owleye

Kent....

If Jefferson had used the term 'obvious' it would not have made life easier. Indeed, I'm not sure what difficulty he is in because of his use of 'self-evident'. What do you have in mind? In any case, 'obvious' and 'evident' are probably synonyms. Note that 'clear' is probably also a synonym, though Descartes rather made much of it.

On the other hand, 'undeniable' may serve the same purpose that 'self-evident' does though I'm thinking that being 'undeniable' is already too general and for that reason less convincing, unless, that is, it bears on what is sometimes called an analytic judgement, such as 'All batchlors are unmarried'. Aristotle would have used the term 'apodictic certainty' whose meaning is what we might call, 'beyond doubt' (or possibly, 'beyond the need for proof'.) Kant made use of apodictic certainty when a judgement was a priori, having as its main properties that it is absolutely necessary or strictly universal in its application (though I believe even here we need to constrain this to whatever it is that it can possibly apply to, not necessarily to everything logically possible).

"Here, sometimes a judge might say the term societal norms."

I assume you mean here, in the context of Jefferson's self-evident truths, that it would be quite acceptable in other societies that some of those who are bound by this culture live at the expense of the death of others, or that some of them are free to be masters, while others are not free and should be enslaved, or that some of us have the opportunity to pursue happiness while others are not. Note that, in a Jeffersonian society, given these "inalienable rights," it implies that no policy, rule, or law, can be enacted that abridge these rights without "due process" and "strict scrutiny." BTW, the US constitution is written in such a way that these inalienable rights belong to all persons, not just those who happen to be citizens of the U.S. or members of that society.

I do agree, of course, that cultural and religious differences do exist. Jefferson is not the last word on truth and justice. However, unless you believe that no common ground can be found among the variety of real values throughout human existence, I should imagine we should keep trying to formulate such inalienability. I'm aware, of course, that the Chinese do not have the same concept as the West does when it uses the term 'right'. This term is generally understood to mean 'power'. Thus, whereas we can express some alarm that 'might makes right', in China, this is rather more of an analytic truth. Notwithstanding this, I am in general agreement with Donald Davidson that 'conceptual schemes' though they play a significant role in our judgements, are not strictly untranslatable, at least potentially.

"I would not say that you should pursue happiness because it is self-evident. If I say that you should pursue happiness because it is morally good that you do so, then I feel like I am doing some reasoning."

Jefferson's use of self-evident was a justification for the inalienable truths, including pursuit of happiness. It deals with rights, which, in this context, are such as to constrain government. It says nothing, here, about any moral obligation to pursue happiness. The idea is that we are not entitled to prevent persons from pursuing happiness. One might also conclude that pursuing happiness is morally permissible, according to Jefferson, but not morally obligatory.

owleye

1sec

Dear emphryio, you say:

Words are plurisemantic. If this makes some revelation for you, then it is not the english language that has a slight problem.

Just glance at how people on this thread struggle to distinguish between different sorts of faith.

Isn't it philosophy that splits hairs and ends up bringing about more confusion than there was to start with?

Kent Stevens

I was trying to say that it is self evident that people would want to be happy. This is slightly different from what Jefferson said.

After considering the proposition that you got to have assumptions I think it is necessary to slightly change this. This is because we do not want to have any type of assumption. Having any type of assumption would be what typically happens with religious systems. We do not assume that the world is flat. Instead we say the world is round and justify it through reason. If we are to have assumptions they need to be justifiable in some way. If we are going to accept something we need to feel justified in what we accept.

Therefore the proposition needs to change to something like you got to have justifiable assumptions, or you got to have justified acceptance, or you got to have justified ideas. If you do not have justified ideas you may have false or immoral ideas. Or you may have ideas that are futile in their expectations. You do need to accept some ideas but only if they are good ideas.

Having justified ideas is partly dependent on what we feel is justified and partly dependent on reasoning. Some things like saying the world is flat is not justified. If we were going to believe such an idea we would need a tremendous amount of evidence, as it would overturn everything we have learnt about the earth and science. We feel justified in saying that the world is round. This being based on other justified ideas. We might use the fact that the world is round as a premise in our reasoning about how we can get around the world. We can reason that if we keep going in fixed direction we will eventually come back to where we came from.

Having justified ideas is part of the reasoning process. If I try to reason using false premises than I am most likely to come up with false conclusions. If I try to reason using immoral premises I am most likely to come up with immoral conclusions. Therefore, to reason well we need justified premises, premises whose truth is accepted. In logic this often stated as the requirement of having true premises. If we want justified conclusions then we need justified premises and the ability to infer correctly. In matters of fact we need true premises to draw true conclusions by logical inference.

Having justified ideas is part of reasoning or else reasoning is false. Now we get into the problem of proving reason. That is how can we prove reason when we need reason and argument to do so. To assume reasoning is true as part of our premises, in trying to prove that reason is true seems circular. Reason seems to be like a snake that is eating it's own tail. We cannot easily say I have proved reason by using reason.

Now there are a number of things assumed in using reason. We assume that our senses correspond to the outside world so that our premises are then true. We assume the principle of induction or that we can generalise from examples. We assume that our premises are justified or else our argument will be false. We desire after a justified conclusion.

