Faith

[Dean]

Faith is often used to describe the "irrationality" behind religous ideas... I've argued this at RA a few times and Gent argued in this way and in a few others against faith... I find this all pretty weird, though, because everything redquires faith.

Faith is, put briefly, the bridge between what we know and what we expect, and we build this bridge when the idea is useful and logical, but we don't know that it is certainly true.

Every bit of knowledge requires faith. We don't know 100%, for instance, that gravity exists - but I have never seen anything that defys that notion, and assuming anyone else who reads this has had similar experience, it is 99.99999% logical - for it, the only bit of faith required is accepting our own psychological limitations, and that ANYTHING is possible - but it's pretty clear that gravity does exist.

Examples------

There are things which require a bit more faith but are also rooted clearly in science... for instance, either side on the Global Warming debate considering the politization of it and the science used for and against the concept. Of course, the more you know of science, the fields involved, and the data recovered so far, the less faith necessary, perhaps elevating the fact - or falsity - of Global Warming to one of those things almost perfectly clear, still conidering that elusive bit of .0001% that must be filled in by faith - in our scientific instruments, method, and of course mind.

Faith in a Communist society - that is the final stage of the revolution - is a much greater form of faith. The "bridge" is much longer, because we are studying sociology today to determine that a proletarian revolution will occur, and that it will create an organization that eventually results in a classless society. The faith involved is greater because it assumes that a great many post-revolutionary stages that we do not even know how to describe will result in a communist society.

But there is a difference with this last form of faith... it takes into account, at least more, that it is a positive development that we believe in or have faith in. This new society requires faith, because it is in humans themselves that the new society exists... If as a whole we do not believe that we can do it, it will fail; that is in fact why industrialized countries have refused communist ideology, they believe it will fail because they have been taught that and the USSR seems a proof to them.

---------------

Faith is a psychological concept, and I've described the more reasonable ways in which it can be used, as wel as its basic functions...obviously, there is irrational faith, such as a belief in god, which does not take into account what is clear in the world, but instead what was made clear by authorities since our childhoods. But ignoring the usefulness and the fact of faith in the sciences and communist ideology is not a logical response to this.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Dean, I understand what you're saying here - Faith is necessary to get from 99 percent sure to direct knowledge, but I have a couple of problems with it.

A. You say that this "bridge" gets us from what are basically extreme probabilities to certainties. How does this actually happen, in reality? If facts only get us to 99.9 percent sure, then how can we suddenly jump into total knowledge? It seems to me that nothing has actually changed in reality, we're just claiming to know something for certain now. There's definitely a difference between genuine knowledge and claimed knowledge. All you can get with faith, since it is not actually based on anything itself, is claimed knowledge.

B. In light of that, what is wrong with being content to say "I am almost certain that gravity is real? (I won't go into how it isn't literally real, and is only a way to describe the behaviour of bodies in spacetime). I personally think it's okay to accept that we're stuck with extreme probability as opposed to complete knowledge.

-Alex

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 11:04 am
There's definitely a difference between genuine knowledge and claimed knowledge. All you can get with faith, since it is not actually based on anything itself, is claimed knowledge.
No, with it, all you can claim is claimed knowledge. There is certainly knowledge that is fact, but the .0001% of uncertainty takes away our capability to fully know it.


B. In light of that, what is wrong with being content to say "I am almost certain that gravity is real? (I won't go into how it isn't literally real, and is only a way to describe the behaviour of bodies in spacetime). I personally think it's okay to accept that we're stuck with extreme probability as opposed to complete knowledge.
It is long - winded and unnecessary. Why not just say "God doesn't exist" since it's pretty clear that the concept of God is fictitous?

We also have to have knowledge with which to work. If we are stuck on the problem of being fully certain with every concept, that is, we concern ourselves with the lack of proof at each turn, we cannot effectively do what we must do in the world... in other words, if we do not have faith in what we set our lives' work to, in my case it would be bettering the world, I cannot affect the world as well as I could if I had faith.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

But this is my point - Why do you so crave that absolute certainty? For practical purposes, I do live my life as if gods definitely aren't real and my feet are definitely going to stay on the ground, but if challenged, it's okay to admit that I'm just going on an absurdly extreme probability.

The leap of faith is not necessary, and has no actual grounds, other than that it is pragmatic, and perhaps gives us ease of mind. This does not affect the truth or falsehood of anything.

-Alex

[Publius]

Faith is often used to describe the "irrationality" behind religous ideas... I've argued this at RA a few times and Gent argued in this way and in a few others against faith... I find this all pretty weird, though, because everything redquires faith.

Valid deductive arguments do not require faith.



Faith is, put briefly, the bridge between what we know and what we expect, and we build this bridge when the idea is useful and logical, but we don't know that it is certainly true.

Yes. Faith is what you have when you don't have evidence. And since it's a practical impossibility to gather all available evidence for all situations, 'faith' might sometimes be used to fill in the remaining space.



Every bit of knowledge requires faith.

False. Knowledge derived from deductive logic does not require faith.



We don't know 100%, for instance, that gravity exists - but I have never seen anything that defys that notion, and assuming anyone else who reads this has had similar experience, it is 99.99999% logical - for it, the only bit of faith required is accepting our own psychological limitations, and that ANYTHING is possible - but it's pretty clear that gravity does exist.

I don't have faith that gravity exists, I take it on evidence. Gravity is one of the single most studied phenomena in existence.

Absolutely no faith is required to believe in gravity, only evidence. If there's enough evidence, you'll believe it.



Examples------

There are things which require a bit more faith but are also rooted clearly in science... for instance, either side on the Global Warming debate considering the politization of it and the science used for and against the concept. Of course, the more you know of science, the fields involved, and the data recovered so far, the less faith necessary, perhaps elevating the fact - or falsity - of Global Warming to one of those things almost perfectly clear, still conidering that elusive bit of .0001% that must be filled in by faith - in our scientific instruments, method, and of course mind.

Either the evidence for Global Warming is sufficient to convince you it's happening or it isn't. Where does faith enter into it?

Why do you need faith to believe that the earth is getting warmer when you have evidence? What does faith got to do with it?

Faith is what you have when you don't have evidence, not what you have when you have mounds of it.



Faith in a Communist society - that is the final stage of the revolution - is a much greater form of faith. The "bridge" is much longer, because we are studying sociology today to determine that a proletarian revolution will occur, and that it will create an organization that eventually results in a classless society. The faith involved is greater because it assumes that a great many post-revolutionary stages that we do not even know how to describe will result in a communist society.

But there is a difference with this last form of faith... it takes into account, at least more, that it is a positive development that we believe in or have faith in. This new society requires faith, because it is in humans themselves that the new society exists... If as a whole we do not believe that we can do it, it will fail; that is in fact why industrialized countries have refused communist ideology, they believe it will fail because they have been taught that and the USSR seems a proof to them.

You have very little evidence, compared to the law of gravity and the theory of global warming, that a future communist society would solve the problems of production.

Hence faith.



---------------

Faith is a psychological concept, and I've described the more reasonable ways in which it can be used,

No you haven't.

You've just chosen some (mostly poor) examples where some faith is necessary. Faith is what you have when you don't have evidence.



as wel as its basic functions...obviously, there is irrational faith, such as a belief in god, which does not take into account what is clear in the world, but instead what was made clear by authorities since our childhoods.

All faith is irrational because it is belief without evidence.


But ignoring the usefulness and the fact of faith in the sciences and communist ideology is not a logical response to this.

There is nothing useful about faith because there is nothing useful about lacking evidence for a proposition. Now faith might be necessary because evidence for a particular proposition is lacking, but that doesn't mean faith is useful. Faith is ignorance, and ignorance is never useful.

Try this as an aid: every time you see the word 'faith', substitute 'ignorance'. That'll tell what you role 'faith' serves.

[Publius]

Dean, I understand what you're saying here - Faith is necessary to get from 99 percent sure to direct knowledge, but I have a couple of problems with it.


Faith can never give you knowledge of anything, because knowledge and faith are antithetical.

If you had knowledge, you wouldn't need faith, would you?

If you're 99% sure, then you're 1% unsure. Making that 1% "faith" doesn't automatically make you sure, and if it does, that's a mistaken assuredness.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Publius:


If facts only get us to 99.9 percent sure, then how can we suddenly jump into total knowledge? It seems to me that nothing has actually changed in reality, we're just claiming to know something for certain now. There's definitely a difference between genuine knowledge and claimed knowledge. All you can get with faith, since it is not actually based on anything itself, is claimed knowledge.

I agree with you. You should've read on, silly. :)

-Alex

[Publius]

It is long - winded and unnecessary. Why not just say "God doesn't exist" since it's pretty clear that the concept of God is fictitous?

Because you don't have the requisite evidence to make that statement.



We also have to have knowledge with which to work.

Yes. But we don't have to have complete knowledge. In fact, complete knowledge would very likely get in the way.


If we are stuck on the problem of being fully certain with every concept,
that is, we concern ourselves with the lack of proof at each turn, we cannot effectively do what we must do in the world... in other words,

... in other words, you have to pretend like you know things that you do not in fact know. And you call this faith, and you ask people to accept the idea.



if we do not have faith in what we set our lives' work to, in my case it would be bettering the world, I cannot affect the world as well as I could if I had faith.

So if you don't pretend that you're bettering the world, you can't do it as well as if you didn't pretend?

That's not a fact to be proud of.

Why can't just do something without pretending to be certain where no such certainty can exist? What's the problem in just admitting your ignorance?

[Publius]

I agree with you. You should've read on, silly. :)

-Alex

I noticed you made the same point as me as I was critiquing his post. Once I get into Philosophy mode, I cannot be stopped. I'm like a circular saw with a shirt sleeve caught in it.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:34 pm
Valid deductive arguments do not require faith.

...

Yes. Faith is what you have when you don't have evidence. And since it's a practical impossibility to gather all available evidence for all situations, 'faith' might sometimes be used to fill in the remaining space.

...

... in other words, you have to pretend like you know things that you do not in fact know. And you call this faith, and you ask people to accept the idea.

...

False. Knowledge derived from deductive logic does not require faith.
Because you don't have the requisite evidence to make that statement.
You make a lot of comments like this, all addressable in a simple way.

It seems strange to me, as I pointed out before, that an idea so simple is so foreign, and I'm convinced that it is our social upbringing - obsession with the seperation of philosophy and science, religion and the world, that fosters ignorance of such a basic psychological force.

The basis for this seems that you think "deductive logic," what is really just human consideration / study of the world, rules out the need for faith. You think that faith is only useful for beliefs that have no basis in fact - in other words, the less something has of evidence, the less use faith is, and eventually it disappears. But there is a problem here, and that is that you must have faith in your own rationality, sanity, intelligence and deductive skills to even accept that your perception of gravity is real in any way. You may not think about it each time you go out the door and expect not to fly outside of the pull of earth, but it is still there as the basis for anything else you think - you must have faith in yourself before you can have faith in your ideas, and since that is a prerequisite for the acceptance of gravity, it is a part of that faith in gravity; it makes up a part of the evidence you collect and accept.

