Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Origins of Obectivity and Logic (LONG post)

FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:55:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I was really hoping something like this was understood. Not presuppositional, at least in terms of a person"s life span, but understood, as in we all went through it in some form. So, in carrying on various conversations, I think predation upon laziness has come to its conclusion, and apparently, the spoon feeding of what has historically happened is in order.

The Origin of Rationale and Reasoning:

So, immediately, the casual reader will notice an absence of faith based assertions. This isn"t an accident.

First, lets start off with fish. I say fish, because they are low on the totem pole in the realm of the world around them, but they are still able to understand some basic truths of their world: there is personal safety in numbers. Schools of fish will huddle together to break up their individual patterns to make themselves less discernable to predators. They also make use of natural cover and color to hide. This has been a casual deduction from their surroundings based solely off the fact that fish that didn"t do this get eaten.

Moving further up the chain to birds, it"s no secret that some avians have been known to fashion simple tools with their beaks in order to accomplish an end. This is gathered from the inadequacy of their own beak to accomplish a task, and the conclusion that a different form of beak is required. Through a simple set of reasoning and understanding of their world, a tool is fashioned to fit the "bill", and the ultimate objective is achieved.

Finally, us. Humans. The treatise that I am to give here is by no means exclusive to any one person"s development, however can suffice as a very basic overview as to how we develop logic. The first understanding we as a human ever have is a basic understanding of the self. We knew something about us was "off" and to fix it, we did the only thing we could: cry. This immediately set the tone as to what we would learn. If we have hunger, chill, heat, discomfort, anything in general, cry about it to resolve it. We rationed out, even at an early age what sensory input brought us, and what we would need to do to relieve the discomfort. With a little bit of time, we also began to correlate WHO would bring us what, and developed attachment for that. Thus began our first understandings of the self (and its evil twin "selfish"), and that others can aid (or be used) to the self"s betterment.
As this emergent understanding learned more and more, we could put words to our discomfort to clearly identify the source of our internal problem. We also began to realize what was in the realm of being able to fix, quickly, ourselves. While complex food might be out of the question to get as a toddler, a blanket on the other hand, was not. Mom or dad didn"t need to be called for that, we could do it ourselves, and such independence would be born from a complex sense of independence. Now, we have begun to use our senses in which to manipulate the world around us without aid to a conclusion that resolved the problem; this worked marvels for fleshing out that sense of self that we were working on.

Of course, as a toddler, we also started to hit the bumps in the road. The Evil Twin of Selfishness was starting to come out, to want that which was not ours, but could conceivably get. We shouldn"t take other people"s things just because we want it or just because we can, but as a toddler, the experience of loss was not firmly learned yet. So, we would have no problem inflicting that suffering on others. We also started to make a rudimentary understanding that even if stealth was not possible to achieve our desire, we could in some instances bully a toy away from others. This would lead to the sagacious parental involvement of punishment, followed up with "We don"t hit people!". Spanking may or may not have followed, depending upon how much irony you enjoy.

As we progress out of that age, we learned that other people have a sense of self, too. This might have been a lesson, or it might have been parentally enforced, or it just might have been empathetic. What kept us largely from doing those things to others would be authority, but as time wore on, the concept of what is "fair" would be introduced. Fair is the state of rules being applied without mercy, which means if you hit someone else, someone else could just as easily hit you with no punishment. Your sense of self would suffer at the whims of someone else, for nothing. Rules began to take a new connotation when it was discovered that if everyone played by them, it made for a rewarding experience. Running around on the furniture was" well, humorous on its own right, but the introduction of rules to make a game (THE FLOOR IS LAVA!), in which all siblings or friends had to participate by made for a harmonious and fun time. Of course, whatever the game was, we all wanted to win, and might have broken the rules to do so, which would then lend others to do so" until such a fun time was turned chaotic by everyone doing exactly the opposite of what made things work: agreeing to the rules. Thus began our understanding of what happens when rules are broken whole sale, and the basic understanding of what happens when rules are followed by the community. This all happened from trial and error/ reasoning and deduction. The system worked on the game, and the rationale worked as demonstrated by its own merits.

