Reason & Rationality

[Verdad]

I spent one summer working as a concierge in a nudist camp. (No, pervs, I was not naked; the staff had uniforms.) It was the least erotic place I've ever been to, plus I kept cringing as I watched the people prance around naked through the forest. All I could think of was that someone was going to sit on a bee.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

My first experience at a nudist camp was when I was 22. I delivered propane gas to the campers.

I'd fill their bottles and knock on the camper door.

When the old men and women opened the door, I was about eye-level with their groins. OMG!!!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Years ago an old woman named Audrey lived next door to me. Audrey invented fat and wore great big Hawaiian print gowns.

Anyway, one morning I'm washing my car and Audrey waddles out to get her paper. She bends over to pick up the paper and her panties fall to her ankles.

So she hikes up the gown, hoists up the panties, and goes for the newspaper...with the same result. She did this about 6 times.

Then I get a phone call from Steve across the street, who says to me...DID YOU GET AN EYE FULL OFTHAT? ITS ENOUGH TO MAKE YOU QUEER.

 

[amicus]

I have a confession to make.

I was recently diagnosed with ANTI-SOCIALIST PERSONALITY DISORDER.

It's true.

I suspected it when I realized I was paying my bills on time, taking responsibility for me and my loved ones, and generally not burdening my community.

At first no one said anything, but I did get curious looks when I bought my groceries with cash. Then one day I had a flat tire, mumbed SHIT HAPPENS, and my companion bellowed WHATS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN? She was disappointed with my attitude, insisted that I sue someone, and sulked silently for the rest of our drive.

It finally came to a head when my boss confronted me about my performance, she said: In my homeland we have an old saying, BETTER IS THE ENEMY OF GOOD ENOUGH. And she referred me to the employee assistance program.