You say everything that doesn't require faith is ascertained by deductible logic, as if to imply that faith must ignore logic, and that things which require faith have no basis in logic. So, since everything takes deductive logic, and all knowledge, ideas, etc. of the world are derived from this, your argument really claims that no idea requires faith. At the same time, your argument means that logic is inaccessible to any ideas of changing the world.

Your problem is that you claim a certain level of evidence is required to alleviate the need for faith - that means that faith is not a way of thinking or mechanism of mental activity, but an empirical threshold at which something can be called a "product of faith." Where does this threshold lay? 50%? 90%? 10%? How do you claim the degree of worth for given variables to fact - does our acceptance of our own mind as rational constitute 50% required evidence? 1%?

People deduct their knowledge of God from their expereinces in the world. It may be a big leap, sure, but the deduction "I was told He exists -> I believe He is" is still a deduction based on facts. The facts on most science, as they relate to people in general, is the exact same nature - one was told by others - teachers, news, studies - that such scientific phenomena exists. Obviously, our faith in the scientific community, the media, teachers, is necessary to accept the ideas as fact. They are part of the evidence. The scientist himself must trust the manufacturer of his tools, their integrity, usefulness and accuracy, his own capabilities as a scientist, before accepting his findings as fact.



So if you don't pretend that you're bettering the world, you can't do it as well as if you didn't pretend?

That's not a fact to be proud of.

Why can't just do something without pretending to be certain where no such certainty can exist? What's the problem in just admitting your ignorance?

I do admit my ignorace. That is what the recognition of faith is. And it makes it all the more clear how important it is to recognize faith. One needn't point it out in all steps of life, but when it pertains to issues pertinent to the changes in the world in particular, one must have ideas rational enough to be conceivable by society, and at the same time faith that it is possible.

Faith can clearly be blind, as in the case of God. But it is not necessarily. If I say "I have faith in my girlfriend," this demonstrates my knowledge of her - if I am indeed not blind - and my trust in what she will do tomorrow, namely, that she will not cheat on me. Why should I know this? People are fickle and may change their relations easily. I should have faith in her, however, because that faith is necessary to foster a relationship in which she will not cheat on me. If I do not have faith in her fidelity, I will not act like she will be true to me. If this is important to our relationship, but I don't expect its presence I will not act as if we will work; this will encourage a relationship in which she, also, has no concern for it - after all, fidelity would be unattainable as any meaningful relation even if we died 50 years later never having cheated. But if, on the other hand, I have faith that she will be true, still knowing that I am never certain, I can treat her as a true girlfriend. I can put it behind me, just like gravity or atheism.

My point in directing the relevance of faith is to show how we must act as if we can be something if we really care to achieve that kind of being. It is important because faith is used by all of us; many people choose to isolate certain things and pretend that they use it only for them - the pious may choose God, actuation of Jesus' morals... the scientist may choose certain theories so that he can delve more deeply into their subtleties. The pshilosopher tends to recognise it in all things, if not its relevance. But the fact of faith - that leap we take to make certain that we can be something, that we can know something - is irrefutable as a basic human mechanism. Further, the fact of its worth - to society's future, to the confidence of the individual, is also irrevocable.

Faith must be recognized, however, and not as an isolated occurance, but in its true nature as a universal part of every idea, to really see the world. We have to accept the contingency of our knowledge being wrong to be able to change our beliefs; if we pretend that we have no psychological barriers, we will not see when we assume things about something based on prejudices, and in further ignoring this potential for inobjectivity we will - and do - go further down paths of assumptions, ending up with incredible ideas that we often know are wrong.

But we cannot give these ideas up, because they are the logical conclusion of other knowledge that forms trees of logic... in short, the less we see the possibility of being wrong, especially in fields which are sociological, the more likely we are to build up interwoven ideologies that require too much "giving up" of our own trusted fact. The recognition of faith, as it really is, is the recognition of that which can make us idolatrous; the ignorance of the fact of faith is the ability - and usually the desire - to accept extraordinary and illogical ideas dogmatically as fact.

[Publius]

The basis for this seems that you think "deductive logic," what is really just human consideration / study of the world, rules out the need for faith.

It does.

Do you know what deductive logic is?

Tell me where 'faith' enters into this:

If P then Q
P
therefore, Q

or

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Socrates is mortal



You think that faith is only useful for beliefs that have no basis in fact - in other words, the less something has of evidence, the less use faith is, and eventually it disappears. But there is a problem here, and that is that you must have faith in your own rationality, sanity, intelligence and deductive skills to even accept that your perception of gravity is real in any way.

It's impossible to deny the reality of your experiences. "I think therefore I am." My rationality, sanity, and intelligence are not things to be believed by me, they are what I believe things through.

First of all, it's incoherent to think yourself incapable of logic, of rationality, of sanity, or of intelligence, because it requires those things to make a valid determination. So we then that assuming we are sane, rational, and intelligent is the only logically valid option open to us. Even if we had a rational reason to believe that we had no rationality, it would STILL be irrational for us to believe that, because the idea is self-defeating.

So my rationality, sanity, intelligence, and deductive skills are not things that I can choose to believe, they are things that are required for me to believe anything at all, even the validity of 'faith'. If you were incapable of reasoning, how could you even construct a valid argument for the use of faith? You couldn't. So in order to prove faith, you have presuppose rationality! In other words, you have it completely backwards. It's rationality that must come before faith, because without rationality, how could even argue to yourself that faith is necessary? Without rationality, how could know that faith meant 'faith' and not 'not faith'?

No, dismissing your internal mental faculties is not an option, and neither is proving them. In a very real sense, they are all that exists, in addition to your perception. Without them, you wouldn't have any sense of self at all, and you certainly wouldn't be able to construct an argument for faith, which is necessary in order to believe faith.



You may not think about it each time you go out the door and expect not to fly outside of the pull of earth, but it is still there as the basis for anything else you think - you must have faith in yourself before you can have faith in your ideas, and since that is a prerequisite for the acceptance of gravity, it is a part of that faith in gravity; it makes up a part of the evidence you collect and accept.

It's incoherent to have faith in yourself because you ARE yourself. Think of it like this: you don't HAVE reason, logic, rationality, or intelligence, you ARE reason, logic, rationality, and intelligence. Those are the processes by which your brain functions and manipulates ideas. If you say that these processes are flawed, you undermine your very own self, and thus invalidate anything you might say.



You say everything that doesn't require faith is ascertained by deductible logic, as if to imply that faith must ignore logic, and that things which require faith have no basis in logic. So, since everything takes deductive logic, and all knowledge, ideas, etc. of the world are derived from this, your argument really claims that no idea requires faith. At the same time, your argument means that logic is inaccessible to any ideas of changing the world.

Not quite true. There are two types of logic, deductive and inductive. Deductive logic is what follows directly from a premise, say,

Socrates is a man
Men are mortal
Socrates is mortal

Inductive logic is logic that follows from previous cases, but not from a set of principals but instead follows from a number of real-world cases. So for example

Every time I have pushed on my gas pedal, my car has moved, therefore if I push on my gas pedal, my car will move.

The difference is that deductive arguments are are always valid (not true) if their premises are true and the conclusion follows. Inductive arguments are not necessarily true. It might be the case that your car is out of gas, for example.

Now inductive logic does require something that you might call 'faith', because the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises. This is known as the problem of induction, and it's as of yet unsolved, even with the 'faith' argument. The problem is, faith doesn't 'solve' anything, because all it means is that your ignorant of something, and yet you suppose it anyway.



Your problem is that you claim a certain level of evidence is required to alleviate the need for faith - that means that faith is not a way of thinking or mechanism of mental activity, but an empirical threshold at which something can be called a "product of faith." Where does this threshold lay? 50%? 90%? 10%? How do you claim the degree of worth for given variables to fact - does our acceptance of our own mind as rational constitute 50% required evidence? 1%?

No, that's not what I claim. I claim that 'faith' is merely another word for ignorance. And if your ignorant of something, then just admit it.

To quote Wittgenstein, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." So if you know, for example, that there's a 60% chance of X occurring, what purpose does 'faith' have? All you do with 'faith' is say "Well, there's a 40% chance that this won't happen, but I'll ignore it and pretend like I'm certain it will happen." That's faith. Now tell me that isn't delusional and wrong.

Why not simply state the facts of what you do know: that there's a 60% chance of X occurring a 40% chance of it not occurring? That's the truth. And it doesn't require any 'faith' at all, because faith is just the presumption of knowing something you cannot know.

Your own examples prove this. You're telling me it's better to pretend to know something (and call it 'faith') than to just admit that you're only partially right. I'm going to deny that every time.



People deduct their knowledge of God from their expereinces in the world.

False. Do not make this error. Deductive logic follows from logical premises, inductive arguments follow from experience in the world.

The correct way to say this is "people induct their knowledge of God from their experiences."



It may be a big leap, sure, but the deduction "I was told He exists -> I believe He is" is still a deduction based on facts.

No it isn't.

It's an inductive argument. It's inductive because it does not follow from a deductive premise but an inductive one. "I was told that he exists" is an inductive premise, based on what one person told you.



The facts on most science, as they relate to people in general, is the exact same nature - one was told by others - teachers, news, studies - that such scientific phenomena exists.

Science is based on induction, that's true.


Obviously, our faith in the scientific community, the media, teachers, is necessary to accept the ideas as fact.

Not faith, inductive logic.

We have inductive reasons to suppose they are correct. And to the extent that they could be incorrect, we must admit they are incorrect.

Tell me which makes more sense to believe:

My Teacher has a 50% chance of telling me a correct fact, so I'll believe everything she says somewhat, and doubt it somewhat.

Or, my teacher has a 50% chance of telling me a correct fact, so I'll believe anything she says and call it faith.

You're sitting at computer trying to tell me that the second option makes more sense than the first, and I'm not buying it.

Faith is by definition pretending to know what you do not or cannot know. If it were anything else, it would not be faith. Now why do I need this delusion?



They are part of the evidence. The scientist himself must trust the manufacturer of his tools, their integrity, usefulness and accuracy, his own capabilities as a scientist, before accepting his findings as fact.

Yes, he must trust them, but he must not have faith in them.

If he trusts them, that means he uses them until he realizes they are untrustworthy. If he has faith in them, he uses them no matter what crazy results they give because faith is belief without evidence.

"Yes, this equipment tells me that the speed of light is 9 miles an hour, but since I have faith in my equipment, I'll believe it."

That's what faith is. Belief without evidence of any kind. If you have evidence, it isn't faith. It's logic. Inductive logic maybe, but still logic.



I do admit my ignorace. That is what the recognition of faith is. And it makes it all the more clear how important it is to recognize faith. One needn't point it out in all steps of life, but when it pertains to issues pertinent to the changes in the world in particular, one must have ideas rational enough to be conceivable by society, and at the same time faith that it is possible.

