Поиск
Рекомендуем ознакомиться
Главная > Реферат >Остальные работы
Sulkowski Essay, Research Paper
From
SULKOM@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu Wed Feb 9 19:00:49 1994Received: from
ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu by ponyexpress.princeton.edu
(5.65c/1.113/newPE)id AA08661; Wed, 9 Feb 1994 19:00:47
-0500Received: from ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu by ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
(PMDF V4.2-14 #5889) id ; Wed, 9 Feb 1994 18:55:43 ESTDate: Wed, 09
Feb 1994 18:55:43 -0500 (EST)From: Mark Sulkowski Subject:
personalTo: bdcaplan@phoenixMessage-Id: Organization: University at
BuffaloX-Vms-To: IN%”bdcaplan@phoenix.Princeton.edu”Mime-Version:
1.0Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN;
CHARSET=US-ASCIIContent-Transfer-Encoding: 7BITStatus: R To: Bryan
Douglas Caplan I posted this message earlier:>>1. The
morality-math analogy. I’m not sure why Sulkowski places>>exclusive
emphasis on my mathematics example; if you recall my
original>>posting, I also adduced two decidedly
non-mathematical instances of the>>use of direct
reason.>>That’s correct. I do remember that. However, you
specifically>stated that since direct reason worked for you in
math, then there was>no reason to suppose it didn’t work in
morality — a claim I dispute.>>[......................]>As
to your question of whether philosophy fails without direct>reason,
I will state again that I am not quite sure what you believe>direct
reason to be. Philosophy relies on conceptual thinking
and>(hopefully) perceptual evidence. What else is necessary?In
case you responded to this already, I didn’t get the response.My
account has been filling up on occasion. If you still have a copy
ofit, send it to me in email. If you haven’t posted it yet, send me
acarbon copy in email. Thanks!Mark | “Simplicity and truth of
character are not produced by theAndrew | constraint of laws, nor by
the authority of the state, andSulkowski | absolutely no one can be
forced or legislated into a state | of blessedness; the means
required are faithful and brotherlySec/Treas | admonition, sound
education, and, above all, free use of the NFLP | individual
judgment.” — SpinozaFrom slagle@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com Thu
Feb 10 09:52:12 1994Received: from eagle.is.lmsc.lockheed.com by
ponyexpress.princeton.edu (5.65c/1.113/newPE)id AA10858; Thu, 10 Feb
1994 09:52:10 -0500Received: from sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com by
eagle.is.lmsc.lockheed.com (5.65/Ultrix4.3-C)id AA06464; Thu, 10 Feb
1994 06:50:12 -0800Received: by sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com
(920110.SGI/911001.SGI)for bdcaplan@phoenix.Princeton.EDU id AA03907;
Thu, 10 Feb 94 06:51:59 -0800Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 06:51:59 -0800From:
slagle@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)Message-Id: To:
bdcaplan@phoenixCc: libernet-d@Dartmouth.EDUIn-Reply-To: Bryan
Douglas Caplan’s message of Sun, 6 Feb 94 21:51:18 ESTSubject:
Questions About Direct Reason AnsweredReply-To:
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.comStatus: RBryan Douglas Caplan writes:>
Mark Sulkowski’s latest reply leaves me with the feeling that I
should> do a lot more work to make my position clear, and I am
happy to do so.> 1. What is direct reason?Well, I read your whole
explanation, and I’m afraid I don’t findthe matter any more clear
than before. In a nutshell, whatdistinguishes this “direct reason”
of yours from garden varietyintuition, or from divine revelation for
that matter? And whyshould we regard it as any more
trustworthy?=Mark—-Mark E. Slagle PO Box
61059slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com Sunnyvale, CA 94088408-756-0895 USAFrom
SULKOM@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu Thu Feb 10 22:25:10 1994Received: from
ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu by ponyexpress.princeton.edu
(5.65c/1.113/newPE)id AA01939; Thu, 10 Feb 1994 22:25:08
-0500Received: from ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu by ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
(PMDF V4.2-14 #5889) id ; Thu, 10 Feb 1994 20:36:12 ESTDate: Thu, 10
Feb 1994 20:36:12 -0500 (EST)From: Mark Sulkowski Subject: personal:
direct reasonTo: bdcaplan@phoenixMessage-Id: Organization: University
at BuffaloX-Vms-To: IN%”bdcaplan@phoenix.Princeton.edu”Mime-Version:
1.0Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN;
CHARSET=US-ASCIIContent-Transfer-Encoding: 7BITStatus: R From: Bryan
Douglas Caplan >I’m glad we’re taking this to e-mail, since it
seems to have gotten a little>technical.A *little* technical?