I argued that Anti-Socialist Personality Disorder is a disease, you know, like pedophelia or serial murders, but the evaluator shook her head forcefully, called me a Sore Loser, and insisted that I'm in denial.

~~~

(heh... & meh!, thot you humor ought least be recognized..."

(I share ur malady)

ami

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

I'm thinking of placing coin cans at all the gas stations, to help find a cure for socialism.

SOCIALISM: A Mind Is A Terrible Thing To Waste.

 

[amicus]

Should you have taken the time and invested the energy to follow the arguments of our two main advocates of relativism, opponents of rationalism; you most likely detected the denigratory tone through-out, not just for this poster, but the entire history of reason and rationality itself.

As odd as it may appear, I do enjoy jousting with the results of Pure's plagiarization of others and Xssve's clever attempts to obfuscate the issue by overwhelming a reader with obtuse and continuous assaults, quite like a woman that will not stop talking until she has beaten her poor opponent into abject submission due to sheer exhaustion and verbosity.

That notwithstanding...

Let us tiptoe tidily into the 'engarde' of bandying terms about from previous and current DSM definitions, which, prior to 1973, actually included some, a few, definitive conceptualizations concerning human mental health, in both normal and abnormal terms.

The intent of this learned discussion, with apologies to JBJ, is to insist, by referential means, that the formerly 'reason based' foundation for clinical psychology has gone modern and sophisticated and become, voila! situational and relativistic and subjective in one swell foop.

You are supposed to become overwhelmed at this point and collapse into the waiting arms of a dozen pharmaceutical, obsessive compulsive seizures, and give alms for another container of Xanax.

Post #32, is at one glance, an attempt to, 'kiss & make-up', with JBJ, yet on another level, rejecting the foundation for 'normative' behavior, (earlier denied), with a concept of 'exaggerated normality', which exists, (don't ask how), even though there is no such thing as 'normal behavior', according to them.

"...There is no strawman here, I'm making the argument that one can only discover absolutes through experience and examining behavior, you are claiming some sort of a priori thing in the rational mind, like a set of stone tablets that establishes a permanent and unchanging standard - if this were so, we would have no need of laws - this is not the case, and there is no evidence that what you claim is true..."

A 'straw man, within a straw man', as xssve knows full well it is not a 'set of stone tablets', to which I refer, but to reality, that establishes a permanent and unchanging standard, something akin to E=MC squared, or the speed of light as a constant, y'know, reality that exists independent of one's ability to perceive it; absolute.

a pri⋅o⋅ri
   /ˌ

eɪ praɪˈɔraɪ, -ˈoʊraɪ, ˌeɪ priˈɔri, -ˈoʊri, ˌɑ priˈɔri, -ˈoʊri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey prahy-awr-ahy, -ohr-ahy, ey pree-awr-ee, -ohr-ee, ah pree-awr-ee, -ohr-ee] Show IPA
–adjective
1. from a general law to a particular instance; valid independently of observation. Compare a posteriori (def. 1).
2. existing in the mind prior to and independent of experience, as a faculty or character trait. Compare a posteriori (def. 2).
3. not based on prior study or examination; nonanalytic: an a priori judgment.

a pos⋅te⋅ri⋅o⋅ri
   /

ˌeɪ pɒˌstɪəriˈɔraɪ, -ˈoʊraɪ, -ˈɔri, -ˈoʊri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey po-steer-ee-awr-ahy, -ohr-ahy, -awr-ee, -ohr-ee] Show IPA
–adjective
1. from particular instances to a general principle or law; based upon actual observation or upon experimental data: an a posteriori argument that derives the theory from the evidence. Compare a priori (def. 1).
2. not existing in the mind prior to or independent of experience. Compare a priori (def. 2).

Way back in school we used to toss these terms around in casual conversation and let us add two more: Axiom & self evident. So now we have; a priori & a posteriori, in the mix, confused yet?

You need not be fluent in philosophical terminology to comprehend the difference between those who acknowledge reality as an absolute and those, (pure & xssve) who insist that reality is subjective and situational, and since 'reality' is non absolute, so too, then, must be, human behaviour, ethics and morals.

Or so they argue.

It may seem, to some, that the Elephant labored and gave birth to a mouse...(I lifted that from someone), not the case, my furry friends.

Indecision in moral matters, like a kid in a candy store with hundreds of sweets to choose from, is an unnatural state of mind, and leads to loss of gender identity, inability to cope, depression and a host of related psychological disorders mirrored by another thread of this forum concerning mental health.

There is an entire generation and more, rendered impotent by contemporary psychology; impotent in all ways and not just the usual political, 'Individual versus the Commune', rhetoric, but also in the proliferation of 'male enhancement' drugs to overcome a satiated, hedonistic niche population, that has crafted a life around sexual exploitation and find it waning in later life and have nothing left.

I have had just about enough fun for this session, but for one thing in summation: the audacity of some to look to the animal world for justification of human behavior. As if insentient 'animal behavior', is to be perceived as a bench mark for 'normative' behavior in the animal kingdom, but, free will, rational choice in the 'sentient' human realm, is subjective and situational.

The impact of that belief, is to discard the human mind, the essential defining characteristic of man and depend on some undefined, 'instinct', or inherited mental content to guide ones' actions.

The result? Look around you at the chaotic disarray and disagreement, confusion and indecision brought about by the implementation of this subjective moral and ethical system.

Amicus...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

Psychology became politicized.

This was forcefully impressed on me during grad school. During my internship I interviewed a woman who was raped by several males. During the interview she cried and referred to the men as "Goddamn blanks." When my clinical professor listened to the tape of the interview he became angry and demanded to know why I hadnt confronted the woman with her insensitive insults about the rapists. He thought the term she used was worse than the gang rape.

 

[xssve]

You're lying again:

You need not be fluent in philosophical terminology to comprehend the difference between those who acknowledge reality as an absolute and those, (pure & xssve) who insist that reality is subjective and situational, and since 'reality' is non absolute, so too, then, must be, human behaviour, ethics and morals.

Reality is absolute, but we can only know reality through our senses, through perception, and perceptions are relative - you're the one whose been arguing that empiricism is some kind of commie conspiracy, and you learned everything you need to know in kindergarten, or through some other mysterious source which you call "rationality", although if you divorce logic form empiricism, I don't see how you can possibly pretend it has anything to do with reality.

Empiricism is the very act of examining our perceptions of reality, and sorting out what is real as opposed to what we merely perceive.

It allows us to define the color Blues as a wavelength of about 475nm (nanometers) for example.

You would say, "the sky is blue, it's self evident" - but it isn't self evident at all to a color blind person whose perceptions are different, but who could nevertheless select the correct hue on a color wheel - thanks to empiricism.

No Two people perceive things quite the same way, which is what makes "self evident" arguments useless, even if we both see the same thing, we still have to establish it as an objective fact. The sky is in fact not Blue, we perceive it as blue through our particular set of ocular apparatus, due to refraction off of moisture in the atmosphere - after the wind blew all day here the other day, it was kind of a shit Brown in fact.

Empiricism allows us to compare perceptions, and eliminate the subjective - it's the basis of science, and you couldn't have made my jaw drop any further than when you started mocking it.

You've got no business talking about reality. Face it, you're exactly the kind of moron that insisted the earth was flat and that the sun was a bronze shield drawn across the sky in a chariot, because it was "self evident".

 

[amicus]

"...You're lying again:..."

"...you're exactly the kind of moron..."

"...you're the one whose been arguing that empiricism is some kind of commie conspiracy, and you learned everything you need to know in kindergarten..."

That is always a means to assure an audience for your convoluted thinking. Had you the courage to say some of the things you have typed in anonymity to my face, I would slap the shit out of you just to get your attention.

"...Reality is absolute, but..."

There are no 'buts', concerning reality as it exists independent of your foul mouth.

"...we can only know reality through our senses, through perception, and perceptions are relative..."

Just a few little words but, oh, so insidious. You have to recognize this type of obtuse thinking to understand what is really being said.

Man perceives reality through his senses, they are the 'means' of perceiving reality; there are none other. The use of, 'only' in the above quote is a buzz word to begin assaulting the ability of man to perceive reality accurately.

"...Empiricism is the very act of examining our perceptions of reality, and sorting out what is real as opposed to what we merely perceive..."

What, pray tell, do you examine those perceptions with? More Empirical data? Actually, no.

You examine, collate, compare, differentiate, package and store by utilizing an unique function of the human mind, called construct building, conceptualizing and abstracting the information provided by your sensory perception and subjecting it to other abstracts such as reason, logic and rationality; all functions of the mind you adamantly deny. It also requires focus, integrity, non contradictory constructs and a 'desire' to 'know' truth, axiomatic truths, as they exist independent of your puny little mind.

"...It allows us to define the color Blues as a wavelength of about 475nm (nanometers) for example..."

It is not the further use of 'experiencing more data' that allows us....it is the concept of the electromagnetic spectrum and the abstractions of 'naming' identifying characteristics and partitioning that spectrum into light visible to the human eye and that not visible.

"...You would say, "the sky is blue, it's self evident" - but it isn't self evident at all to a color blind person whose perceptions are different,..."

You again use the ploy of 'lifeboat' ethics, attempting to disprove the laws of physics by putting a 'blind person' in the recipe. How absolutely silly...and you think only I can see your subterfuge?

Why not just close your damned eyes and pretend to be blind? It would serve your purpose just as well.

Within every language ever spoken on the face of the earth, a concept, an abstraction, in the minds of men, 'assigned' a name to the human perception of the color blue.

Go to any corner of the earth you choose, point to a blue sky and ask what the person perceives and they will respond identically in every case. This is case evidence that knowledge is absolute and universal; that man's senses can accurately perceive reality; the very same absolute reality that every rational, normative mind can perceive.

So, yes, the color blue is self evident to everyone not pushing an irrational baseless philosophy as you are.

I would guess you strive for a 'consensus' to determine the color blue as that is all you have to fall back on.

Amicus

 

[gauchecritic]

I'm not entirely certain if this will help and I'm not entirely sure that this is what xssve means but;

The sky is blue. 99.9 percent of the population of the world agree that the sky is blue. It is likely therefore that the sky is without reference and empirically and absolutely blue.

However, as you readily admit, blue is a handy label and not the thing itself.

The colour, as it absolutely exists in and of itself is not the word and the word is not the thing.

Blue is not a colour, it's a self-referencing tool with which the human mind can manipulate its environment and which has an analogue in the physical world.

The most masterful wordsmith in the world cannot give you or me or xssve the taste of an apple in words. Only an apple can.

 

[amicus]

I'm not entirely certain if this will help and I'm not entirely sure that this is what xssve means but;

The sky is blue. 99.9 percent of the population of the world agree that the sky is blue. It is likely therefore that the sky is without reference and empirically and absolutely blue.

However, as you readily admit, blue is a handy label and not the thing itself.

The colour, as it absolutely exists in and of itself is not the word and the word is not the thing.

Blue is not a colour, it's a self-referencing tool with which the human mind can manipulate its environment and which has an analogue in the physical world.

The most masterful wordsmith in the world cannot give you or me or xssve the taste of an apple in words. Only an apple can.