Faith can clearly be blind, as in the case of God. But it is not necessarily. If I say "I have faith in my girlfriend," this demonstrates my knowledge of her - if I am indeed not blind - and my trust in what she will do tomorrow, namely, that she will not cheat on me. Why should I know this? People are fickle and may change their relations easily. I should have faith in her, however, because that faith is necessary to foster a relationship in which she will not cheat on me. If I do not have faith in her fidelity, I will not act like she will be true to me. If this is important to our relationship, but I don't expect its presence I will not act as if we will work; this will encourage a relationship in which she, also, has no concern for it - after all, fidelity would be unattainable as any meaningful relation even if we died 50 years later never having cheated. But if, on the other hand, I have faith that she will be true, still knowing that I am never certain, I can treat her as a true girlfriend. I can put it behind me, just like gravity or atheism.

Yes, and if you KNEW your girlfriend wouldn't cheat on you, you wouldn't need to have faith in her, would you?

Faith, in this case, is saying "There's actually a pretty decent chance my girlfriend will cheat on me, but I'll pretend like this isn't the case to make myself feel better." Now that might be necessary in order to stay emotionally sane, but it isn't necessarily a valid belief.



My point in directing the relevance of faith is to show how we must act as if we can be something if we really care to achieve that kind of being. It is important because faith is used by all of us; many people choose to isolate certain things and pretend that they use it only for them - the pious may choose God, actuation of Jesus' morals... the scientist may choose certain theories so that he can delve more deeply into their subtleties. The pshilosopher tends to recognise it in all things, if not its relevance. But the fact of faith - that leap we take to make certain that we can be something, that we can know something - is irrefutable as a basic human mechanism. Further, the fact of its worth - to society's future, to the confidence of the individual, is also irrevocable.

Faith must be recognized, however, and not as an isolated occurance, but in its true nature as a universal part of every idea, to really see the world. We have to accept the contingency of our knowledge being wrong to be able to change our beliefs; if we pretend that we have no psychological barriers, we will not see when we assume things about something based on prejudices, and in further ignoring this potential for inobjectivity we will - and do - go further down paths of assumptions, ending up with incredible ideas that we often know are wrong.

But we cannot give these ideas up, because they are the logical conclusion of other knowledge that forms trees of logic... in short, the less we see the possibility of being wrong, especially in fields which are sociological, the more likely we are to build up interwoven ideologies that require too much "giving up" of our own trusted fact. The recognition of faith, as it really is, is the recognition of that which can make us idolatrous; the ignorance of the fact of faith is the ability - and usually the desire - to accept extraordinary and illogical ideas dogmatically as fact.

The recognition of faith is the recognition that we are very good at deluding ourselves.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 02:27 pm
It does.

Do you know what deductive logic is?

Tell me where 'faith' enters into this:

If P then Q
P
therefore, Q

or

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Socrates is mortal
I used to as it is literally interpretted, not in regards to logical theory.

Deducing something is simply coming to that conclusion... so logic that is deductive is simply the logic that applies to deduction of a conclusion - that is, all of our sensuous perception that translates into ideas. If it conforms to the models above as a certain type of logic, you need to recognize that that is just a distinction between methods of logic, so if I don't think of / recognize the jargon at the time I am not going to understand what you are trying to say. That's why I don't use terms like "marxist" "historical materialism" etc. - it's easier to understand a work if a person speaks in common terms.

Regardless, you have to have faith in the first assumption above (If P then Q) to accept that P leads to Q. Also, 'inductive logic' must be applied when you make the "mortal" point. Until we have fully categorized all that makes up the human, we can't be sure of this from a 'deductively logical' standpoint.


So my rationality, sanity, intelligence, and deductive skills are not things that I can choose to believe, they are things that are required for me to believe anything at all, even the validity of 'faith'. If you were incapable of reasoning, how could you even construct a valid argument for the use of faith? You couldn't. So in order to prove faith, you have presuppose rationality!

First off, one cannot 'prove' anything, except as a certain scientific distinction dealing with the ecientific method. Objectively, proof is impossible if there is any uncertainty, and applying it to non-chemical psychology is simply foolish. But you're right in saying I must trust, have faith in my own capacity to reason to expect to understand faith. That doesn't undermine my argument; it just describes another instance in which faith is necessary.


No, dismissing your internal mental faculties is not an option, and neither is proving them. In a very real sense, they are all that exists, in addition to your perception. Without them, you wouldn't have any sense of self at all, and you certainly wouldn't be able to construct an argument for faith, which is necessary in order to believe faith.
I don't know what "believe faith" means. If that means to recognize the psychological function that faith is in every idea, then yes, you have to confront the concept of faith to understand what it is.

I see you trying to attack my concept of faith, but I don't see you showing a realistic definition for it. What do you think faith is, if it is not belief in the uncertain - that is, everything but my knowledge that I am. (or, for you, your knowledge that you are)?

Do you accept that nothing except the above is certain? If so, you have pointed out that we do not know, and if you choose to have faith in whatever uncertainties there are, based on logical deductions or not, you can say "I know" what you query. If you ignore this, you are utilizing faith anyways - in this case, you'd be having faith that you can know things with certainty.

None of this takes away from my obvious points, and by recognizing that it is "not an option" to not trust your senses you point to an instance where faith is necessary, faith in this instance in something which is completely uncertain. You only have faith in it because it is useful, but in this case its a damn good reason to trust your senses.


No, that's not what I claim. I claim that 'faith' is merely another word for ignorance. And if your ignorant of something, then just admit it.

Faith is a positive statement on something; perhaps you mean that faith is really trust in something we do not know - are ignorant of? We are if nothing else at least somewhat ignorant of everything, because we are not able fully able to shrug off that shred to glacier of uncertainty that is evident in every statement beyond "I am."

If faith to you is just stupidity, ignorance, lack of knowledge, religion, theology, than it is really a meaningless term. I am tryign to ascribe rational meaning to it, and in doing so it is evident that everything must be subject to faith if it is to be accepted.

I, of course, am admitting that I am ignorant of everything beyond my own acceptance of existance. But I add that I have faith in things, and in cases of gravity, mortality, etc. I don't dwell on faith - it's not a major issue. It is more relevant to vaguer things, like communism and god, but if that's how I defined faith I would not have a clear description of it, as you have shown you don't. If I were to instead say "I know nothing" I would be crippled; why focus on that lack of knowledge? Why not use faith to accept that gravity exists? Why not use faith in order to acheive a better society?

You know, it is clear, that nothing is fully certain, by your own admission of psychological problems. It is "not an option" as you put it, not to have faith in your own psyche, but that means that it is also "not an option" to ignore this faith as a part of everything we think. It doesn't mean we have to worry about faith in things which take negligible amounts of faith, but we can't ignore it when defining the term.

[Publius]

Regardless, you have to have faith in the first assumption above (If P then Q) to accept that P leads to Q.

No you don't. It's definitional.


Also, 'inductive logic' must be applied when you make the "mortal" point. Until we have fully categorized all that makes up the human, we can't be sure of this from a 'deductively logical' standpoint.

Good point. But the point is that we simply accept the premise as valid.



First off, one cannot 'prove' anything,

Deductive proof.


except as a certain scientific distinction dealing with the ecientific method. Objectively, proof is impossible if there is any uncertainty, and applying it to non-chemical psychology is simply foolish.

Absolute proof of anything is impossible because absolute proof requires absolute knowledge and to have absolute knowledge of the universe you would need a computer the size of the universe.

But I don't see why this gives us justification to have faith.


But you're right in saying I must trust, have faith in my own capacity to reason to expect to understand faith. That doesn't undermine my argument; it just describes another instance in which faith is necessary.


You've misunderstood me. The point isn't that you must have faith, it's that you can't have faith, because to doubt your own mental faculties is to undermine your own argument, that is, to undermine the validity of your argument for faith.



I don't know what "believe faith" means. If that means to recognize the psychological function that faith is in every idea, then yes, you have to confront the concept of faith to understand what it is.

I see you trying to attack my concept of faith, but I don't see you showing a realistic definition for it. What do you think faith is, if it is not belief in the uncertain - that is, everything but my knowledge that I am. (or, for you, your knowledge that you are)?

Faith is belief without reason.



Do you accept that nothing except the above is certain?

What is 'the above'?


If so, you have pointed out that we do not know, and if you choose to have faith in whatever uncertainties there are, based on logical deductions or not, you can say "I know" what you query. If you ignore this, you are utilizing faith anyways - in this case, you'd be having faith that you can know things with certainty.

As I said, the only way to certainly know something is to have all information about it. And since that is impossible, some amount of doubt must remain.



None of this takes away from my obvious points, and by recognizing that it is "not an option" to not trust your senses you point to an instance where faith is necessary, faith in this instance in something which is completely uncertain. You only have faith in it because it is useful, but in this case its a damn good reason to trust your senses.

Doubting your perception is not an option, because you, in a real sense, ARE your perceptions. And so to doubt your perception is to doubt yourself, and if you doubt yourself, you doubt the arguments you formulate, and if you doubt the arguments you formulate, then you can formulate no argument against the validity of the senses.



Faith is a positive statement on something; perhaps you mean that faith is really trust in something we do not know - are ignorant of? We are if nothing else at least somewhat ignorant of everything, because we are not able fully able to shrug off that shred to glacier of uncertainty that is evident in every statement beyond "I am."

If faith to you is just stupidity, ignorance, lack of knowledge, religion, theology, than it is really a meaningless term. I am tryign to ascribe rational meaning to it, and in doing so it is evident that everything must be subject to faith if it is to be accepted.

I, of course, am admitting that I am ignorant of everything beyond my own acceptance of existance. But I add that I have faith in things, and in cases of gravity, mortality, etc. I don't dwell on faith - it's not a major issue. It is more relevant to vaguer things, like communism and god, but if that's how I defined faith I would not have a clear description of it, as you have shown you don't. If I were to instead say "I know nothing" I would be crippled; why focus on that lack of knowledge? Why not use faith to accept that gravity exists? Why not use faith in order to acheive a better society?

Because you are pretending to have knowledge you do not in fact have.

Why is this so hard for you to accept as wrong?



You know, it is clear, that nothing is fully certain, by your own admission of psychological problems. It is "not an option" as you put it, not to have faith in your own psyche,

That's not what I said.


but that means that it is also "not an option" to ignore this faith as a part of everything we think. It doesn't mean we have to worry about faith in things which take negligible amounts of faith, but we can't ignore it when defining the term.

What does it mean to have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow?

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 01:00 am
Absolute proof of anything is impossible because absolute proof requires absolute knowledge and to have absolute knowledge of the universe you would need a computer the size of the universe.

But I don't see why this gives us justification to have faith.
If there is no proof (you like to apply "absolute" to the term, but unfortunately the term is already an absolute - there is no varying degree of 'proof' as the term is used here) then how can you have knowledge? If you are uncertain of your knowledge, regardless of the degree of uncertainty, you are ignorant of the validity of that knowledge. So, unless you are prepared to say that you are ignorant of everything - save your own existance - but are willing to have faith in very logical judgements, you cannot say that you have any knowledge at all.