Having justified ideas is part of reason but if we cannot prove reason we cannot prove the need for justified ideas. For in order to prove that we need justified ideas we have to accept certain premises. These premises have to be justified to produce a justified conclusion. We assume we need justified ideas in our premises. We desire after justified ideas in our conclusion. So we seem to say that you need justified ideas because we have to have justified ideas.

Now, if you think you can prove reason then all this problem goes away. You can then prove that the our senses correspond to the outside world without needing premises that are based on the assumption that seeing is believing. You could prove induction without needing indution to do so. You could also prove that you need to have justified ideas.

I have difficulty trying to prove reason and I just accept that you need reason and all it's various aspects. I assume that you need induction. I assume you need justified ideas.

I feel like I am justified in using reason. I also feel justified in the need for justified ideas.

For something important like that the idea that theft is wrong we might feel justified in saying this. We might reason this is so by saying that we would not like it if others stole from us. We then might feel justified with this reason.

If we say that theft is good we do not feel instinctively justified. We have to get into elaborate justifications. Someone might say that theft is a form of taxation or a social distribution of wealth. By replacing the word theft with tax someone might feel partly justified to themselves but not to the one stolen from.

Part of the problem with this is that the feeling that you are justified can vary between people. However morality, belief, and goals do vary between people. What argument and critical thinking can expose is an area where someone thought they were justified when they were not.

In order to do something trivial like get out of bed in the morning we feel justified in the reason that we want to get out of bed. If we were sick or very tired we might feel justified in resting further. If someone rested in bed for a month, we would not feel they were justified in this.

In order to terminate an infinite loops of whys we need to have justified ideas. We need to feel that something is justified or at least not wrong in order to do certain things. If we do not feel justified we will continue to dig down to find an idea that ultimately fulfills our desire for justification. If we do not find an idea that fulfills justification we may continue digging for it forever.

Some of the line of questioning that I have asked myself seems to end up with I just do, or it just is as an answer. It is appropriate then that just makes up part of the concept of justified ideas. For example of the end of a line of asking why?: why desire after the truth or an accurate representation of the world? I just do. Why do I accept having reason? I just do. Why is murder wrong? It just is. Why do you want to act morally? I just do. Why do I want to be happy? I just do.

Having justified ideas is part of reason. As such it seems to be a basic assumption. As being part of reason it would be common to all people.

owleye

Kent...

"Having any type of assumption would be what typically happens with religious systems."

This is quite a strong indictment of religious systems. What do you mean by this? Could you provide an example to help us out.

"We do not assume that the world is flat. Instead we say the world is round and justify it through reason."

I would say we justify it not through reason but through evidence. But perhaps you equate the two. If so, I'm not really sure what you mean by 'reason'.

"If we are to have assumptions they need to be justifiable in some way. If we are going to accept something we need to feel justified in what we accept."

Feeling justified may or may not have anything to do with being justified. In any case, I suspect many if not all of us are not even aware of the assumptions we make when we hold certain positions or beliefs. Secondly, I have my doubts that the issue of justification arises in the first place until and unless there is a reason for thinking they could be wrong. Besides, it is usually only the cross-examiner that is able to call into question whatever a witness believes to be true, despite the conviction with which it is held.

"Having justified ideas is part of reasoning or else reasoning is false. Now we get into the problem of proving reason."

This is perhaps the starting point of Kant's Critical/Mature period, but instead of calling for a "proof" of reason (which sounds to me like going on an impossible journey, since any proof would involve the use of reason), he seeks to critique reason itself, determining where it makes sense and where it can lead to illusions. His "The Critique of Pure Reason" is one of the most significant works of philosophy produced in the western tradition. I personally find it not only challenging but incredibly rich in its scope and content. There is hardly any area of philosophy that is not covered within these pages. I would recommend it highly, particularly since it seems to be in the same vein as the quest you are on.

Fell

Kent Stevens

Religious ideas have a number of assumptions or what they call doctrines. One of the doctrines I find ridiculous is the doctrine of the holy trinity where god is one person and three persons at the same time. This sounds like a logical contradiction to me. In terms of Islam they assume that Muhammad is the last and greatest prophet. But if god has say twenty prophets before Muhammad why not have another prophet after his existence.

It is possible that someone who is a shoplifter feels justified in stealing. Or a murderer may feel justified in killing for years of abuse by the one killed. Or they could think this is wrong but life is tough and it is okay to do it. If they do not feel justified they might still feel okay about it. This is one of the weaknesses of life that some people are unsympathetic to others and do what others feel is unjustified.

Say when we are driving a car we might make many decisions. Slow down or speed up. To turn right or left. I suppose we don't experience a strong feeling of justification about every little decision we make. But say the decision to turn to the right we feel okay about that. Or the decision to stop the car we feel okay about that.

Perhaps it is simpler to talk only about assumptions and acceptance, and not be more verbose, and say justifiable assumptions and justified acceptance. For 99% of our decisions we may feel no major feeling of justification or lack of justification. It is only if when we are queried about a particular decision that we might say we feel okay about that.

