An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality,
which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into
component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is
the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which
requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and
explanations rest." Theists have made exactly parallel statement,
replacing "axiomatic concepts" with "God" or "The Bible".
THIS MAKES SO MUCH SENSE, THE HOLY GRAIL FOR CERTAINTY IS
A LOST CAUSE.
The closed nature of the philosophy (objectivism) naturally resulted
from its purportedly certain foundations and epistemically certain
inferences.
AS I UNDERSTAND IT A CLOSED SYSTEM IS NOT OPEN TO CHANGE NO
MATTER WHAT NEW DISCOVERIES ARE MADE.PERHAPS SUCH PHILOSOPHIES DO WELL
BECAUSE THEY APPEAL TO A PART OF OUR PSYCHOLOGY THAT LIKES CERTAINTY OR
CLOSURE. "IF WE STAY WITHIN THESE CLOSED LIMITS THEN WE ARE ON SOLID
GROUND WHICH HAS BEEN CHECKED OUT BY MINDS FAR SUPERIOR TO OUR OWN.
PROVIDED WE DONT DRIFT OUTSIDE OUR CLOSED SYSTEM THEN WE ARE SAFE?"
Unlike Objectivism, Extropian thought has never claimed to be either
complete or closed. On the contrary, embodied in the guiding Principles
(version-numbered to help ward off stagnation) we find the imperative to
continually self-criticize, reevaluate, and revise.
THIS DESCRIBES WHAT I HAVE ASSUMED COV WAS ALL ABOUT .
For example:
"Extropians affirm reason, critical inquiry, intellectual independence,
and honesty. We reject blind faith and the passive, comfortable thinking
that leads to dogma, mysticism, and conformity... Extropians therefore
feel proud by readily learning from error rather than by professing
infallibility...
AND THIS DESCRIBES HOW I WANT TO BE.
Any argument involves both presuppositions and
epistemic standards, which themselves require justification in turn.
Argumentation thus leads to an infinite regress of justification, with
each new supporting reason itself requiring justification. Unless we
reach some indisputable, bedrock position, the original proposition
remains unjustified. To justify the original contention, some
unquestionable authority must be reached. Such standards, criteria, or
ultimate presuppositions are simply accepted without further
justification.
AT FIRST I SAW THIS AS A DRAWBACK, NO SELF EVIDENT FOUNDATIONS
MEANS NO INTELLECTUAL PROGRESS. HOWEVER I NOW SEE THAT WHEN WE ABANDON
THIS ATTEMPT TO FIND CERTAINTY (REALISING THAT IT IS AN IMPOSSIBLE GOAL)
OUR DISCUSSIONS CAN BECOME MORE FRUITFULL. AS I UNDERSTAND IT A BETTER
APROACH IS TO MAKE EXPLICIT OUR MUTUAL ASSUMPTIONS THEN WORK TOGETHER TO
GET NEW IDEAS WHICH ARE VALID WITHIN OUR "ASSUMPTUAL FRAMEWORK".
The skeptic reacts to this situation by holding that since nothing can
be supported rationally, we should (try to) suspend judgment about
everything. Such a position is hard to live by: How, for example, can we
go about our lives while refusing to accept the validity of inductive
inferences? David Hume, the disturbing philosopher who first
demonstrated the impossibility of justifying induction, found that when
he left his philosophical study, he was unable to prevent himself from
believing in the procedure that, in his reflective moments, he believed
to be irrational. This conflict of practical action and theoretical
belief has bothered generations of thinkers familiar with Hume's
skeptical writings.
I THINK THIS IS A UNIVERSAL HUMAN TENDENCY. WE WORK HARD
INTELECTUALLY TO TRAIN OUR MINDS IN WAYS WE KNOW ARE BETTER THAN THE
HEURISTICS WE ARE DEALT WITH BUT WHEN WE RELAX WE AUTOMATICALLY REVERT
TO OUR NATURAL STATE. EXAMPLE:
SOMETIMES I FELL LIKE GOING UPTO GERMAINE GREER AND SAYING
"GERMAINE, SINCE YOU ARE A RENOUND FEMINIST AND INSIGHTFULL THINKER I AM
SURPRISED THAT YOU BELIEVE YOU CAN INFER WHAT'S GOING ON IN A MAN'S MIND
BY SIMPLY OBSERVING HIS BEHAVIOUR, BEHAVIOUR WHICH INEVITABLY CHANGES IN
THE PRESENCE OF A WOMAN. IT'S A PARALLEL GERMAINE, OF HYSENBERG'S
UNCERTANTY PRINCIPLE. THE FACT THAT WE CANNOT HELP TO CHANGE WHAT WE
ATTEMPT TO MEASURE"...
...AND SOMETIMES I FEEL LIKE GOING UPTO HER, GETTING MY KNOB OUT
AND SAYING "AWAY OVER HERE PET AND SUCK ON THIS, YOU'LL LOVE IT."
Pancritical Rationalism solves the problem by doing away with the need
for induction, replacing it with the falsification of scientific laws in
terms of observational statements.
i WOULD APRECIATE SOME CLARIFICATION ON THIS DAVE.
Modern foundationalists have dethroned these and
installed beliefs about appearances, or sense-data, as the specially
privileged foundations of all justified belief.
AS I UNDERSTAND IT THIS FOUNDATIONALISM BECOMES PANCRITICAL
RATIONALISM WHEN WE CALL OUR MUTUAL ASSUMPTIONS OUR (TEMPORARY)
PRIVALEDGED FOUNDATIONS.