I prefer not to be defeatist, and choose to say that I recognize my own shortcomings, my lack of certainty, but I will have faith in my mental powers, many scientists, sociology, etc.


Doubting your perception is not an option, because you, in a real sense, ARE your perceptions. And so to doubt your perception is to doubt yourself, and if you doubt yourself, you doubt the arguments you formulate, and if you doubt the arguments you formulate, then you can formulate no argument against the validity of the senses.

So? I'm not doubting myself; I'm accepting that I'm flawed. there's a huge difference. I am accepting that my mind will not comprehend everything clearly, and that often I will make mistakes in my perception of reality. That doesn't make me doubt my senses, it simply makes me recognize that I am falliable, but only in having faith in my ideas can I make conclusions. If I can't make conclusions, I'm trapped in obsessing over my own falliability. That is precisely why faith in oneself is necessary. If you haven't noticed yet, a lot of people have no faith in themselves and so choose to follow leaders, false ideals, things that seem to be clearly wrong to them. If people actively recognize their own falliability, it is easier to have faith in oneself because they have a relationship with the concept of being wrong; the more you alienate yourself from understanding how you may be wrong, the easier it is to become dogmatically opposed to your own ideas.


Faith is belief without reason.

People don't have reason to believe in God? That is illogical. Everything has a reason, and every belief is defended with reasoning, objectively logical or not. If you mean reason that is "logical," I would be surprised to see a realistic definition of 'logic' that excludes the obvious fact that all ideas have logic behind them. It still seems that to you, faith is whatever you deem to be excessively ignorant - a vague definition that strips the term of its meaning.

Your problem with your entire argument against mine is that you do not have a real definition of faith that counters mine. It cannot be ignorance. Faith has ignorance, because to have faith - or any reasonable idea at all - you must be uncertain of your idea to some degree. Faith relates to ignorance, and maybe you can make a more reasonable deduction as to how it does than the one I've made, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Does faith, for you, necessitate superstitous or "religious" beliefs? If so, what is the definition for that? "Supernatural" really just means untrue.

All of your attacks on my concept do not seem to recognize the concept at all. You repeatedly make points against it which say "it's unreasonable to not trust x or y" or "it's unreasonable to trust a or b" and the following logic, without missing the point: we cannot trust anything fully, save perhaps our own existance. It may be good to have faith in thing like yourself, those you are in a relationship with, but that doesn't make it certain.

Faith to me seems to accept ignorance to some degree in all fields; we are not perfect, in other words. To you faith is a dangerous concept because you are afraid of losing that fragile distinction between what you accept as conceivable and what you oppose; in other words, your concept of faith is fluid and applicable only to ideas you dislike and apply that evil label "ignorance" to; me, I accept that I am not perfect.

Please, if we are to go any further you must not try to undermine my concept of faith without offering a legitimate, concrete alternative definition. It is illogical - if my definition is wrong and you cannot offer one, you should only be able to assume that you have no concept of the word, or that the word is meaningless.

[Publius]

If there is no proof (you like to apply "absolute" to the term, but unfortunately the term is already an absolute - there is no varying degree of 'proof' as the term is used here) then how can you have knowledge?

There are degrees of proof. Say you wanted to prove gravity. You could conduct rough tests of the theory, such as dropping items from a tower, and that would constitute proof of the theory's validity. But given powerful technology you can conduct much finer, more detailed tests. These tests would provide better proof of the theory's validity because they measure the theory to a much finer degree.

And yet both forms of test would constitute proof that gravity is correct.

Are you meaning 'proof' in the logical sense, like a logical (deductive) proof?

Even if that's the case, there still can be some ambiguity because propositions can be of indeterminate validity.



If you are uncertain of your knowledge, regardless of the degree of uncertainty, you are ignorant of the validity of that knowledge.

I can't see how this is more than a tautology: if you are uncertain of your knowledge than you are uncertain of your knowledge.

Well, yeah.



So, unless you are prepared to say that you are ignorant of everything - save your own existance - but are willing to have faith in very logical judgements, you cannot say that you have any knowledge at all.

Nonsense.

Saying "I don't know everything" is the same as saying "I know nothing." I'm saying that we can't ever know everything about a certain subject, topic, idea, or thing. But it doesn't follow from that that we can't know anything.



I prefer not to be defeatist, and choose to say that I recognize my own shortcomings, my lack of certainty, but I will have faith in my mental powers, many scientists, sociology, etc.

I'm not a defeatist, I'm a realist. I'm not saying we can't know anything, merely that we can't know everything. And that ignorance isn't damning. It's just a fact of life.



So? I'm not doubting myself; I'm accepting that I'm flawed. there's a huge difference.

Fair enough. I must admit the difference isn't quite huge, but I think I can accept it.



I am accepting that my mind will not comprehend everything clearly, and that often I will make mistakes in my perception of reality. That doesn't make me doubt my senses, it simply makes me recognize that I am falliable, but only in having faith in my ideas can I make conclusions.

This does not follow.

You do not need to have faith in your ideas to make conclusions. Why would you think that? What's logically fallacioius about saying "I'm only 98.5% sure that I left my car keys in the kitchen"? Why must you say "I HAVE ABSOLUTE FAITH THAT MY CAR KEYS ARE IN THE KITCHEN!"

Are you telling me you have some impulsion that makes it impossible for you to deal with probability or uncertainty? Why can you not draw a conclusion on limited information?



If I can't make conclusions, I'm trapped in obsessing over my own falliability.

Why? What point is there in obsessing over something that cannot be changed, pre-empted or even known?



That is precisely why faith in oneself is necessary. If you haven't noticed yet, a lot of people have no faith in themselves and so choose to follow leaders, false ideals, things that seem to be clearly wrong to them.

I think we mean very different things when we say faith...


If people actively recognize their own falliability, it is easier to have faith in oneself because they have a relationship with the concept of being wrong; the more you alienate yourself from understanding how you may be wrong, the easier it is to become dogmatically opposed to your own ideas.

How is admitting that you are possibly wrong about everything dogmatic?



People don't have reason to believe in God? That is illogical.

You've equivocating on what the term 'reason' means.

"A reason" is not "reason." "Reason" in this sense means "logic." Substitute out the word 'reason' for the word 'logic' if you must.

If people had reason to believe in God, they wouldn't need to use 'faith', now would they? They could simply list their reasons, if they had them, which they very often don't.



Everything has a reason, and every belief is defended with reasoning, objectively logical or not.. If you mean reason that is "logical," I would be surprised to see a realistic definition of 'logic' that excludes the obvious fact that all ideas have logic behind them.

2 + -infinity = My House Boat and a Green idea that is not Green and is Red



It still seems that to you, faith is whatever you deem to be excessively ignorant - a vague definition that strips the term of its meaning.

How can faith be anything other than the belief without a logical reason? If you have a logical reason to believe in something, you don't need faith, do you?

What else could the term POSSIBLY mean? I really want to know.



Your problem with your entire argument against mine is that you do not have a real definition of faith that counters mine. It cannot be ignorance.

It cannot be anything else. You certainly haven't made a case for it being anything else.



Faith has ignorance, because to have faith - or any reasonable idea at all - you must be uncertain of your idea to some degree.

So to have a reasonable idea you must be ignorant?

Please explain this logic to me.


Faith relates to ignorance, and maybe you can make a more reasonable deduction as to how it does than the one I've made, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Does faith, for you, necessitate superstitous or "religious" beliefs? If so, what is the definition for that? "Supernatural" really just means untrue.

Supernatural means 'beyond natural'.

Faith means believe without reason. Belief in anything without reason.

I like to think in dichotomies. It simplifies things. So to me, you can believe in things one of two ways: with logic (or reason, or evidence, etc) or with faith.

The first is based on knowledge you have, the second is based on knowledge you lack.



All of your attacks on my concept do not seem to recognize the concept at all. You repeatedly make points against it which say "it's unreasonable to not trust x or y" or "it's unreasonable to trust a or b" and the following logic, without missing the point: we cannot trust anything fully, save perhaps our own existance. It may be good to have faith in thing like yourself, those you are in a relationship with, but that doesn't make it certain.

What you don't understand is that faith just isn't a useful concept.

All you're saying is that since we don't know everything, we need faith to fill in the gaps. And I'm just denying that. I know exactly what you mean, but you've provided NO logical reason why it is that we need faith. It doesn't accomplish anything. It can't.



Faith to me seems to accept ignorance to some degree in all fields; we are not perfect, in other words.

You don't need faith to accept ignorance.



To you faith is a dangerous concept because you are afraid of losing that fragile distinction between what you accept as conceivable and what you oppose;

Yes. The concept of faith is dangerous because it allows everything. It must allow everything because, after all, we can't know everything.



in other words, youer concept of faith is fluid and applicable only to idas you dislike and apply that evil label "ignorance" to; me, I accept that I am not perfect.

Not necessarily. I think love is based on faith, to a large degree. That doesn't mean I dislike love, though I do acknowledge that it's often illogical, which is what makes it intriguing.



Please, if we are to go any further you must not try to undermine my concept of faith without offering a legitimate, concrete alternative definition.

Belief without logic. Or evidence. Or reason.


It is illogical - if my definition is wrong and you cannot offer one, you should only be able to assume that you have no concept of the word, or that the word is meaningless.

Belief without logic. Or evidence. Or reason.

[Rawthentic]

There is no such thing as "God", so get over it.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 10, 2007 03:00 am
There is no such thing as "God", so get over it.
So? This is about psychology, I just put it in the religion section because of how the term is treated here.

[Rawthentic]

Oh oops. Either way.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 02:56 am
There are degrees of proof. Say you wanted to prove gravity. You could conduct rough tests of the theory, such as dropping items from a tower, and that would constitute proof of the theory's validity. But given powerful technology you can conduct much finer, more detailed tests. These tests would provide better proof of the theory's validity because they measure the theory to a much finer degree.

And yet both forms of test would constitute proof that gravity is correct.

Are you meaning 'proof' in the logical sense, like a logical (deductive) proof?

Even if that's the case, there still can be some ambiguity because propositions can be of indeterminate validity.
That doesn't change that proof is an absolute. Unless you refer purely to testable, scientific statements and fields, proof refers to a statement being conclusive. The problem is that nothing is truly conclusive.


How is admitting that you are possibly wrong about everything dogmatic?
Read again.


"A reason" is not "reason." "Reason" in this sense means "logic." Substitute out the word 'reason' for the word 'logic' if you must.

If people had reason to believe in God, they wouldn't need to use 'faith', now would they? They could simply list their reasons, if they had them, which they very often don't.
A reason is the fruition of the capabilities of reason in a given individual. All things come from logic - even if they are not true, the ideas do not come from nothing. They are logical conclusions of the mind, be they true or not.

Your problem is that you assume faith is just "unreasonable belief." You ignore that reasonability is subjective. You ignore that reason is not only subjective, but also that ideas are always mixed with actual empirical fact, human interest in truth and in many other things. "Unreasonable belief" is a meaningless point.

