Yes, I use reason to afford the possibility that reason is off-kilter. So?kaufmannphillips wrote:
I do not deny the possibility of logic. I afford the possibility that logic is off-kilter.
brody196 wrote:
But you just used logic to afford that possibility. Bottom line is: You have to assume that there is a universal standard by which to judge truth. If everything has the possibility of being wrong or different, you still have to apply the universal laws of logic and reason to deduce what is wrong or different.
Personal Trainer: Good morning, Mr. Clayman. How’re you doing?
Clayman: I’m feeling OK. I’m being careful about using my left leg, though, because there’s a chance the knee might give out.
Personal Trainer: Didn’t you use that leg to walk into the work-out room?
Clayman: Um – yes. I said I’m being careful about it. I didn’t say I’d amputated it.
Personal Trainer: So it’s reliable, then.
Clayman: No, it’s not. I said there’s a chance it might give out.
Personal Trainer: Well, make up your mind! Is it reliable, or is it unusable?
Clayman: … How did you get this job?
I do not "have to assume that there is a universal standard by which to judge truth." I may operate from the premise that there is an ultimate reality. But I do not have to assume that this premise itself fits a category of reality or unreality or truth or falsehood. Those categories might prove inapplicable or inadequate in ways that I could scarcely conceptualize, if at all.
One problem with your final statement is that affording the “possibility of being wrong or different” does not amount to positing the certainty that anything is wrong or different. Everything might be neither wrong nor different. Then again, the categories of rightness and wrongness and sameness and differentness and being and nonbeing might all prove inapplicable or inadequate.
Now, one might object to one or more of these comments: that doesn’t make sense! But if my basic outlook posits that there is a limit and fallibility to human reason, then where is the inherent problem if the concept eventually transgresses the bounds of human reason?
Another problem with your final statement is that you imagine "laws of logic and reason" to be "universal." Simply because humans make impressive use of their logic and reason, does not mean that these paradigms are universally applicable. Even in the limited range of human experience, we are not constrained to paradigms of reason alone; some of the most significant elements of human experience are irrational and ineffable.
Now, let me recount a recently-published “Peanuts” cartoon –
Lucy: Schroeder, what if you and I were to get married some day, and what if we…
Schroeder: I can’t comprehend what you’re saying.
Lucy: Well, what I mean is, if you and I ever get married, will….
Schroeder: No, I can’t comprehend that… I can’t conceive that ever happening…
Lucy: Well, let’s just say it did, and….
Schroeder: No, I just can’t conceive of such a thing.. It’s like thinking about what lies beyond outer space.. My mind can’t comprehend that….
Lucy: But can’t we just say that by some miracle we did get married, and….
Schroeder: No, my mind cannot even begin to grasp such a thought… It reels… The whole concept is simply beyond my comprehension.
Lucy: My Aunt Marian was right… Never try to discuss marriage with a musician!
Here Schroeder pleads (however facetiously) that a certain matter is beyond his ability to conceive. But his personal inability does not establish a universal state of affairs. If “Peanuts” grew up to become “The Young and the Restless,” then Schroeder could wind up married to Lucy under circumstances that he never anticipated, and that he even took no active part in.
Neither you nor I may be able to conceptualize a universality where categories of truth or reality are not inexorable. This may tell us something about the parameters of how we conceptualize. But it does not necessarily tell us about universality.
Let us consider a discussion at a frontier:
Gerry and Francis journey to the frontier of their homeland, and find an immense wall that they cannot see past, and that they lack the means to climb over or burrow through.
Francis: I wonder what’s on the other side!
Gerry: There is no other side.
Francis: How can you say that? You have no way of knowing.
Gerry: Well… if there is an other side, it’s no different than this side.
Francis: And how can you say that? You have no way of knowing that, either! The other side could be completely different from this side.
Gerry: It couldn’t be completely different. It would at least have to have gravity and magnetism and other basic laws of nature.
Francis: It could have the same nature as this side. But we don’t know that for sure. It could have a different set of laws, or no laws of nature at all.
Gerry: No laws of nature at all? What would that look like?
Francis: I have trouble imagining what that would look like. But I imagine that I have a limited imagination.
Gerry: And what if there were no laws of nature on the other side? That would mean that there are no universal laws of nature.
Francis: So?
Gerry: That would mean "anything goes"! Anything could happen!
Francis: Anything might happen. Everything might happen. Nothing might happen.
Gerry: For nothing to happen, everything would have to stop happening, and that would be something happening.
Francis: Not if nothing had ever happened.
Gerry: If nothing had ever happened, then we couldn’t be having this conversation. We wouldn’t even exist.
Francis: Maybe we aren’t. Maybe we don’t.
Gerry: You’re nuts.
Francis: Nuts? Well, I could go for some pistachios. Let’s get some.
Gerry: Why would you get pistachios, if they might not even exist?
Francis: They might not exist. But I feel hungry.
Any thoughts that I have about the wrongness of these actions could be inaccurate, inapplicable, or inadequate. Perhaps I can save you some time by adding that any thoughts I might have about Hitler or about clubbing baby seals could be inaccurate, inapplicable, or inadequate as well.brody196 wrote:
Hi Kaufmann,
Is Child rape and murder wrong 100% of the time in your worldview? Can you think of any scenarios where it would be neutral or morally acceptable to do such things?
Thanks.
You did not establish any universal absolutes. You asked histrionic questions that fail to obviate the essential point: humans seem to be neither omniscient nor infallible; accordingly, every human notion is possibly ignorant and/or fallible.brody196 wrote:
My point was to prove that there are absolutes in this universe that God has established. Every human being operates under these absolutes.
Some people shrink from the uncertainty that yields – for whatever reason. Others can move on to get some pistachios.
But let me ask, brody, where is the greater faith? Abiding in commitment when one feels utterly certain; or abiding in commitment even though one can admit uncertainty?