When it became generally accepted that even Kant's attempted fusion of
intellectualism and rationalism into a new form of panrationalism had
collapsed, many rationalists took refuge in pragmatism or
instrumentalism. Their inability to justify some of their most basic and
significant ideas and procedures was no problem, they now said, since
beliefs in such things as scientific laws or in the existence of other
minds were not, after all, descriptions of reality. Rather than
describing the world, such ideas are instruments, tools, or symbols that
help us find our way around. These beliefs are not justified on a
factual basis grounded in sense experience, but only only on the basis
of their utility in making predictions or in classifying the objects of
experience.
OK I CANT SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS AND PANCRITICAL
RATIONALISM.
We should not accept the second principle because we should recognize
that some statements, beliefs, and criteria at any time must be simply
accepted without argument because they form the starting point for
argument. As Popper puts it: "Since all argument must proceed from
assumptions, it is plainly impossible to demand that all assumptions
should be based on argument."
THIS BIT MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO ME.
(The Open Society, 230) Of course, an
assumption accepted without justification in order to start a particular
line of argument might later, in the context of a different argument,
become the object of justification. Significant results cannot be
obtained from argument if we accede to the demand to start with no
assumptions, or even to the weaker demand that we start with a very
small set of assumptions such as the Kantian "categories" or Rand's
"axiomatic concepts". Comprehensive rationalism or panrationalism falls
down by being unable to justify itself. The rationalist attitude can be
based neither upon argument nor experience, for a rationalist attitude
must first be adopted if any argument or experience is to move a person.
Only those who have already adopted this attitude will be convinced by
arguments in its favor.
THIS MAKES ME THINK THAT THE FALLACY COMMITED BY BIBLE BASHERS
(THE BIBLE IS TRUE, IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE") IS COMITTED (ALL BE IT IN
MORE SUBTLE FORMS) BY MANY OTHERS.
Popper's critical rationalism also suffers from fideism, although he is
at least open about it, as we can see in this passage from The Open
Society and Its Enemies, where he proposes to adopt a "minimum
concession to irrationalism." [p.416-17] He writes:
whoever adopts the rationalist attitude does so because he has adopted,
without reasoning, some proposal or decision,or belief, or habit, or
behavior, which therefore in its turn must be called irrational.
Whatever it may be, we can describe it as an irrational faith in reason
.... the fundamental rationalist attitude is based upon an irrational
decision, or upon faith in reason. Accordingly, our choice is open. We
are free to choose some form of irrationalism, even some radical or
comprehensive form. But we are also free to choose a critical form of
rationalism,one which frankly admits its limitations, and its basis in
an irrational decision (and so far, a certain priority for
irrationalism).
A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS HERE;
1) SUPPOSE TWO SEPARATE INTELLIGENT LIFEFORMS EVOLVED
SEPARATELY, IF BOTH CHOSE RATIONALITY AS THEIR FOUNDATION THEN THEY
WOULD SHARE A LOT OF COMMON BELIEFS ABOUT THE UNIVERSE THEY CO-HABITED
WHEREAS IF ONE OR BOTH CHOSE IRRATIONALITY THEY WOULD SHARE FAR LESS
BELIEFS. IS THIS NOT SO? AND DOES IT SHED SOME LIGHT ON THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN FAITH IN RATIONALITY AND FAITH IN IRRATIONALITY?
IN SHORT IS NOT RATIONALITY A WAY TWO UNCONNECTED MINDS WHO CO-
HABIT THE SAME UNIVERSE CAN EVOLVE SIMILAR MEMETIC SOFTWARE?F
AITH THAT FAITH IS WRONG
2)A GOOD ARGUMENT AGAINST "YOU MUST HAVE FAITH IN GOD'S
EXISTENCE" IS "I HAVE FAITH THAT GOD DOESNOT EXIST" THEN IN ORDER TO
MAKE PROGRESS BOTH PARTIES MUST ABANDON THE NOTION OF FAITH OR BETTER
STILL THE BIBLE BASHER WILL JUST FUCK OFF.
When PCR replaces authoritarian justification with unbounded criticism,
holding all positions to be criticizable, it means (in Bartley's words):
"(1) it is not necessary, in criticism, in order to avoid infinite
regress, to declare a dogma that could not be criticized (since it was
unjustifiable); (2) it is not necessary to mark off a special class of
statements, the justifiers, which did the justifying and criticizing but
was not open to criticism; (3) there is not a point in all argument, the
terms, which is exempted from criticism; (4) the criticizers the
statements in terms of which criticism is conducted are themselves open
to review."
ISNT THIS JUST SAYING "THE ONLY CERTANTY IS THAT NOTHING IS
CERTAIN"?
"The new framework permits a rationalist to be characterized as one who
is willing to entertain any position and holds all his positions,
including his most fundamental standards, goals, and decisions, and his
basic philosophical position itself, open to criticism; one who protects
nothing from criticism by justifying it irrationally; one who never cuts
off an argument by resorting to faith or irrational commitment to
justify some belief that has been under severe critical fire; one who is
committed, attached, addicted, to no position." [118]
OK I NOW CONSIDER MYSELF A PANCRITICAL RATIONALIST.
I AM AWAY AGAIN FOR A FEW DAYS BUT I WOULD APRECIATE YOUR
THOUGHTS ON ALL THIS AWAITING MY RETURN.
WITH THANKS
Tony
I am a pancritical rationalist until such times as
new discoveries show me a better way.