> And by the way, hello.Hi there. Pleasure to talk with
you.>1. How does direct reason differ from garden variety
intuition? [......]>2. How does direct reason differ from divine
revelation? [......]Okay, this info was interesting but just so you
know you wereresponding to Mark Slagle, a different chap.I was asking
you if you had responded to a previous post of mine.Mr. Slagle may
have been responding to that response of yours. (Thisis getting a
little confusing.)Anyway, I’m not SURE that you wrote this
response. All I knowis that my account filled up earlier this week
and I might have missedit. I pointed out to you that your concept of
direct reason wasunclear to me. I believe I asked for some
clarification. Sending itto me through email is fine with me.And now
onto your response to Slagle.>1. How does direct reason differ
from garden variety intuition? Well,>garden-variety intuition is
one species of direct reason, I suppose.You suppose? Then perhaps you
aren’t very clear on what directreason is either. What are you
clear on about it?>Also, garden-variety intuition is probably less
self-critical and>thoughtful than our better direct reasonings
are; that is, garden-variet>intuition is probably our knee-jerk
reaction, whereas something known>well through direct reason is
reached after reflection and careful thought.Is this “self-critical
and thoughtful” aspect of successfullyapplying direct reason
_part_of_ the faculty of direct reason, or is itsomething else
(perhaps the most conscious and volitional level of ourchoice and
ability to think)? Since I am still unclear on what youimagine direct
thinking to be, this question may seem off-target to you.>2. How
does direct reason differ from divine revelation? Well, I
presume>that you don’t believe in divine revelation, and neither
do I.Okay.>Well, I think that looking>at a philosopher like
Aquinas will shed a little light on this. >Basically, philosophers
who believed in revelation also frequently>believed in “the
natural light of reason,” which is probably yet>another synonym
for direct reason.Possibly… I’m no scholar of Aquinas, but “the
natural lightof reason” does not strike me as necessarily having
anything to do withyour direct reason. Aquinas may simply have had a
good appreciationfor the ability of people to think and learn about
what they observe.I don’t know of any statement of his that other
forms ofreasoning are incomplete without direct reasoning (or “the
naturallight of reason”).>But what is it that’s really bugging
you about direct reason? I suspect>that it is the popular but
mistaken notion that everything must be>”proven.”Maybe… I
don’t demand that things be proven without a doubt.We may always
suffer some form of doubt about our beliefs. I just wantan
_explanation_ for a specific conclusion other than just “it’s
obvious!”Perhaps there are “obvious” beliefs. I place a high
degree of confidenceon beliefs based on observations under reasonable
conditions of observation.For example, if I am reasonably convinced
that I am awake and notdelusional, and I cross a street, and I see
quite clearly and sharplythat a car is moving towards me with deadly
speed, then that is certainlyenough observational evidence to
convince me to jump out of the way.I’m not sure how big a role
concepts play here. The feeling ofdanger may be geared into a very
quick and “low level” evaluation ofthe motion of objects. This
feeling of danger might carry a feelingof “obviousness”.Perhaps
the concept actually forms afterwards. “That car couldhave killed
me!” However, at this point any “obviousness” of the natureof
the situation is of a different sort. Now that I have the time tomore
fully and critically evaluate the situation, I can bring to
bearcertain ideas like “fast moving, heavy, solid objects can
seriouslydamage human health”. I can think about other people who
actually arehurt seriously by such objects. I can _explain_ why I
think that itis obvious that I could have been hurt. I am not left
crying “but it’sobvious and apparent” as if that explained
everything.Let me know how my hypothetical situation relates to
direct reason,if at all.>But of course that can’t be true,
because first of all it>leads to an infinite regress, since you
would then have to prove your>proofs, prove the proofs of your
proofs, and so on. And second of all>it is impossible because a
proof only yields truth if its premises are>true, and hence on
pain of circularity some premises must be known without>proof.We
need some axioms, yes. And this is a serious question.>Or perhaps
its because of the related notion that intuition is unreliable>and
must be “formalized.”Well…backed up with something.>Haven’t
you ever made an argument and found that another person just
couldn’t>”get it?”No never.
