Child-like faith in reason

[Estro Felino]

That isn't the contended part.
I agree that humans are animals mostly relying on their instincts.

What we don't seem to agree upon is 1. whether humans are principally capable of rational thought and 2. whether we should try to tackle problems rationally.

What did Nietzsche say?
Man is a rope stretched between the beast and the Overman. A rope over the abyss.

Even if I do not agree with WFN's conclusions, the premises are right.
The problem of free will is that it cannot be denied.
It does exist. Man is not victim of his own instincts. He can change the course of history. It can change anything. He can become different than animals.

 

[Augustus]

How is it rational?

Because it reflects the science and what can be observed in all contemporary and historical societies.

Do you disagree with this? Don't you accept you, like everyone else, are frequently irrational?

 

[Augustus]

What we don't seem to agree upon is 1. whether humans are principally capable of rational thought and 2. whether we should try to tackle problems rationally.

1. The OP says humans are capable of rational thought, just that they are not consistently capable of it.

For example, the world is complex, information is often ambiguous and we will frequently interpret things in line with preferences and interests rather than rationally. We are more driven by emotions than facts.

Reason cannot enable us to transcend the cognitive limitations of our brains.

2. We can try to tackle problems rationally, but must accept that "rational" solutions will frequently fail to produce expected results, especially in complex domains as neither the decision makers nor the humans impacted are rational.

Hence

In his memoir My Early Beliefs, Keynes described how he renounced the faith in reason he'd had as a young man in Cambridge. Commenting on his friend the logician and social reformer Bertrand Russell, Keynes observed: "Bertie sustained simultaneously a pair of opinions ludicrously incompatible. He held that human affairs are carried on in a most irrational fashion, but that the remedy was quite simple and easy, since all we had to do was carry them on rationally."

 

[Mock Turtle]

Perfect? Where do you get that from?

He says the opposite, poking fun at those who believe they are highly rational, and if only other people could be more like them then the world's problems would be solved.

"We'd all be better off if we saw ourselves as we are - intermittently and only ever partly-rational creatures, who never really grow up."

He just comes across as too cynical, and disparaging, towards even those who share his views when there are bigger fish to aim at.

 

[Augustus]

He just comes across as too cynical, and disparaging, towards even those who share his views when there are bigger fish to aim at.

What are "bigger fish" that need to be aimed at as opposed to the main guiding principle underpinning post-Enlightenment European thought?

 

[Mock Turtle]

What are "bigger fish" that need to be aimed at as opposed to the main guiding principle underpinning post-Enlightenment European thought?

Those ideologies and/or beliefs (often religious ones) that tend to cause the most frictions, and or harms to some, within society, for example. And many being based on refusal to accept even the most basic of science (preferring literal interpretations of whatever text) - as witnessed here on RF. But perhaps it isn't wise to do so.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's just the role he played on TV. We have to give the Canadians someone to root for.

If you were really clever & erudite, you'd have
countered that an Ameristanian, Bill Scott, voiced
Duley Do-Right. Step up your game, man!

 

[Augustus]

Those ideologies and/or beliefs (often religious ones) that tend to cause the most frictions, and or harms to some, within society, for example. And many being based on refusal to accept even the most basic of science (preferring literal interpretations of whatever text) - as witnessed here on RF. But perhaps it isn't wise to do so.

Other than not being his area of specialisation, why is critiquing religious fundamentalism, a fringe ideology in Europe, more important than critiquing one of the dominant ideologies of the ruling classes, and one which often goes unscrutinised as being universally 'true' and intrinsically good?

I'd say he contributes far more of benefit to society by critiquing the latter rather than writing yet another anodyne text that takes 200 pages to say "fundamentalism is, like, totally not true and anti-science".

 

[Estro Felino]

Which country's law is the one true morality?

Nothing is argued over more here than which
"common good" is the correct one. Even if we
here all agreed, this doesn't mean that our "good"
is the same as another country's "good".

I say that morality, ethics, good, & evil are human constructs.
They're like religion, ie, people feel strongly like objective
truths to some people, but others, especially we atheists,
see morality as a product of genetics & social interaction.
What we call "good" & "bad" are merely widely accepted
values. And those vary greatly with time & location.
I have values about right & wrong, but they're just my opinion.
One can reason from such premises, but one's conclusions
don't necessarily comport with beliefs of other people.
Rights to abortion, guns, speech, capitalism, religion, etc
are all in vigorous dispute.

Being an American citizen, you are supposed to be loyal to the Constitution,

With all due respect, of course.