You ignore where the term has been used - time and time again - to refer to things that have good reason to be true, but also need more of a push to allow the human element to achieve things - i.e., psychological questions, the betterment of society. If you think that having trust (aka faith) that you can do something that is revolutionary is not necessary for you to do it, you must never have studied psychology.

But that is what the problem here is, really. You think you can dull everything down to a pretty unrealistic dichotomy, the logical and illogical, the right and wrong, an endless, cold, inhuman row of 0s and 1s. That's no doubt why you were a libertarian: you are autistic, maybe not excessively like many of my friends, but certainly in how you know of people. You extract and make enemy all that is human in any issue... you cannot bear to face your own humanness or the fact that people are more than mechanical "actors" in an economic playing field. This is the most dangerous thing to the future of mankind, and it's sad to see how prevalent it is in todays culture.

It's not that you can't understand what I say on a logical level; it's that on a deeper level it would destroy your cold, mechanical view of the world and its inhabitants to discuss things as if they were social. I don't feel compelled to continue this debate, not because I'm shying away, indeed I've discussed this exact issue and read about it a lot and I enjoy hearing what philosophers and other leftists have to say of it. It's because your manner of argument is so disgustingly liek that of other libertarians I've known, the objectification of man, the hatred for discussion on a humanist level, that I quite literally find myself frightened by the things you say. Not for me, but for the future, and especially you.

Have fun.

[Publius]

I'm not responding to that bullshit. You can believe what you want about me and this discussion, but don't condescend to me like that. You're not much of a representative for 'humanist' values; in fact, you seem to me like something of a presumptuous prick, trying to tell me how to think and live and diagnose my social attitudes. You're not Sigmund Freud and you're not Carl Jung.

And no, I wasn't happy with the way the debate went either, and you don't even understand why, can't understand why, because you've already judged me and my position. Hint: I'm very unsure about the premise I'm defending.

But I have no desire to discuss this with you anymore either.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 02:26 pm
I'm very unsure about the premise I'm defending.
That was what I figured it was. It's no surprise you wouldn't admit it, but you did have a lot of ways to defend that premise, which made the discussion a joke.

I haven't "already judged" you and your position, mainly because there is little to judge by the way of your position. As for you, I can hardly judge you as a person except in vague categorization of the people I've met online that talk similarly to you. I can only judge what I see on the screen. I do remember you from awhile ago when you posted here, though, so I have more to go on that just this discussion.

Maybe you should be more open in discussion, instead of brazenly attacking things as you did this time. It will probably do more to analyze the subject more deeply, considering that instead of saying I understand the concept of faith you refer to but I think it is _____ you would instead say "that concept is illogical because it does not confrom to my concept of logic as simply antithetical to faith."

EDIT: I also realize I could have done somethign more to try to analyze your words and try to see why you refused to respond to my ideas as a whole and instead chose to pick at things which were irrelevant to the point. Maybe our intellectual culture is blinder than I think on understainding words and their significance, especially the made-up line between religion and science, because you're not the first person to take it out of it's relevant field - psychology. I hope you sincerely didn't understand what I was saying, because one day someone may say the exact same things to you with diffferent words and I hope that you understand more clearly.

Regardless, I apologise if I offended you and I hope we can put this stubbornness behind us.

[Publius]

That was what I figured it was. It's no surprise you wouldn't admit it, but you did have a lot of ways to defend that premise, which made the discussion a joke.

I usually wait for people to show the errors in my arguments. My original premise was that faith is always mistaken. I think that's probably an overstatement, though I still think it's essentially correct.

You have to understand, when I hear people talking about 'the necessity of faith' I'm usually responding to some religious nut who thinks science and faith are 'separate but equal' or some such nonsense. Surely you aren't one of them?

Also, I made many poor arguments for my position. I probably could have made a much better go at it.



I haven't "already judged" you and your position, mainly because there is little to judge by the way of your position. As for you, I can hardly judge you as a person except in vague categorization of the people I've met online that talk similarly to you. I can only judge what I see on the screen. I do remember you from awhile ago when you posted here, though, so I have more to go on that just this discussion.

Maybe you should be more open in discussion, instead of brazenly attacking things as you did this time. It will probably do more to analyze the subject more deeply, considering that instead of saying I understand the concept of faith you refer to but I think it is _____ you would instead say "that concept is illogical because it does not confrom to my concept of logic as simply antithetical to faith."

The words I type on the screen are not necessarily indicative of my thoughts. I might argue a position I don't in fact hold simply to see the logical consequences of that belief. Or I might pretend to know more about a subject than I really do in order to learn about it.

That being said, I could find little substance in our discussion. It consisted mostly if you making platitudes about faith and me making irrelevant, tangential, pedantic philosophical points. We did very little actual discussion of the value of faith.



EDIT: I also realize I could have done somethign more to try to analyze your words and try to see why you refused to respond to my ideas as a whole and instead chose to pick at things which were irrelevant to the point.

The reason I did that was because I felt you were using the term in a completely different manner than I was. I still can't recall you providing a succinct definition of what you think faith actually is. So how can figure that my definition is in error?


Maybe our intellectual culture is blinder than I think on understainding words and their significance, especially the made-up line between religion and science, because you're not the first person to take it out of it's relevant field - psychology.

That's another problem. You were arguing psychology and I was arguing philosophy. THat's probably why you counted my arguments as 'too logical'. I think of faith as a logical concept, you think of it as a psychological one. That's a grave disparity.



I hope you sincerely didn't understand what I was saying, because one day someone may say the exact same things to you with diffferent words and I hope that you understand more clearly.

To be honest, I didn't understand a lot of what said because it seemed like tosh to me.

:lol:

To be perfectly honest I thought you equivocated on what the term faith meant multiple times. The definition seemed inconsistent. So you would say things like "people need faith in order to survive", and I couldn't actually figure out what you meant by that statement. I must admit that as a psychological rule, people do need to have faith in things, to have a sense of fulfillment. Faith in people, faith in sports teams, even faith in God. That's undeniable. The point I was making is that this faith IS illogical. That you don't have a valid reason TO believe that your sports team will win every game, but you must still believe this anyway. You simply took this to mean that I dismissed the concept entirely, when I fact I was merely describing a necessary component of faith. If you knew for a fact that your sports team would win every game, say the games were fixed, then 'faith' in them would be entirely mistaken.

If the point you were making was something like the human mind, emotionally, needs 'faith' than I'm not disagreeing. But if you were attempting to make some fatuous point about how science too rests on faith, then I disagree.

What, in fact, were attempting to do?



Regardless, I apologise if I offended you and I hope we can put this stubbornness behind us.

You do need to realize that you made some pretty outlandish statements in that post.

But I accept and apologize for my arrogance.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 09:40 pm
I usually wait for people to show the errors in my arguments. My original premise was that faith is always mistaken. I think that's probably an overstatement, though I still think it's essentially correct.
Mistaken implies that it is morally or reasonably wrong to have it... "I was mistaken to trust my girlfriend... I was mistaken to bomb a village". I don't agree with it in that context. As you say later, "the human mind, emotionally, needs 'faith' than I'm not disagreeing," you seem to agree at lest in part on this.


You have to understand, when I hear people talking about 'the necessity of faith' I'm usually responding to some religious nut who thinks science and faith are 'separate but equal' or some such nonsense. Surely you aren't one of them?
That's the core of the problem for me. Religion has hijacked the term. It means something real.


Also, I made many poor arguments for my position. I probably could have made a much better go at it.
Probably why I got pissed off. You were persistant and still said things that seemed illogical.


The words I type on the screen are not necessarily indicative of my thoughts. I might argue a position I don't in fact hold simply to see the logical consequences of that belief. Or I might pretend to know more about a subject than I really do in order to learn about it.

That being said, I could find little substance in our discussion. It consisted mostly if you making platitudes about faith and me making irrelevant, tangential, pedantic philosophical points. We did very little actual discussion of the value of faith.
I suggest you be more straightforward. It can lead to a lot of confusion during discussion, as we've seen.

As for my "platitudes," I simply tried to rephrase what I felt was a logical conclusion to defining faith. Simply put, faith has always been - for me anyway - trust in the unknown. Perhaps, your definition of a baseless idea applies to this, but since I see everything as unknown to some degree, the definition seems irrefutable. This is why I don't get how people don't understand it, refuse to, or whatever.


The reason I did that was because I felt you were using the term in a completely different manner than I was. I still can't recall you providing a succinct definition of what you think faith actually is. So how can figure that my definition is in error?
I feel that it is in error because you refuse to recognize faith as above... trust in the unknown. I don't see how it can be given a real definition otherwise. Faith does not mean stupidity, lack of reason, or even ignorance. Of those it necessarily presupposes only ignorance, and it also presupposes fact. The latter is evident because no thought can be achieved withotu some positive input toward that end. That fact may be misinterpretted by the mind - as in "I hear someone say that God is real so he is" but it still stems from evidence of the idea, even if that evidence is logically unsound.


That's another problem. You were arguing psychology and I was arguing philosophy. THat's probably why you counted my arguments as 'too logical'. I think of faith as a logical concept, you think of it as a psychological one. That's a grave disparity.

I didn't say they were too logical, I said they were unwilling to go past the rules of scientific / academic regulation. Philosophy is not a science. Also, you should note that philosophy necessarily is a part of psychology. If psychology has not yet swallowed philosophy, as Carl Jung said it would since they study the same realm of human experience, it is because of conservativism in academia and the psychologists. Psychology necessarily covers all human phenomena because it is the basis for any understanding of any phenomena... I use "human" here to mean humanly conceivable; anything that one can conceive of is subject to the realm of philosophy because the word "philosophy" is rooted in a directly psychological meaning ("love of wisdom," or more precisely put 'orientation towards wisdom').

You should also note that logic is a directly psychological phenomenon. I differentiate here from indirectly psychological as something which does not refer to a mental activity per se. Philosophy, logic, love, scientific inquiry are all directly and purely psychological because they are mental activities in essence. Of course, they require input to function, and that input - external to the mind - is all evidence to guide it. It is purely psychological because objects which enter the mind are not part of the activities themselves, but objects of them. Conversely, the actions which guide one along scientific inquiry, logic, etc. are all subject to and part of mental activity... the movements of a telescope are psychological, even if motorized because they were programmed by people. The creation of the scientific, philosophical, social and academic tools we have today are a result of psychological phenomenon, so they cannot be divorced from their parent. The only distinction one can make is that physical tools, social exchanges, academic logic, are psychology made material, actuated. It is the fruition of the psychological activity preceding it; that activity may be long dead but it must still be judged in accordance with its psychological source.


To be perfectly honest I thought you equivocated on what the term faith meant multiple times. The definition seemed inconsistent. So you would say things like "people need faith in order to survive", and I couldn't actually figure out what you meant by that statement. I must admit that as a psychological rule, people do need to have faith in things, to have a sense of fulfillment. Faith in people, faith in sports teams, even faith in God. That's undeniable. The point I was making is that this faith IS illogical. That you don't have a valid reason TO believe that your sports team will win every game, but you must still believe this anyway. You simply took this to mean that I dismissed the concept entirely, when I fact I was merely describing a necessary component of faith. If you knew for a fact that your sports team would win every game, say the games were fixed, then 'faith' in them would be entirely mistaken.