~~~

Thank you Gauche for the reference to 'absolute', been kind of a dirty word in my exchange of, uhm, pleasantries with xssve.

Xssve is hell bent to make a specious,

(1obsolete : showy2: having deceptive attraction or allure3: having a false look of truth or genuineness

), argument, pandering to Empiricism, that man cannot perceive absolute reality, that our senses are subjective and faulty and that since we cannot perceive reality, we cannot create or observe axiomatic, self evident truths.

To be blunt, the entire argument is to defend abortion, the taking of an innocent human life and thus invalidating any concept that acknowledges that human life is the basic, self evident, axiomatic truth as a foundation for all moral values and judgments.

I know...thas a lot to swallow in one gulp, but it has been the 'meat' of every philosophical argument since the mid 1970's. And is in itself, an 'either/or' premise, individual human life is either the primary value in a rational moral system....or....it is not.

What was the Greek myth about women withholding sexual favors to force their men to stop warring each other? I know it...just won't pop at this moment.

Any way...the feminist movement, to justify female promiscuity and contraception and abortion, has fueled the search for an alternative to a 'divine' moral system on one hand and also the rational approach to morality on the other, rejecting both to embrace the absence of absolute moral values in a relativistic manner.

A mere handful here realize that if an absolute, intellectual, logical, moral and ethical argument can be made to clarify the primacy of individual human life as the fundamental value that humans have, then their house of straw would come falling down like panties around their ankles.

Or, heh, an Empiricist without any clothes.

I do try to have a little fun amongst my profundities, now and then.

Thanks...

Amicus

 

[xssve]

And yet you don't mind committing mass murder to fill up your SUV. Seems to be a highly selective philosophy if you ask me.

 

[neonlyte]

PURE

I was being sarcastic. Chicken and barbecue are rational choices for ghettos. But here's a curiosity that defies logic.

I reside inside the wealthiest zip code in my county. We have the only Cadillac dealership in the county but no decent restaurants.

Move... preferably somewhere without an internet connection.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

NEOCON-LITE

Feeling out of sorts today, dear?

Try a laxative.

 

[neonlyte]

NEOCON-LITE

Feeling out of sorts today, dear?

Try a laxative.

No need, Sweetie, I couldn't compete with the shit you dish out.

 

[xssve]

Well traditionally, ethnic foods are made with your cheaper cuts and cheaper meats, Chicken and sweetmeats, brisket for Whitey - trouble is, after these things become popular, they aren't as cheap anymore.

Flank steak is a good example; used to be, you had to marinate the crap for a couple of days just to make it palatable, but it was dirt cheap, thus Fajitas - once Fajitas got popular, Flank steak costs more than hamburger, I use sirloin roasts that I can get for less than Flank steak.

Same with Brisket, you pretty much have to slice it up and stew it in barbecue sauce so you can choke it down - it's still relatively cheap, but you have to buy 20 pounds of it.

 

[Pure]

note to ami

tired old stuff. bugbears of relativism and empiricism.


Xssve is hell bent to make a specious,
argument, pandering to Empiricism, that man cannot perceive absolute reality, that our senses are subjective and faulty and that since we cannot perceive reality, we cannot create or observe axiomatic, self evident truths.

well, amicus, it's great propaganda, but your 'self evident truths get rather scarce when anyone asks. your 'value of human life' absolute gets qualified, 'unless we want to hang felons.' 'unless there is collateral damage in the bombing in a 'just war' '.

amicus: you and the pope and falwell and dobson and the inquisitors of all ages say you see 'absolute truths.' you go to wars and kill each other and innocents over 'absolute truths,' such as the existence of heresy and witches.

the brilliant 'objectivist' philosopher, ayn rand, declared early abortion moral and defensible. you say no. YOU have the objective truth and she, your mentor, and right on most other issues, was mistaken. why should i choose you to rely on? written any 'objectivist' best sellers?

 

[xssve]

The irritating thing for me is that opposition to abortion is invariably coupled with the notion that every act of sex should lead to reproduction, and they're equally, if not more vehement in opposition to birth control.

This is talking out both sides of your ass as far as I'm concerned, and philosophically, all it does is remove any common middle ground for rational debate. As long as the religious right is going to be one way about it - and they've gone so far as to try to declare prophylactic measures the same as abortion - they have really left no room for compromise. The alternative is that a Woman's uterus is state property, and this Rand found more unpalatable than the alternatives.

Amicus believes in freedom - for him - like I said, a hypocritical opportunist. Your sanctimony rings pretty hollow there, you lying sack of shit.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Abortion Is Your Friend, It Keeps The Usual Suspects Under Control. Until We Find A Natural Predator For Usual Suspects, There's Abortion.

 

[xssve]

That would be the flip side of conservatism.

 

[amicus]

The irritating thing for me is that opposition to abortion is invariably coupled with the notion that every act of sex should lead to reproduction, and they're equally, if not more vehement in opposition to birth control.

This is talking out both sides of your ass as far as I'm concerned, and philosophically, all it does is remove any common middle ground for rational debate. As long as the religious right is going to be one way about it - and they've gone so far as to try to declare prophylactic measures the same as abortion - they have really left no room for compromise. The alternative is that a Woman's uterus is state property, and this Rand found more unpalatable than the alternatives.

Amicus believes in freedom - for him - like I said, a hypocritical opportunist. Your sanctimony rings pretty hollow there, you lying sack of shit.

~~~

Every act of normal sex can/may create a new human life. That is rather a fact, even a self evident fact, given the intense sex education curriculum mandated by public schools.

As 'human life' is the fundamental value in any rational moral system, then the possibility of creating life is a derivative value; so too, then, is the act of normal intercourse a 'value', and should be defined as such.

The concept of 'divine creation of life' does leave no room for compromise, save one, that of the mother's life, if the pregnancy or the new child is naturally threatening to life. The value of the mother's life precedes that of the childs while it is still in the womb.

All rights, namely so-called, 'reproductive rights', derive from the fundamental self evident value of human life. And yes, there is no room for compromise; it is human life and must be protected.

It used to be a colloquialism that, 'life is cheap', in reference to Asians, the Chinese as an example as in war, they rushed a defensive position with 'hordes' of troops, sacrificing the lives of many to defeat an enemy.

Western civilization, in general, holds that human life is valuable, each and every individual is protected by law in regards to his life, liberty and property.

It is an easy sequential step in reason and logic to connect that actually human lfie, a living human being, to both the potential of life prevented by contraception and the existence of life by killing it in the womb.

Until the last half century, sexual intercourse, chastity, fidelity, was held as a value, more so to the female, who can create life, than with the male. Since about the time of the feminist movement, sexual intercourse has been treated as less and less a value and more like recreation or pleasure, both of which have value, but are also derivative in an hierarchical manner that places pleasure far down on the list in comparison to procreation.

I sense the pendulum is swinging back from extreme promiscuity and callous attitude about sex and human life...I just wonder how far it will swing.

Returning the proper value judgment to sex and life in general and of course human relationships should be of benefit to both individuals and society at large with more value placed on each.

I also think the mental health of an entire society will improve as a consistent, logical and rational system of values, morals and ethics becomes the general rule.

Who knows...but that is my vantage point.

Amicus...