While the child progressed further into more intensive education and schooling, complex deductions and more appropriate rules could be applied to both themselves, and understanding of where and why such morality should be followed. What broke the common good became "bad" morality. What helped the common good became "good" morality. The less selfish and more group beneficial some one thought or acted, the more the same would be returned to them. In practice, this might not always be the case, but the lesson was learned frequently enough through personal involvement to become habit. Furthermore, we could start to draw conclusions from similar and dissimilar behaviors of others. The popular anti-drug posters attempted to hit home the point, as well as the basics of not polluting, and other such social niceties like not lying to people regarding important things. Trust is a building block to the morality mentioned, so it would stand to reason that breaking that trust would in turn break the foundation. We could also extrapolate what would happen if we took certain actions based on what we understand of other people"s reactions, and we also knew how people might "feel" from those actions, which derived from our understanding of our own response to similar circumstance.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:56:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Into adulthood, we became acutely aware of property and ownership, and not surprisingly sought to protect it. The same senses of self and selfish were at play, in which we would weigh out possible consequences with our property, other people"s property, and how we might feel should someone else disrespect our own property. We developed senses of accomplishment and pride in what we do in our quest for personal growth, and of course in potentially attracting a mate. Personal morality by now had its foundations put down a long time ago, and so did the basics of reasoning through problems. The person would and could take in information, examine the best and worst outcomes to the best of their ability, understands what harms them might in turn might harm others and would temper their actions or words for it, and has a core sense of value, what they feel to be most important in their lives.

Objectivity, when speaking of morality, originates from us. We understand us. We know what harms or helps us, or can deduce that given correct information. By application to others, it of course becomes subjective, as the exact same translations of experiences won"t carry, nor will how we explain it, nor CAN how it gets practiced remain the exact same from day to day, nor will it be received in the same fashion each time based on personal mood. All these variables, though, don"t mean you can"t try, and it doesn"t mean that at times it will fail because it will be taken differently in each scenario. Knowing of objectivity and following are two different things, though. I know I should probably not enjoy a few IPAs on the weekend, nor should I "help" to finish off those Christmas cookies the wife baked. Those are objectively bad for me, but subjectively good. The problem we have as a society now, regarding morality, is that the subjectively good or bad for me is also what is being (attempted to be) applied to others, forgetting where the line of self ends and someone else begins.

Now, to bring this all home: where is the origin of logic and reasoning, and how do you know it"s working?

Well, to start with, it didn"t. Imagination ruled the day, anything can happen at any time. That didn"t work as no reliable or repeatable follow through could be made or acted on. So, rather than relying on the creation from the self for the input, we rely on our senses. Apparently, we all (people) agree to what a shoe is, we all agree what a chair is, what is light, what is dark, hot to a degree, cold to a degree, what time it is, etc, and we could recognize patterns in action. So, from that communal understanding of everyone following the same set of rules we are able to apply reasoning and rationale. We all set a standard. We put aside our selfish desires to establish a communal standard for the common good. We all agreed what "4" was, we all agreed what "running" is, we all agreed on measurements and standards as time and societies of selfs-turned-us-es sought to live with each other. We made universal principles in order to mitigate the chaos of the selfishness and make an ordered community. Good morality was that which didn"t specifically promote the self to other"s detriment, bad morality was that which does promote the self to other"s detriment, it logically followed we wanted equality in that to ensure we all played by the same obvious rule set. Currently, this really crude explanation serves quite well. Personal autonomy to a point promotes creativity and ability, which in turn can be used by the collective of society, and offers benefit to the creative and able. Creative and able, are of arbitrary qualities, there are plenty of other abilities that one might have to exploit for personal gain, which others will happily make use of, as it helps them as well.