The problem here is that, again, you don't draw a concrete line where something that is believed can and cannot be faith - based. That is why I brought up the percentages earlier. It's not because I can't comprehend percentages, I think that's clear. It was to show that there is no certainty in logic, or at least that logic has varying degrees of certainty and you don't show where one stops and the other starts. Since logic must (or ideally should) take all evidence into account, it should also recognize the uncertainty, which shows ignorance, which is one of your definitions for faith - something we are ignorant of but believe anyways. I guess you could have meant totally or deeply ignorant of, but the former is impossible because all ideas have precluding evidence - good or not - and the latter is vague, and makes the term inconcrete.


If the point you were making was something like the human mind, emotionally, needs 'faith' than I'm not disagreeing. But if you were attempting to make some fatuous point about how science too rests on faith, then I disagree.

What, in fact, were attempting to do?
I didn't intend to make a fatuous point that science is subject to faith. I meant to make an intelligent, 'correct' point that science is subject to faith. Perhaps, not according to your definition, which I still cannot understand in its fluidity, but certainly in mine. You can at least see that, no?




Regardless, I apologise if I offended you and I hope we can put this stubbornness behind us.

You do need to realize that you made some pretty outlandish statements in that post.

But I accept and apologize for my arrogance.
I don't really disagree with (at least most of) what I said, just the callous manner in which I said it. You might do good to think of my analysis still. It is more outlandish outside of an exhaustive analysis, which I won't get into because I have neither the material nor the time to do it.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:37 am




Mistaken implies that it is morally or reasonably wrong to have it... "I was mistaken to trust my girlfriend... I was mistaken to bomb a village". I don't agree with it in that context. As you say later, "the human mind, emotionally, needs 'faith' than I'm not disagreeing," you seem to agree at lest in part on this.

Just because the human mind believes it or requires it doesn't mean it's not mistaken. I don't think we have free will, but I certainly believe we feel we have free will. That means I believe that our belief in free will is mistaken.



I suggest you be more straightforward. It can lead to a lot of confusion during discussion, as we've seen.

As for my "platitudes," I simply tried to rephrase what I felt was a logical conclusion to defining faith. Simply put, faith has always been - for me anyway - trust in the unknown. Perhaps, your definition of a baseless idea applies to this, but since I see everything as unknown to some degree, the definition seems irrefutable. This is why I don't get how people don't understand it, refuse to, or whatever.

But how can you trust in what you don't know, if you don't know what it is?

Now I can't really deny that even I believe things that are essentially ridiculous to believe, or at least that can't be demonstrated on evidence. I agree with you that this is ineradicable. But just because it's ineradicable doesn't mean it isn't in error, or an incorrect belief. Religion is probably ineradicable but that hardly means its true.

And so my point is this: faith might be necessary, but that doesn't mean it's right. That doesn't mean it's a virtue, and that doesn't mean we shouldn't TRY to dispense of it, even if that is impossible, which it probably is.

The fact that faith pervades our thought system is an IS statement; I'm talking about an OUGHT statement. Faith OUGHT to not pervade our thought system.



I feel that it is in error because you refuse to recognize faith as above... trust in the unknown.

I can recognize it. But I can't like it.


I don't see how it can be given a real definition otherwise. Faith does not mean stupidity, lack of reason, or even ignorance.

Why not? How does 'trust in the unknown' not mean stupidity, lack of reason, or ignorance?

It's stupid to trust in what you do not know EVEN IF IT'S IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO. It's based on a lack of reason because if you had reason it wouldn't be unknown. It's ignorance for the same reason.

Faith can be both what I say it is and what you say it is. I don't see why this is so hard to get.

I just don't understand what error you think I'm making here.



Of those it necessarily presupposes only ignorance, and it also presupposes fact. The latter is evident because no thought can be achieved withotu some positive input toward that end. That fact may be misinterpretted by the mind - as in "I hear someone say that God is real so he is" but it still stems from evidence of the idea, even if that evidence is logically unsound.


I can't make sense of what you're trying to say here. Could you please restate this?



I didn't say they were too logical, I said they were unwilling to go past the rules of scientific / academic regulation. Philosophy is not a science. Also, you should note that philosophy necessarily is a part of psychology. If psychology has not yet swallowed philosophy, as Carl Jung said it would since they study the same realm of human experience, it is because of conservativism in academia and the psychologists.

Some aspects of philosophy overlap with psychology, but not all of them.



Psychology necessarily covers all human phenomena because it is the basis for any understanding of any phenomena... I use "human" here to mean humanly conceivable;

Well then that's where your error is.

Can psychology also swallow up mathematics? Physics? Chemistry? I'm dying to hear of 'behaviorist chemistry' or how fMRI's can be used to make the same point as Godel's theorem.

Math is humanly conceivable but that doesn't mean you're going to get very far understanding it with the methods of psychology.

That makes as much sense as saying "since all human behavior is explicable in terms of numbers" (and it is) that math will soon engulf psychology. Or that since all human behavior is physics, physics will take over psychology.

It's just incorrect.



You should also note that logic is a directly psychological phenomenon.

The human mind doing logic is. 'Logic' itself, in the abstract, is like math; symbol manipulation.


I differentiate here from indirectly psychological as something which does not refer to a mental activity per se. Philosophy, logic, love, scientific inquiry are all directly and purely psychological because they are mental activities in essence.

Is math?


Of course, they require input to function,

Speaking of math...


and that input - external to the mind - is all evidence to guide it. It is purely psychological because objects which enter the mind are not part of the activities themselves, but objects of them. Conversely, the actions which guide one along scientific inquiry, logic, etc. are all subject to and part of mental activity... the movements of a telescope are psychological, even if motorized because they were programmed by people. The creation of the scientific, philosophical, social and academic tools we have today are a result of psychological phenomenon, so they cannot be divorced from their parent. The only distinction one can make is that physical tools, social exchanges, academic logic, are psychology made material, actuated. It is the fruition of the psychological activity preceding it; that activity may be long dead but it must still be judged in accordance with its psychological source.

Well let's take on this reductionism whole-part. Since all human behavior is explicable in terms of partical physics, we should use that mode of thought alone.



anything that one can conceive of is subject to the realm of philosophy because the word "philosophy" is rooted in a directly psychological meaning ("love of wisdom," or more precisely put 'orientation towards wisdom').

Not necesarily. Just because the Latin root of a word supposes a certain meaning doesn't mean the word itself must be used in that context.



The problem here is that, again, you don't draw a concrete line where something that is believed can and cannot be faith - based. That is why I brought up the percentages earlier. It's not because I can't comprehend percentages, I think that's clear. It was to show that there is no certainty in logic, or at least that logic has varying degrees of certainty and you don't show where one stops and the other starts.

Again, we need to b VERY careful of what mean by logic. The logic human minds use? Yes, you're right.

Symbolic logic? A very different question (though Godel's incompleteness theorem puts this in a strange perspective, it certainly doesn't justify the use of faith.)



Since logic must (or ideally should) take all evidence into account, it should also recognize the uncertainty, which shows ignorance, which is one of your definitions for faith - something we are ignorant of but believe anyways. I guess you could have meant totally or deeply ignorant of, but the former is impossible because all ideas have precluding evidence - good or not - and the latter is vague, and makes the term inconcrete.

If this is what you mean by faith, I can't find too much to criticize.



I didn't intend to make a fatuous point that science is subject to faith. I meant to make an intelligent, 'correct' point that science is subject to faith. Perhaps, not according to your definition, which I still cannot understand in its fluidity, but certainly in mine. You can at least see that, no?

I see what you mean, yes. According to the human psychology, nothing is or can be fully certain, including science, so science must rest partly on faith because the acts and propositions of science cannot be fully known to be true.

Is that indeed your position?

But what I mean is that science itself, the method for determining that which is true, is not based on faith. That is, if divorced from human ignorance, if given perfect information and perfect application, the methods of science would yield correct inferences. And it seems to me that you have to at least partly acknowledge that this is the case, because if you don't, you have no reason for supposing any knowledge at all.

But answer me this: even supposing that science is based on faith, is it better to believe that science is generally valid, that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, than to believe that the earth is 5 minutes old? Both of these propositions rest on some 'faith', but it's clear to me that there is a meaningful difference between them. What do you think that difference is.



I don't really disagree with (at least most of) what I said, just the callous manner in which I said it.

And you seem to be ignorant of the hypocrisy in this...



You might do good to think of my analysis still.

Since, you won't let it go, here's what I really think of your grade-school psychoanalysis of me:



But that is what the problem here is, really. You think you can dull everything down to a pretty unrealistic dichotomy, the logical and illogical, the right and wrong, an endless, cold, inhuman row of 0s and 1s.

There is nothing unrealistic about any of those dichotomies.

Something is either logical or illogical, right or wrong, or a 1 or 0. It's impossible to imagine a third possibility in any of those cases. To say that it's improper to use a (by definition) correct dichotomy to interpret aspects of human thought is, I think, ridiculous.

I don't know what you think the universe is, or if you're some kind of Idealist, or what.

Aside from that I can't see any value in this aside from a rather infantile inability to deal with the 'cold' 'inhuman' facts of life.



That's no doubt why you were a libertarian: you are autistic, maybe not excessively like many of my friends, but certainly in how you know of people.

No, the reason I stopped being a libertarian was precisely because I realized how 'autistic' I was, though I must criticize your use of the word. If I were in fact autistic (which I in fact might be, to some degree, though I doubt it), then you could hardly blame me for my mental errors. It would be criticizing me for being ill, essentially.



You extract and make enemy all that is human in any issue...

In any issue? So in issues of human rights I ignore the human toll and look only at broad, abstract principals?

Or do I look at both of those things, and try to come to some medium between them by which human relations can be *improved* and made rational?

Hmm?



you cannot bear to face your own humanness or the fact that people are more than mechanical "actors" in an economic playing field.

Well, humans ARE 'mechanical actors'. I think that's pretty much an unavoidable consequence of a proper understanding of modern science.

Hell, I just ordered by books for Philosophy: Mind and Will class. The title of one of those books? Living Without Free Will.

And I can't see introducing the word 'economic' makes any difference here. Marxism itself is determinist, it seems to me, in that people do whatever is in their class interest.



This is the most dangerous thing to the future of mankind, and it's sad to see how prevalent it is in todays culture.

This is just bullshit moralizing, the type more likely seen in a Church sermon.

I think "today's culture" is pretty much better than any previous culture according to any understanding of human rights you wish to employ. Slavery? Gay rights? Women's rights? My positions on these issues, and society's position as a whole, are extremely liberated ESPECIALLY compared to the position of society merely 50 years ago.

So aside from being a meaningless complain, it's an INCORRECT complain.



It's not that you can't understand what I say on a logical level; it's that on a deeper level it would destroy your cold, mechanical view of the world and its inhabitants to discuss things as if they were social.