Yes, of course.>If you clearly saw that the argument was
valid, did it matter that the>other person couldn’t see it?
Actually, yes. I’d want to know what his premises/observations
are.Maybe mine are wrong or incomplete.>That’s what I think
about direct reason. I see that some things are true>objectively.
And if other people don’t see it, why should that shake
my>confidence?> –BryanUnfortunately, this still doesn’t do
much to help me understandwhat direct reason is. I realize that you
are trying to solve the problemof finding end-points to proof. But
the existence of a problem does notdemand that there already be a
solution. Perhaps we as humans are doomed
to some
uncertainty about these most basic
assumptions/axioms/end-points.Consider it job security for
philosophers.Maybe the situation is better than this and observation
can playa big role in providing a foundation for our beliefs. We then
need tounderstand how we get from Perceptions -> Concepts. This
may requirea greater understanding of the workings of our
brain.Perhaps that is what your direct reason is — hardwired
logicor concept manipulation? Still, it would be nice to doublecheck
theusefulness of that somehow.
Mark | “Simplicity and truth of character are not produced
by theAndrew | constraint of laws, nor by the authority of the state,
andSulkowski | absolutely no one can be forced or legislated into a
state | of blessedness; the means required are faithful and
brotherlySec/Treas | admonition, sound education, and, above all,
free use of the NFLP | individual judgment.” — SpinozaFrom
SULKOM@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu Sun Feb 13 15:59:42 1994Received: from
ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu by ponyexpress.princeton.edu
(5.65c/1.113/newPE)id AA16408; Sun, 13 Feb 1994 15:59:41
-0500Received: from ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu by ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
(PMDF V4.2-14 #5889) id ; Sun, 13 Feb 1994 15:59:26 ESTDate: Sun, 13
Feb 1994 15:59:26 -0500 (EST)From: Mark Sulkowski Subject: personal:
direct reasonTo: bdcaplan@phoenixMessage-Id: Organization: University
at BuffaloX-Vms-To: IN%”bdcaplan@phoenix.Princeton.EDU”Mime-Version:
1.0Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN;
CHARSET=US-ASCIIContent-Transfer-Encoding: 7BITStatus: R From: Bryan
Douglas Caplan >2. Is direct reason necessarily/by definition
“self-critical and>thoughtful”? Now that is an interesting
question. The answer is yes.>[...] if someone thought carefully
and>self-critically about a proposition and came to a conclusion,
I would say>that direct reason is at work.Okay. So direct reason
can only be used with mental effort?>(This is different from
saying that they>are CORRECT, of course. But they have at least
used an>in-principle-valid faculty.Okay.>But I go further, and
say that>sometimes we can know something beyond a reasonable doubt
without any>”proof” at all. That is, without any sort of
deductive derivation.Okay. I suppose so.>Rather, sometimes we
think about something, then see that it must be or>probably is
true. As a paradigm example, take the proposition that the>argument
ad hominem is a fallacy. I don’t prove it; rather I see that>it
is true on its own merits, directly.I’d say that argument ad
hominem is a fallacy because itcontains a premise about the nature of
truth that is wrong — thatthe character (or whatever) of the person
so attacked has a bearingon the truth of a logical argument. Usually,
this is not so.Of course, if it was the case that the point of the
argumentwas to prove a person has a bad character, or is ugly, or
whatever,then the truth of the argument may be bound up with evidence
to thiseffect.Do you think I am using my direct reason here or not?