I would like to think that all of my experience, and understanding would lead to something "objective", and for me it does, but of course it cannot be applied to others without their desire to commit to the same objective. They have their own reasons, which to them are objective. Its only when everyone"s personal objectivity syncs that something is declared objective, so while objective morality may exist, it"s a long road to have in practiced, and I think objective morality is more conceptual than it is practical.

So where did logic and reasoning and morality etc come from?
TL:DR
I grew up, and learned from it.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:58:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 12:55:50 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
I was really hoping something like this was understood. Not presuppositional, at least in terms of a person"s life span, but understood, as in we all went through it in some form. So, in carrying on various conversations, I think predation upon laziness has come to its conclusion, and apparently, the spoon feeding of what has historically happened is in order.

The Origin of Rationale and Reasoning:

So, immediately, the casual reader will notice an absence of faith based assertions. This isn"t an accident.

First, lets start off with fish. I say fish, because they are low on the totem pole in the realm of the world around them, but they are still able to understand some basic truths of their world: there is personal safety in numbers. Schools of fish will huddle together to break up their individual patterns to make themselves less discernable to predators. They also make use of natural cover and color to hide. This has been a casual deduction from their surroundings based solely off the fact that fish that didn"t do this get eaten.

Moving further up the chain to birds, it"s no secret that some avians have been known to fashion simple tools with their beaks in order to accomplish an end. This is gathered from the inadequacy of their own beak to accomplish a task, and the conclusion that a different form of beak is required. Through a simple set of reasoning and understanding of their world, a tool is fashioned to fit the "bill", and the ultimate objective is achieved.

Finally, us. Humans. The treatise that I am to give here is by no means exclusive to any one person"s development, however can suffice as a very basic overview as to how we develop logic. The first understanding we as a human ever have is a basic understanding of the self. We knew something about us was "off" and to fix it, we did the only thing we could: cry. This immediately set the tone as to what we would learn. If we have hunger, chill, heat, discomfort, anything in general, cry about it to resolve it. We rationed out, even at an early age what sensory input brought us, and what we would need to do to relieve the discomfort. With a little bit of time, we also began to correlate WHO would bring us what, and developed attachment for that. Thus began our first understandings of the self (and its evil twin "selfish"), and that others can aid (or be used) to the self"s betterment.
As this emergent understanding learned more and more, we could put words to our discomfort to clearly identify the source of our internal problem. We also began to realize what was in the realm of being able to fix, quickly, ourselves. While complex food might be out of the question to get as a toddler, a blanket on the other hand, was not. Mom or dad didn"t need to be called for that, we could do it ourselves, and such independence would be born from a complex sense of independence. Now, we have begun to use our senses in which to manipulate the world around us without aid to a conclusion that resolved the problem; this worked marvels for fleshing out that sense of self that we were working on.

Of course, as a toddler, we also started to hit the bumps in the road. The Evil Twin of Selfishness was starting to come out, to want that which was not ours, but could conceivably get. We shouldn"t take other people"s things just because we want it or just because we can, but as a toddler, the experience of loss was not firmly learned yet. So, we would have no problem inflicting that suffering on others. We also started to make a rudimentary understanding that even if stealth was not possible to achieve our desire, we could in some instances bully a toy away from others. This would lead to the sagacious parental involvement of punishment, followed up with "We don"t hit people!". Spanking may or may not have followed, depending upon how much irony you enjoy.

As we progress out of that age, we learned that other people have a sense of self, too. This might have been a lesson, or it might have been parentally enforced, or it just might have been empathetic. What kept us largely from doing those things to others would be authority, but as time wore on, the concept of what is "fair" would be introduced. Fair is the state of rules being applied without mercy, which means if you hit someone else, someone else could just as easily hit you with no punishment. Your sense of self would suffer at the whims of someone else, for nothing. Rules began to take a new connotation when it was discovered that if everyone played by them, it made for a rewarding experience. Running around on the furniture was" well, humorous on its own right, but the introduction of rules to make a game (THE FLOOR IS LAVA!), in which all siblings or friends had to participate by made for a harmonious and fun time. Of course, whatever the game was, we all wanted to win, and might have broken the rules to do so, which would then lend others to do so" until such a fun time was turned chaotic by everyone doing exactly the opposite of what made things work: agreeing to the rules. Thus began our understanding of what happens when rules are broken whole sale, and the basic understanding of what happens when rules are followed by the community. This all happened from trial and error/ reasoning and deduction. The system worked on the game, and the rationale worked as demonstrated by its own merits.