A Constitution is something sacred and objectively valid.
Maybe if you explained to me in detail what the preamble means to you, and how you interpret it, I can understand what you mean.

 

[Revoltingest]

Being an American citizen, you are supposed to be loyal to the Constitution,

With all due respect, of course.

A Constitution is something sacred and objectively valid.
Maybe if you explained to me in detail what the preamble means to you, and how you interpret it, I can understand what you mean.

The Constitution is.....
- Not sacred.
- Not absolutely true.
- Not inerrant.
- A construct by people.
- Ever changing.
- Useful as the law of the land.

 

[Estro Felino]

The Constitution is.....
- Not sacred.
- Not absolutely true.
- Not inerrant.
- A construct by people.
- Ever changing.
- Useful as the law of the land.

As a jurist who believe in the sacredness of the Constitutions that are the beacon of Western Civilization, I am saddened by your words.
Constitutions which contain undeniable principles of justice, common good, equality before the law.

But I deeply respect your views, since it is the US Constitution and my own that expect me to respect and value other people's opinion.

 

[syo]

People are snitches and posers. All of them.

 

[Stevicus]

These words of yours harm me immensely.
As a jurist who believe in the sacredness of the Constitutions that are the beacon of Western Civilization.
Constitutions which contain undeniable principles of justice, common good, equality before the law.

But I deeply respect your views, since it is the US Constitution and my own that expect me to respect and value other people's opinion.

There are some good things about our Constitution, although it was originally called "a bundle of compromises." I've also come across some accounts which say that there was a lot of drinking going on at the Constitutional Convention, so maybe they were all drunk when they wrote it.

It's a living document, so it can be amended and changed - although that's not an easy process.

As common citizens of the U.S., we're required to follow the law itself (US Code, along with state and local laws depending on where we live), although the Constitution is more a blueprint for the government itself, outlining what the government can or can't do. Each state also has its own constitution, albeit subordinate to the US Constitution as defined by the US Supreme Court.

It's supposed to limit government and ensure human rights, but if the government gets to decide what it actually says and disingenuously interprets it to their own advantage, then the common people may still end up getting screwed.

The Constitution may be considered sacrosanct by many, just as Christians may hold the Bible as sacrosanct. But just like with the Bible, the Constitution is somewhat vague, open-ended, and open to interpretation. So, our judges in the courts who (not coincidentally) wear the robes of clergymen can still argue and disagree over what the document actually says.

 

[Estro Felino]

There are some good things about our Constitution, although it was originally called "a bundle of compromises." I've also come across some accounts which say that there was a lot of drinking going on at the Constitutional Convention, so maybe they were all drunk when they wrote it.

It's a living document, so it can be amended and changed - although that's not an easy process.

As common citizens of the U.S., we're required to follow the law itself (US Code, along with state and local laws depending on where we live), although the Constitution is more a blueprint for the government itself, outlining what the government can or can't do. Each state also has its own constitution, albeit subordinate to the US Constitution as defined by the US Supreme Court.

It's supposed to limit government and ensure human rights, but if the government gets to decide what it actually says and disingenuously interprets it to their own advantage, then the common people may still end up getting screwed.

The Constitution may be considered sacrosanct by many, just as Christians may hold the Bible as sacrosanct. But just like with the Bible, the Constitution is somewhat vague, open-ended, and open to interpretation. So, our judges in the courts who (not coincidentally) wear the robes of clergymen can still argue and disagree over what the document actually says.

Thank you for clarifying. Very informative.
Ours is called rigid Constitution. Meaning it cannot be changed, unless after a very, very complicated procedure.
And it is must be respected. Meaning, if an article says judges cannot join a political party, they cannot.

 

[Stevicus]

Thank you for clarifying. Very informative.
Ours is called rigid Constitution. Meaning it cannot be changed, unless after a very, very complicated procedure.
And it is must be respected. Meaning, if an article says judges cannot join a political party, they cannot.

I'm not a lawyer, so my understanding of the law is in the same sense that I can read a list of rules on a wall and try to follow them. I respect the law in that sense, and my personal morals would never allow me to harm or violate the rights of others. So, I rarely have any trouble with the law. It's been over 20 years since I've even had a speeding ticket.

I didn't know judges weren't allowed to join political parties. I don't know if that's the case here or not. I do know that lawyers, judges, and others at a certain professional, authority level - they often talk about how they have to maintain objectivity and professionalism. They can't allow their own personal feelings or personal relationships to cloud their judgment.

But sometimes I wonder how true that can be. Humans can't always control or turn off their emotions that easily.