>Indeed, the parallel between deductive/indirect reason and direct
reason>extends here; for just as I sometimes know that a deductive
argument is>PROBABLY right, so too do I sometimes know that an
insight of direct>reason is PROBABLY right. It’s not an
all-or-nothing kind of thing.>Maybe the misapprehension that
direct reason is supposed to be>infallible is what creates
resistance to the notion?That’s part of it. I’m softening in my
views to direct reasonnow that it seems more “human” and less
God-like.>What makes observation so superior to the>intellect
that we should play down the intellect as much as possible?I’m just
trying to increase the probability that the intellectis paying
attention to reality and not simply imagining it. It’s notthat I
don’t value the intellect; it’s just that I value observationas a
“reality check”.>In fact, if you re-read your statement, you
will notice that even you turn>to the intellect to justify your
observations; for what determines what>conditions of observation
are “reasonable”? Surely not observation>itself, for then we
would have a circular argument.Touche!>Is it obvious that a
speeding car will hurt you upon impact? Well, I>think that we are
confusing psychological with epistemological>obviousness, here.I
wanted to know your position on the matter.>6. What does this have
to do with morality? (My question, not yours.)>Well, I think that
direct reason can bridge the is-ought gap, and>nothing else can.
How can you start with descriptive premises and get a>prescriptive
conclusion? You can’t unless you smuggle in a moral>premise. If
you deny the existence of direct reason, you’re stuck. I>say
that we come to know the moral premise with direct reason.
That>provides a non-circular explanation of moral knowledge that I
have never>seen anyone else provide. And an extremely clear,
clean, and simple>explanation, I might add.Well, this is the meat
of the problem. Can we discuss this?Could you make an ought statement
and explain how direct reason isinvolved? What moral premise is being
brought in?Also, since you admit direct reason could be wrong, how
can weknow when it is? What evidence must be brought to bear
(eitherobservational or intellectual)?(Are there any books published
on the subject of direct reason?)Mark | “Simplicity and truth of
character are not produced by theAndrew | constraint of laws, nor by
the authority of the state, andSulkowski | absolutely no one can be
forced or legislated into a state | of blessedness; the means
required are faithful and brotherlySec/Treas | admonition, sound
education, and, above all, free use of the NFLP | individual
judgment.” — SpinozaFrom SULKOM@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu Fri Feb 18
21:23:52 1994Received: from ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu by
ponyexpress.princeton.edu (5.65c/1.113/newPE)id AA03366; Fri, 18 Feb
1994 21:23:50 -0500Received: from ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu by
ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu (PMDF V4.2-14 #5889) id ; Fri, 18 Feb 1994
21:04:28 ESTDate: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 21:04:28 -0500 (EST)From: Mark
Sulkowski Subject: personal: direct reasonTo:
bdcaplan@phoenixMessage-Id: Organization: University at
BuffaloX-Vms-To: IN%”bdcaplan@phoenix.princeton.edu”Mime-Version:
1.0Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN;
CHARSET=US-ASCIIContent-Transfer-Encoding: 7BITStatus: R From: Bryan
Douglas Caplan >What’s important is that, on your account,
you>derive the fact that the argument ad hominem is a fallacy from
the nature>of truth. And how do you come to learn about the nature
of truth? THAT>is where direct reason is clearly coming in. If you
re-read your explanation,>it is a classic case of simply giving a
clear statement of an evident truth,>and relying upon my direct
reason to see that you are right. (You are, of>course.) I don’t
see a proof; I see a clear statement of a proposition which>you
verify with the intellect.>So yes, I think you are using your
direct reason here.Okay. Interesting. I’ll admit that you may be
onto something here.>We need all of the double-checks we can get,
fallible>creatures that we are. But notice that it works both
ways: the intellect>can serve as a reality check on
OBSERVATION.Hmmm, I hadn’t thought of that. You’re right.>But
I would disagree if you thought (do you?) that observation has veto
power>over the intellect, in the sense that we always go with
observation over>the intellect when there is a conflict. I think
that we must weigh the>respective evidences provided, and decide
accordingly.I agree with you on this point.>Thus, when I decided
that Rand’s validation of>morality was erroneous, and the route
of direct reason was valid, there wasn’t>any exact moment when
my mind changed. I just thought and re-thought the>question, and
gradually I came to a new position. Interesting.Indeed.I’m still
confused about what role direct reasoning can play inmorality and
ethics though.> a. “Happiness is good.” Well, I think about it
and see that it is true.? This is a puzzling one. I suppose there may
be something deepwithin us that desires happiness. But *I* would
prefer to understand howhappiness relates to our well-being. I’d
rather not get into the trap ofconfusing just any desire with our
good.>Also, I think about its opposite (”Happiness is evil”),
which is absurd.Well, happiness would have to be bad for us to be
evil. There isno apparent reason why this might be the case, so I
suppose your conclusionis reasonable on the face of it.>On a moral
claim as basic as this, I’m not sure what more to say.