While the child progressed further into more intensive education and schooling, complex deductions and more appropriate rules could be applied to both themselves, and understanding of where and why such morality should be followed. What broke the common good became "bad" morality. What helped the common good became "good" morality. The less selfish and more group beneficial some one thought or acted, the more the same would be returned to them. In practice, this might not always be the case, but the lesson was learned frequently enough through personal involvement to become habit. Furthermore, we could start to draw conclusions from similar and dissimilar behaviors of others. The popular anti-drug posters attempted to hit home the point, as well as the basics of not polluting, and other such social niceties like not lying to people regarding important things. Trust is a building block to the morality mentioned, so it would stand to reason that breaking that trust would in turn break the foundation. We could also extrapolate what would happen if we took certain actions based on what we understand of other people"s reactions, and we also knew how people might "feel" from those actions, which derived from our understanding of our own response to similar circumstance.

Most of God's people get confused by the visible objects of this world. As long as they believe the visible world is real, they will not believe how we were created.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 1:06:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Most of God's people get confused by the visible objects of this world. As long as they believe the visible world is real, they will not believe how we were created.

Happy new year for another 2 weeks, BoG.

After that, you have my condolences. In either case, see ya in 3 weeks.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 1:12:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 1:06:35 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Most of God's people get confused by the visible objects of this world. As long as they believe the visible world is real, they will not believe how we were created.

Happy new year for another 2 weeks, BoG.

After that, you have my condolences. In either case, see ya in 3 weeks.

How many days are there in 1/2 of 7 years?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 1:19:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 1:12:01 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 1/2/2015 1:06:35 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Most of God's people get confused by the visible objects of this world. As long as they believe the visible world is real, they will not believe how we were created.

Happy new year for another 2 weeks, BoG.

After that, you have my condolences. In either case, see ya in 3 weeks.

How many days are there in 1/2 of 7 years?

Depends, are we talking Biblical years, actual years, calendar years, etc. The jist of that post was to wish you a farewell, as I was under the impression that your time here was drawing to a close as requisite of your sainthood. If that is not the case, and my understanding of your relation to how much time you have left is off, my bad. Enjoy the winter of your life. Is that better?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 1:32:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/2/2015 1:19:42 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/2/2015 1:12:01 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 1/2/2015 1:06:35 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Most of God's people get confused by the visible objects of this world. As long as they believe the visible world is real, they will not believe how we were created.

Happy new year for another 2 weeks, BoG.

After that, you have my condolences. In either case, see ya in 3 weeks.

How many days are there in 1/2 of 7 years?

Depends, are we talking Biblical years, actual years, calendar years, etc. The jist of that post was to wish you a farewell, as I was under the impression that your time here was drawing to a close as requisite of your sainthood. If that is not the case, and my understanding of your relation to how much time you have left is off, my bad. Enjoy the winter of your life. Is that better?

Thank you for your concern my friend. I'm actually looking forward to the end of my life as I know it here in this world. It's tiring pushing a cart around town for the past 41 months and now that I'm not meeting as many new believers as I did the first three years, it has become a little boring.

The reason I asked this question was because God hasn't taught me exactly what day I am to be killed. I do know that it is half of 7 years after a saint begins to preach the gospel to find His believers but I'm not sure if it's according to the way they calculated years 2,000 years ago or they way we keep track of years today. I started on July 24th, 2011 here in Campbell, CA.

God has given me a lot of time to be with my family this past six weeks so it's been a great winter getting to know my grandchildren better.