Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Determinism, ideology and logic

feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2011 4:01:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Okay, let's start with the assumption that you a hard determinist, who has accepted that free will is a mere illusion, and that your opinions, beliefs and everything about you is the way it is because of your experiences, environment and genetic make up.

Then let's assume that you are an extremely logical person who always uses logical processes to justify what you believe and always examines your opinions to ensure they are logically consistent.

Now let's assume that you have a clearly defined political ideology that you have thoroughlly researched and decided is correct based on logical principles.

Now suppose you have a friend who is exactly like you in all the ways described above, except they have a different political ideology to your own.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Would this mean that logic is not entirely objective and even that it could be used as a tool for self-delusion to help justify whatever opinions and ideology you have ended up believing in?
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2011 4:09:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/8/2011 4:01:47 AM, feverish wrote:
Now let's assume that you have a clearly defined political ideology that you have thoroughlly researched and decided is correct based on logical principles.

My issue is with this part. Our ideologies are based on preferences. I have a preference for liberty and freedom from opression. You have a preference for equality ( I think - I won't put words into your mouth if you believe a different preference is the root of your ideology). From these different preferences we can both be superdooper (sp?) logical and come to our individual different ideologies.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2011 4:13:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Of course many people don't use logic to build off their preferences to find an ideology. Some people have many internally inconsistant views, or even work on the principle "feels good bro", without thinking about the conclusions their preferences would take them to. Even the wonderful and charming Thaddeus has flaws.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2011 4:13:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/8/2011 4:09:28 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 7/8/2011 4:01:47 AM, feverish wrote:
Now let's assume that you have a clearly defined political ideology that you have thoroughlly researched and decided is correct based on logical principles.

My issue is with this part. Our ideologies are based on preferences. I have a preference for liberty and freedom from opression. You have a preference for equality ( I think - I won't put words into your mouth if you believe a different preference is the root of your ideology). From these different preferences we can both be superdooper (sp?) logical and come to our individual different ideologies.

Good answer, but say your friend also has the same preferences you do, but maybe he has decided minarchy is a more logical way of achieving liberty and freedom than anarchy. What then?
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2011 4:18:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/8/2011 4:13:21 AM, feverish wrote:
At 7/8/2011 4:09:28 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 7/8/2011 4:01:47 AM, feverish wrote:
Now let's assume that you have a clearly defined political ideology that you have thoroughlly researched and decided is correct based on logical principles.

My issue is with this part. Our ideologies are based on preferences. I have a preference for liberty and freedom from opression. You have a preference for equality ( I think - I won't put words into your mouth if you believe a different preference is the root of your ideology). From these different preferences we can both be superdooper (sp?) logical and come to our individual different ideologies.

Good answer, but say your friend also has the same preferences you do, but maybe he has decided minarchy is a more logical way of achieving liberty and freedom than anarchy. What then?

I'm not sure thats a great example, as people who choose minarchy over being an an-cap are mainly doing so on the grounds of feasability. They believe that some form miltary is necessary to protect the minarchist society from outside statists.
However, if we just call it "slightly different ideology" I would say he values something a little differently than I. Maybe he values liberty a lot, and equality a little - so he is willing to push liberty further, but not to completely remove equality from the picture.
(This example is assuming an ideology where the two are conflict, but it is possible to have varying degrees of such qualities - I know its binary and simplistic but it helps me visualise it)
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2011 4:29:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/8/2011 4:18:17 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

I'm not sure thats a great example, as people who choose minarchy over being an an-cap are mainly doing so on the grounds of feasability. They believe that some form miltary is necessary to protect the minarchist society from outside statists.

So if they do have the same values but one believes that a different approach is more logically feasable, would that indicate that one is wrong, or that the logical process is subjective?
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2011 4:31:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/8/2011 4:29:18 AM, feverish wrote:
At 7/8/2011 4:18:17 AM, Thaddeus wrote:

I'm not sure thats a great example, as people who choose minarchy over being an an-cap are mainly doing so on the grounds of feasability. They believe that some form miltary is necessary to protect the minarchist society from outside statists.