Except:>other’s attempts to “prove” it are hard to
believe.For you maybe.
Actually, I think that we need more information about the
brainto really clinch statements like this. Ayn Rand drew her
conclusionsfrom very simple abstractions of human nature. It doesn’t
incorporateenough information to convince some people — at least
given her seemingdemand for 100% certainty about such things.So I’ll
agree that Ayn Rand didn’t completely convince me either,though I
_do_ think that answers of this sort are possible without relyingTOO
much on direct reason.>For example, you have>Rand’s attempt
to say that “life and happiness are just two sides of the
same>coin,” and derive the goodness of happiness from the value
of life. Well, since>a miserable life is not only possible but
fairly common, this argument isn’t>very convincing.I’m going
to get picky and state that I don’t think you have quitecaptured
her argument. Perhaps she didn’t explain herself very well in
thepart you paraphrase, but she didn’t say that life=happiness.
Rather, shebelieved that pursuing and achieving objective values
(satisfying real,personal needs) leads to happiness as a kind of
psychological reward. Thisreward encourages us to live further
because life feels like it is worthliving. Thus, happiness acts in
the service of life (happiness is good, QED).Of COURSE people can be
unhappy, but then people can also be quiteimmoral and still manage to
live. Ayn Rand would never have denied that.>It would be far
better to affirm “A happy life is better >than an unhappy one”
as an insight of direct reason than to torturously argue>that
“life” actually “requires happiness” or something like
that.Well, it’s better depending on what you are looking for.>Do
you have any particular moral claims in mind?Well, how about “murder
is immoral”? What can be said about therole of direct reason
here?Anyway, thanks for discussing this with me so far. I’ll
admitthat direct reason does not look quite as bogus to me as it did
at thestart.Mark | “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say
there are twentyAndrew | gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket
nor breaks my leg.”Sulkowski | — Thomas Jefferson
31a
Похожие страницы:
Salsa Essay Research Paper Salsa MusicSince Columbus
Реферат >> Остальные работыSalsa Essay, Research Paper Salsa Music Since Columbus ?discovered? ... the cultures and religions from surrounding islands in the ... real development of salsa music genre came from a series of music ... of Cuba from the Western hemisphere and salsa has been ...Shylock Essay Research Paper How does Shakespeare
Реферат >> Остальные работыShylock Essay, Research Paper How does Shakespeare present and develop the character Shylock? The character Shylock is ... to cut a pound of flesh from Antonio and the scales being ... the play when Shylock is called a devil people from the 1597 might ...Shylock Essay Research Paper Understanding the beliefs
Реферат >> Остальные работыShylock Essay, Research Paper Understanding the beliefs of a different culture is often difficult. From ... Okonkwo expects different things from men and women. ... In the Ibo society, each night the wives of ... motherland, to seek comfort from her family and community ...Jonas Salk Essay Research Paper Jonas Salk
Реферат >> Остальные работыJonas Salk Essay, Research Paper Jonas Salk From the beginning of mankind, man ... upon to immunize humans from polio. “Overnight, Jonas E. Salk was a hero,” said ... him. Jonas Salk “awakened that morning as a moderately prominent research professor on ...Storytelling By Silko Essay Research Paper Leslie
Реферат >> Остальные работыStorytelling By Silko Essay, Research Paper Leslie Marmon Silko is a Laguna Pueblo Indian who ... Navajo origin and "Storytelling" is from the Laguna Pueblo culture. Both ... a big part in Silko?s writing. Finally, I explored the form of the poem ...