No, the problem is that I can flip between multiple levels of discussion and use what is appropriate in a given context.

At a party, I don't harp philosophical, and in a discussion of philosophy I don't concern myself with 'feelings' or 'connections'.

It's not that I lack either of those abilities, it's that they are only proper in certain contexts. A philosophical discussion, like what we were having, is 'cold and mechanical'. It's not "how does this make you FEEL", it's "is this logical'.

Now if we were to discuss, say, welfare policy, I would absolutely take a social viewpoint, though I would attempt to be logical as well.



I don't feel compelled to continue this debate, not because I'm shying away, indeed I've discussed this exact issue and read about it a lot and I enjoy hearing what philosophers and other leftists have to say of it.

Which means of course that I'm neither a philosopher or another leftist, and seems to me to be nothing more than an insult.


It's because your manner of argument is so disgustingly liek that of other libertarians I've known, the objectification of man, the hatred for discussion on a humanist level, that I quite literally find myself frightened by the things you say.

I can only take this to mean that you dislike the fact that 'libertarians' (even those of us who aren't libertarians) reject arguments from emotion as fallacious.

I don't know what else you could mean, or how "objectify" man (sexist language, by the way) or "hate" discussion on a humanist level.

Saying that would be like saying you hate women, don't debate on a 'feminist' level because you used the word 'man' instead of something gender neutral. Now would that be fair of me to harp endless about your gender-bias, your homophobia, your sexism, your support for patriarchy, etc. simply because you used 'man' to refer to the whole human race?

Of course not. And yet that sort of shallow typecasting is EXACTLY what you used to label me as some sort of anti-humanist, when I'm evidently nothing but.

I could be a nihilist. But I'm not. And so what does that tell you?


Not for me, but for the future, and especially you.

Have fun.

Wasn't that an eloquent parting shot.

"I'm worried about the future."

Like the reason you wouldn't discuss faith with me is because you're SO humanistic that you recognize that even my type of ARGUMENTATION leads to human depravity. And then you wonder why I might object to your manner of speaking (But not what you said!)

Unbelievable.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:34 pm
But how can you trust in what you don't know, if you don't know what it is?

Now I can't really deny that even I believe things that are essentially ridiculous to believe, or at least that can't be demonstrated on evidence. I agree with you that this is ineradicable. But just because it's ineradicable doesn't mean it isn't in error, or an incorrect belief. Religion is probably ineradicable but that hardly means its true.

And so my point is this: faith might be necessary, but that doesn't mean it's right. That doesn't mean it's a virtue, and that doesn't mean we shouldn't TRY to dispense of it, even if that is impossible, which it probably is.

The fact that faith pervades our thought system is an IS statement; I'm talking about an OUGHT statement. Faith OUGHT to not pervade our thought system.
WEll, it would be great if we could know everything for certain. but that's not likely, ever, and faith is what helps us to fill in the gaps when necessary. Perhaps, we shouldn't HAVE to have it, but as humans it is certainly a good thing.


Why not? How does 'trust in the unknown' not mean stupidity, lack of reason, or ignorance?

It's stupid to trust in what you do not know EVEN IF IT'S IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO. It's based on a lack of reason because if you had reason it wouldn't be unknown. It's ignorance for the same reason.

Faith can be both what I say it is and what you say it is. I don't see why this is so hard to get.

I just don't understand what error you think I'm making here.


I can't make sense of what you're trying to say here. Could you please restate this?

This is exactly your problem. You pretend to disassociate ourself from your emotions in the stead of logic, which is impossible, and end up uging knee-jerk words to explain what you don't like: so "igonorance" becomes faith. Faith merely assumes ignorance. It also assumes knowledge. As the statement you didn't understand was saying, faith merely presupposes ignorance, but none of the other things (stupidity, lack of reason) though they can be a part of it. Faith is not ignorance and it is not knowledge.

And this is why your reasoning is amazingly wrong. Further down you agree with a definition that is full of holes. Faith cannot be something inconcrete in regards to how it is defined; it cannot be that certain degrees of logic make faith useless and lesser degrees don't. Likewise, it cannot simply be ignorance because ignorance is just lack of knowledge. As I said, it only assumes it, it doesn't mean it is its nature. If you cannot define a term concretely, it has no real meaning. That is why, to Feuerbach, religion was the nature of man, not some abstraction about how he views god. You'll notice that religion, too, is a vatgue and meaningless term as it's used today. Faith is worse, however.


Well then that's where your error is.

Can psychology also swallow up mathematics? Physics? Chemistry? I'm dying to hear of 'behaviorist chemistry' or how fMRI's can be used to make the same point as Godel's theorem.

Math is humanly conceivable but that doesn't mean you're going to get very far understanding it with the methods of psychology.

That makes as much sense as saying "since all human behavior is explicable in terms of numbers" (and it is) that math will soon engulf psychology. Or that since all human behavior is physics, physics will take over psychology.

It's just incorrect.
I refer to the activity, not the fact of what the world may be according to such studies. That should be clear; I tried to make it so. I merely say that we cannot divorce psychology from our understandign of any of these things, simply because we have to see that it is us who see. Just as you correctly say we cannot divorce our understanding of physics, genetics, biology, etc. from our understanding of its product, the mind, psychology.


Not necesarily. Just because the Latin root of a word supposes a certain meaning doesn't mean the word itself must be used in that context.

Again, we need to b VERY careful of what mean by logic. The logic human minds use? Yes, you're right.

Symbolic logic? A very different question (though Godel's incompleteness theorem puts this in a strange perspective, it certainly doesn't justify the use of faith.)
What logic is not that used by humans? Even symbolic logic, as conclusive as it might want to make itself, must recognize that it is subject to its creator. As for philosophy, I'm surprised that you disgaree with the definition I gave, which I pointed out ("more precisely put...") was not the same as the simple Latin root.


I see what you mean, yes. According to the human psychology, nothing is or can be fully certain, including science, so science must rest partly on faith because the acts and propositions of science cannot be fully known to be true.

Is that indeed your position?

But what I mean is that science itself, the method for determining that which is true, is not based on faith. That is, if divorced from human ignorance, if given perfect information and perfect application, the methods of science would yield correct inferences. And it seems to me that you have to at least partly acknowledge that this is the case, because if you don't, you have no reason for supposing any knowledge at all.

But answer me this: even supposing that science is based on faith, is it better to believe that science is generally valid, that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, than to believe that the earth is 5 minutes old? Both of these propositions rest on some 'faith', but it's clear to me that there is a meaningful difference between them. What do you think that difference is.
Science is a part of of the mental activity of humans. As you might say, "it is not an option" to ignore that. It is useless to talk of science in and of itself, because every bit of it is subject to the limitations of our mind - art is only as good as its creator or whatever.

Yes, I trust science over many other ways of determining things (catholic dogma for instance). This is because there is more evidence. None of this is the point.

I may respond later to many of your inaccuracies in comprehending my statements etc. that come as a response to my earlier criticism, but I doubt I will. I'm just itching to talk about your conflation of free will and human rights with humanness itself, but I'd really rather stop this eventually.

Yes, you are very autistic. Not only is it hard for you to understand me, but it is evident that your understanding of language I find common to the philosophers (that should be on your side if I'm some mystic psychologist) I've read is hardly adequate. Maybe you refuse to take terms into your mind as if another person had said them, as with "faith" earlier, but I'm just going to leave it at "there's something missing." Pretty fair, I think, as you've been calling me a superstitious fool since you started, bringing up random logicians as gods above psychology and man in general, intentionally saying things you know to be irrelevant or uncertain because you don't know what I mean - instead of doing what I excpect would be logical for you: asking what I mean. I tried to be quite fair, not really fighting with your argument about my outburst, not talking about all the more subtle insults throughout your statements, but it's clear that you want to bring it back to the differences rather than trying to get a deeper understanding of both our ideas.

Just remember, in the future, that you are man, not a field of plusses and minuses, and only antagonism is likely when you continue to debate so callously with people. Remember, too, that how you treat people here affects - and reflects - how you treat people elsewhere. Obviously, I'm judgemental but generally reserved. What do your words say about you, especially those you type without believing them? They only put more distance between you and other people, but they can tell you a lot. Look over them. Know thyself.

[pusher robot]

Yes, you are very autistic.

You do not have a basis for that. Autism is not diagnosed by a person's opinions. Isn't it possible he understands you perfectly well and simply rejects your reasoning? Or is anybody who disagrees with you mentally ill by definition?

For all your lecturing, Publius is one of a few commenters who actually writes carefully, logically, and understandably. There was no need for your patronizing tone.

EDIT: Of course, by your argument, you don't need a basis for diagnosing Publius as autistic, do you? You can simply accept it on FAITH!

[Dean]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 13, 2007 06:57 pm

Yes, you are very autistic.

You do not have a basis for that. Autism is not diagnosed by a person's opinions. Isn't it possible he understands you perfectly well and simply rejects your reasoning? Or is anybody who disagrees with you mentally ill by definition?

For all your lecturing, Publius is one of a few commenters who actually writes carefully, logically, and understandably. There was no need for your patronizing tone.

EDIT: Of course, by your argument, you don't need a basis for diagnosing Publius as autistic, do you? You can simply accept it on FAITH!
Wow, you're an idiot.

Publius has been patronizing from the start, and even admitted to saying things he doesn't think just to get an answer and responding to things he doesn't understand as if he did. So no, he said himself that he hardly understood what I was saying or what he was defending (though his material responses were always an attack on my concept of the term, not a defense of his own).

Autism is a very common phenomenon. It is a result of disassociation from humanity, in other words, alienation. "[The new social order] will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association."

Because it is a societal norm, the tendancies towards it are generally much stronger than his before they are diagnosed. I am not referring to a psychologists' handbook for this info and I am judging him based solely on his communication online, as I have seen it here and in the past. I already pointed this out. The severe lack of interest in human things when discussing them is evidence.

I'm not pretending I'm not autistic, or that most people aren't. It is a pervasive sickness. I know, in fact, that I am in some ways very autistic; it pains me and I have been trying to change it since I realized it. It could be that in some ways he is quite associated with others, and that in fact there are more autistic traits in me than there are in him. It doesn't change the fact of disassociation from humans and their reality that has been shown evident to be a part of me in my personal life, a bit in this thread, and in Publius's current and past remarks here.

Did you read any of my posts before you decided to give Publius this sweet little favor?

[pusher robot]

Autism is a very common phenomenon. It is a result of disassociation from humanity, in other words, alienation.

Then you need to be clear you are using your own idiosyncratic definition of "autism," because in ordinary parlance, "autism" refers to a specific medical condition, a diagnosable brain disorder, that affects only a small percentage of the population.

It would be like me calling you "very psychotic," only to come back and say, "Don't get so bent out of shape! Being psychotic is a common phenomenon. It is a result of dissociation from reality, in other words, faith."

Publius and I have disagreed plenty, but I respect him as someone who thinks clearly and understands reason. If he is taking positions he doesn't necessarily hold, it is to prod you into making reasoned arguments to defend your positions. There's nothing wrong with that.