So if they do have the same values but one believes that a different approach is more logically feasable, would that indicate that one is wrong, or that the logical process is subjective?

One is right and one is wrong. Anarchy is either feasible or it isn't.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2011 4:36:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/8/2011 4:31:40 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
One is right and one is wrong. Anarchy is either feasible or it isn't.

Maybe time for you to debate Ragnar?

Thanks for your answers anyway Thad, the first one answered it pretty well. The rest is just kind of clutching at straws for a thought experiment.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2011 4:41:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/8/2011 4:36:30 AM, feverish wrote:
At 7/8/2011 4:31:40 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
One is right and one is wrong. Anarchy is either feasible or it isn't.

Maybe time for you to debate Ragnar?

Probably.

Thanks for your answers anyway Thad, the first one answered it pretty well. The rest is just kind of clutching at straws for a thought experiment.

No problem =)
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2011 7:16:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm somewhat baffled as to the relevance of hard determinism in your scenario, but here's my answer: it is undoubtedly true that people who have the same basic grasp of the facts, arguments and theories can nonetheless come to vastly different conclusions. It doesn't just extend to politics: it extends to religion, philosophy, even science, and other stuff too.

The most important reasons, I would assume, are: human bias: there's an entire branch of psychology devoted to bias, and there are thousands of classified biases; different starting worldviews: people tend to filter evidence through their own perceptions about the world. Everyone has their own worldview 'glasses' that they see everything through; ignorance: in a lot of situations, the data just hasn't come in yet. People tend to take positions on incomplete data (and they might not know it's incomplete) so other people with a somewhat different set of data, and a different interpretation of the data, come to different conclusions and neither of them knows that they're missing part of the puzzle.

As per the last question: if you want to deny logic itself, you're in for a whole host of problems. you can't rationally affirm anything (including that logic is subjective) unless you hold that at least some logic principles are objectively true.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2011 4:09:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Kinesis said it better than I could. I was going to post a list to all the cognative biases (http://en.wikipedia.org...) that would help explain why the perfectly logical person is an impossible idea. Also, coming up with a perfectly logical theory of anything is just really hard. That's why I consider debate essential to getting your beliefs as close to perfectly logical as you can.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2011 8:12:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/8/2011 4:01:47 AM, feverish wrote:
Okay, let's start with the assumption that you a hard determinist, who has accepted that free will is a mere illusion, and that your opinions, beliefs and everything about you is the way it is because of your experiences, environment and genetic make up.


This is just a statement of fact really, it's a given no matter what you are talking about, so I'll skim over that there. It's a given for me, since this is what I believe.

Then let's assume that you are an extremely logical person who always uses logical processes to justify what you believe and always examines your opinions to ensure they are logically consistent.

Now let's assume that you have a clearly defined political ideology that you have thoroughlly researched and decided is correct based on logical principles.

Now suppose you have a friend who is exactly like you in all the ways described above, except they have a different political ideology to your own.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Would this mean that logic is not entirely objective and even that it could be used as a tool for self-delusion to help justify whatever opinions and ideology you have ended up believing in?

Simply put, no. I don't really see how you'd come to that conclusion to be honest.

But yeah, people do use logic as a tool for self delusion to help justify whatever their opinions are. Most of the time, I would say that it is probably unintentional.

Really though, there is no objectively correct political way of running things. Politics, governemnt, etc.. All these things are phantoms. Society is anarchistic at the base. Anarchy isn't a political ideology, it is simply an assessment of how things actually are.

Most anarchists will deny this, because anarchy to them IS an ideology. Depending on the type of anarchist you are talking to, anarchy can mean many different things to them, but the idealist anarchist always seems to be unsatisfied with the way things are. They will never be satisfied, no matter how the world is run, because they are incapable of accepting the world for how it actually is.

Once they get past all this idealism nonsense, that is when they can actually start changing the world. But that's just like my opinion, man.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp