Hee hee.
Oh, save a place for me up there in your heaven, will ya? I'd hate to get lost in my own someday. It'd probably be too messy.

Hey now! You can say what you want about Mutt's other choices, but I don't think anyone would disagree that Shakespeare was one of the world's formost minds, with philosophical insights in all of his work. He wrote hard termed opinions about fate, love, god, time, and even old age. And unlike other philosophers, he gave it to his audience in easy to understand plays that showed them much more than any philosophical term paper ever could.