[Publius]

So much acrimony over so little.

I now realize, after re-reading our exchange, where I was at fault and where you were at fault.

I was at fault for not accepting your argument, which was at its core holistic. I attempted to cut it up into individual pieces and criticize those, often into obscurity. I now realize that you what you were saying was, basically, right.

Your problem, it seemed to me, was that you didn't at all like my direct style of argumentation. I did make quite a few valid points, and you simply ignored them. And the thing is, you didn't have to, because ultimately, they were compatible with your viewpoint.

We were arguing over very minute differences. Also, I should note, I didn't like debating you, not because you were a better debater than me, but something about your style rubbed me wrong. I can't explain it other than that we argue in completely different ways, and I like my way better. I had a very hard to time understanding your point, because your style was long-winded and exhaustive. You had a hard time understanding me because I was very direct and confrontational. You must realize that even though I sound like an asshole when I debate, I'm actually not. That's just an act for debating purposes, for clarity purposes. A debate is a contest of sorts, as I see it, and I enjoy the competitive aspect of it. I don't think you do.

Anyway, it's unfortunate that things turned out the way they did, because they shouldn't have.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 09:12 pm
Wow, you're an idiot.
And you're a **** for using the idea of autism to create a stupid personal attack - not only is it an ad hominem fallacy but it's also incredibly offensive to people with disorders on the autistic spectrum (which is actually a number of people on this board).


Publius has been patronizing from the start,

Pubey boy has also been right from the start.


Autism is a very common phenomenon. It is a result of disassociation from humanity, in other words, alienation. "[The new social order] will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association."

So you're saying that you have found a way of eradicating autism, something which has thus far eluded the neuroscientific community since autism (and it's lesser relations asperger syndrome and dyspraxia) was first discovered? Also it's not that common, quite a few people are wtrongly diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorders by quack psychologists but that does not make it a "common phenomenon". There are fuck loads more neurotypicals (and neurochauvanists like yourself) than people with ASDs.


Because it is a societal norm

Wait, are you saying that autism or alienation is the societal norm - if it the former you are out of the tree, if it is the latter you are correct but making an irrelevant point.


the tendancies towards it are generally much stronger than his before they are diagnosed. I am not referring to a psychologists' handbook for this info and I am judging him based solely on his communication online, as I have seen it here and in the past. I already pointed this out. The severe lack of interest in human things when discussing them is evidence.

Damn man, damn. Autism is not simply being a jerk with no interest in human beings, it is a complex set of neurological abnormalities which cause specific behaviours (obsession, social dysfunction, savantism) and as such you can't diagnose it over the internet simply by having a few arguments with someone. Also have you considered that he, for all his flaws, has simply recognised that emotional "reasoning" based on humanity has no place in a logical argument?


I'm not pretending I'm not autistic, or that most people aren't. It is a pervasive sickness.

It is not a sickness (despite its classification as a "disorder") it is simply a way of being - making value judgements on autistic people because you happen to take a self-hating neurochauvanist line is not helpful, nor is it (gasp, two horrible words) politically correct.


I know, in fact, that I am in some ways very autistic; it pains me and I have been trying to change it since I realized it.

If you can change it it's not autism, it's just a few behaviours that are similar to those displayed by autistic people.


It could be that in some ways he is quite associated with others, and that in fact there are more autistic traits in me than there are in him. It doesn't change the fact of disassociation from humans and their reality that has been shown evident to be a part of me in my personal life, a bit in this thread, and in Publius's current and past remarks here.

With this in mind why did you feel able to make an off-hand diagnoses with (I assume) not formal background in neurology?

[Dean]

Originally posted by Publius+August 14, 2007 04:29 am--> (Publius @ August 14, 2007 04:29 am) So much acrimony over so little.

I now realize, after re-reading our exchange, where I was at fault and where you were at fault.

I was at fault for not accepting your argument, which was at its core holistic. I attempted to cut it up into individual pieces and criticize those, often into obscurity. I now realize that you what you were saying was, basically, right.

Your problem, it seemed to me, was that you didn't at all like my direct style of argumentation. I did make quite a few valid points, and you simply ignored them. And the thing is, you didn't have to, because ultimately, they were compatible with your viewpoint.

We were arguing over very minute differences. Also, I should note, I didn't like debating you, not because you were a better debater than me, but something about your style rubbed me wrong. I can't explain it other than that we argue in completely different ways, and I like my way better. I had a very hard to time understanding your point, because your style was long-winded and exhaustive. You had a hard time understanding me because I was very direct and confrontational. You must realize that even though I sound like an asshole when I debate, I'm actually not. That's just an act for debating purposes, for clarity purposes. A debate is a contest of sorts, as I see it, and I enjoy the competitive aspect of it. I don't think you do.

Anyway, it's unfortunate that things turned out the way they did, because they shouldn't have. [/b]
I understand. I don't think ti should be a competition at all. One of Marx's quotes I like a lot might help explain why: "[the new social order] will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association."

I realise that I was quite competitive, as well, but I think that was a response to your competitive responses (though that doesn't change how my orientation ended up). If you look in other threads, (i.e. the universe one) you may find that I do try to be associative with my points.

I'll admit I didn't directly respond to your whole idea as well, but the reason was becasue we were debating my concept of the term. It seemed counter-intuitive to discuss your idea when we hadn't fully decided why the initial point was invalid. I also felt, and this was rather curious to me, that you were on the defense while trying to argue against my idea. You say "I don't exactly know what I'm defending here," or somethign to that effect, and I thought "what does he have to defend?".


Jazzratt

Damn man, damn. Autism is not simply being a jerk with no interest in human beings, it is a complex set of neurological abnormalities which cause specific behaviours (obsession, social dysfunction, savantism) and as such you can't diagnose it over the internet simply by having a few arguments with someone. Also have you considered that he, for all his flaws, has simply recognised that emotional "reasoning" based on humanity has no place in a logical argument?
I could pick at each response, so presumptive here, but I will leave you with this only: autism is distinct and pathological disassociation from humanity and individuals. This does not mean that all people one call's 'autistic' are medically classified as such, nor does it mean that the definition there is accurate to the most recent psychologist's handbooks. But I can tell you, from reading (obsessively) literature on psychoanalysis, psychology, philosophy and sociology since I was a sophomore in high school that my usage of the term is not uncommon among people who know more than a random fact about a clinically diagnosed disorder.

You should know that I have friends who are clinically diagnosed authistic, and one who has asperger's syndrome, and they range from people who get well perfectly fine in dealing with people to those who cannot understand how to associate even in simple ways into society. They are all very intelligent, but most appear at the least eccentric and at the most mentally retarded. My best friend since I was in third grade has been confused with the mentally retarded because he has tics, and I have been his main, and usually sole, 'guide' in helping him work well in society, since I was the only person from 3rd grade thru high school that wouldn't shun him. I have learned a great deal about psychology and alienation from this, and perhaps having a bipolar dad and brother also encouraged me to learn more about why things were how they were. You think people must show severity in the symptoms of autism to be diagnosed, but I can tell you that at least one of my friends who was diagnosed fits my definition for the term best, but has never shown any symptoms that are external to that definition as far as I can recall. His brother had a severe case of the same with a lot of different symptoms outside of my definition; for them, it was genetic.

So, there's my background. As far as "changing autism," you might do well to recognize that it is not a purely genetic force, and it can be controlled in nearly every case. And that there are more than one definition for terms like these (oops, ignore that, it might shatter your delicate worldview).

Oh, and since you so adamantly agree with Publius being "right from the start" (something he has said was untrue) I'd be interested in exactly what he was "right" about. Or maybe you just hate religion and would like to see any connotation with it demonized, the apparent enemies romantacized? I suspect you're just another idol worshipper, more like the christ - followers than the scientists in this world. This site is so goddamn depressing, I'm glad the real leftists aren't so lifeless and inhuman as the trends here would indicate.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+August 14, 2007 10:53 am--> (Jazzratt @ August 14, 2007 10:53 am)
[email protected] 13, 2007 09:12 pm
Wow, you're an idiot.
And you're a **** for using the idea of autism to create a stupid personal attack - not only is it an ad hominem fallacy but it's also incredibly offensive to people with disorders on the autistic spectrum (which is actually a number of people on this board). [/b]
Oh, I'd also like to point our your "sexist" terminology here. Shall you follow the pack and start a CC poll to restrict yourself?

And as I pointed out above, the clinically autistic are a number of people close to me in my life. I'm going to visit two of them in PA on thursday, in fact. I'll have to tell them how insulting I was.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I could pick at each response, so presumptive here, but I will leave you with this only: autism is distinct and pathological disassociation from humanity and individuals.

Then you know fuck-all about autism. It has a wide variety of "symptoms" dependent on what kind of autism it is.


This does not mean that all people one call's 'autistic' are medically classified as such, nor does it mean that the definition there is accurate to the most recent psychologist's handbooks. But I can tell you, from reading (obsessively) literature on psychoanalysis, psychology, philosophy and sociology since I was a sophomore in high school that my usage of the term is not uncommon among people who know more than a random fact about a clinically diagnosed disorder.

How about you get an actual degree in psychology before diagnosing people you barely know over the internet on the basis of their posts, fucknugget? Armchair expertise is no match for the real thing.


Oh, and since you so adamantly agree with Publius being "right from the start" (something he has said was untrue) I'd be interested in exactly what he was "right" about. Or maybe you just hate religion and would like to see any connotation with it demonized, the apparent enemies romantacized? I suspect you're just another idol worshipper, more like the christ - followers than the scientists in this world. This site is so goddamn depressing, I'm glad the real leftists aren't so lifeless and inhuman as the trends here would indicate.

If it's so depressing here, why don't you fuck off?

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 02:23 pm

I could pick at each response, so presumptive here, but I will leave you with this only: autism is distinct and pathological disassociation from humanity and individuals.

Then you know fuck-all about autism. It has a wide variety of "symptoms" dependent on what kind of autism it is.
Really? I couldn't tell from my autistic friend having about 50 uncontrollable tics.




How about you get an actual degree in psychology before diagnosing people you barely know over the internet on the basis of their posts, fucknugget? Armchair expertise is no match for the real thing.
How about you read an actual book about psychology before claiming such expertise? Oh, wait, you have opinions, and you express them. I'll go consult the books on psychology I've been reading since I was 15 to see if they explicitly allow me to make claims on psychology. Or maybe I'll go ask the current professor I'm studying under in the same field (yes, psychology is my major).

Oh, and I already apologised for judging Publius and explained what I meant to him. So, maybe you should take your techonocratic bullshit elsewhere.


If it's so depressing here, why don't you fuck off?
For the same reason I maintain faith in humanity. Not technology.

I hope you are stil a technocrat, like you used to be; otherwise I will be continuing to diagnose people improperly based on internet posts. Considering, you know, that I was talking about his ideas and not his innate personality, just as I am now considering yours.

Damn I'm too PC toward you trolls. Ever wonder why I prefer to engage people like Publius than so - called comrades like yourself?