Scientists may talk about assumptions in a particular experiments. It is all right to use the term assumptions as long as we realise that these assumptions are justifiable. It is all right to use the term axiom by itself if we realise that these axioms are also justifiable.

It is all right to simply say I accept that evolution is true or that I believe that evolution is true. In the background you consider that you have justification for these things.

But when someone says the world is flat then you start having stronger feelings that someone is not justified in that.

If you say that I believe that the world is round you normally do not also say I feel justified about this. You just state this as common sense. But when you say I believe this or I accept that, it is implicit that you feel okay about doing so.

A3

Hi Kent,
You said:
===================
Religious ideas have a number of assumptions or what they call doctrines. One of the doctrines I find ridiculous is the doctrine of the holy trinity where god is one person and three persons at the same time.
===================
I could not agree with you more and have always thought this made traditional Christianity the laughing stock of the world. It is a gross misinterpretation of the Bible. See what you think of this. We have "Doctrine of the Lord" and the whole book, in the tiniest of nut shells is:
God caused the birth of a baby on earth (there are many prophesies about that), by way of an ordinary virgin. When Jesus was born he had Mary as His mother and all through His life he took off (fought spiritually) the inherited evils which were his mothers and put on the divinity which was his Father's (God). On the cross, when he had his last and most severe temptation, he said that it was finished. At that point He became divine throughout. At that point His soul was God, His body was Jesus and the Holy Gost is his operation or influence on the human race.
We have been created in His image and likeness, which means we have a soul, a body and an influence on the world around us.
Also, all through our lifes we have the opportunity to go through the "same" process, but on our level, of becoming spiritual (not divine) by resisting our hereditary tendencies.
This is the Swedenborgian approach to the Trinity. One God with three aspects.
A3

TollHouse

A3:
By any chance does A3 stand for Alpha Trion?

owleye

Kent...

"Religious ideas have a number of assumptions or what they call doctrines."

This seems to be a peculiar notion of what an assumption is. A doctrine may contain, either explicitly or implicitly, assumptions, but a doctrine itself is not an assumption.

"One of the doctrines I find ridiculous is the doctrine of the holy trinity where god is one person and three persons at the same time."

That you find it ridiculous probably characterizes you more than it does the doctrine. In any case, I suspect you are interpreting it in an uncharitable way, probably because of some predisposition on your part.

"This sounds like a logical contradiction to me."

It may very well sound like it, but I would suggest that it would profit you to consider this not as a contradiction but rather a mystery, or better, as a paradox, antinomy, or something of that sort, that a careful analysis could find a way of making sense out of it.

"In terms of Islam they assume that Muhammad is the last and greatest prophet. But if god has say twenty prophets before Muhammad why not have another prophet after his existence."

Undoubtedly there is an explanation for this. But more importantly I think you should not be so quick to dismiss it. Remarks like yours highly suggest your lack of scholarship in the matter.

Notwithstanding this, it does give me an idea of what you mean by "any". I think what you mean could be reflected in the term 'arbitrary', though, of course, I could be wrong. If I'm right, I think it is at least debatable that arbitrariness characterizes what any given religion relies on for its faith.

You go on to describe at length the significance of "feeling justified." I'm afraid this may reveal a penchant of yours the truth of which would signficantly curtail my participation. If you wish to discuss this issue from a psychological perspective, you can count me out as a discussant.

"Scientists may talk about assumptions in a particular experiments. It is all right to use the term assumptions as long as we realise that these assumptions are justifiable. It is all right to use the term axiom by itself if we realise that these axioms are also justifiable."

This seems to say nothing at all. What is added by "it is all right" to use an assumption over saying the assumption is "justified?"

owleye

Kent Stevens

I agree with your summary of the Christain faith A3. There are some logical difficulties in science but these seem to be minor compared to the logical difficulties that some religions may experience. I am trying to be honest with my opinion just as religious people have been upfront in their opinion of what I believe.

It is not only I that find it ridiculous but you will find people who are relgious other than Christainity find it ridiculous. Islam acknowledges that Jesus was a prophet from god however it denies a couple of christain doctrines. They deny the divinity of Christ and the doctrine of the holy trinity.

Observe the Islamic profession of faith (shahada) which all Muslims must pronounce. "There is no god but god and Muhammad is his messenger". The first part says there is only one god which contradicts the divinity of Jesus and the doctrine of the holy trinity. No wonder there is such conflict between Christainity and Islam at times.

What I am trying to suggest is that not everyone has to say things like justifiable assumptions all the time when they are talking about a scientific experiments. They can simply talk about having certain assumptions. It is implicitly assumed that they are justifiable or else the experimental results would be wrong. If the assumptions are not justifiable this may be found out by someone who redoes the same experiment.

Also, for each mathematician or logician I am not saying they change their normal way of talking when they talk about axioms of a given system. They do not have to start talking about justifiable axioms all the time. It is implicitly assumed these axioms are justifiable or else the results would be false. If the axioms were not justifiable they could be found out to be so by a colleague or student. If from the axioms you deduce a theorem and you find this theorem does not correspond with reality, then your axioms would be false.

A3

No it doesn't, that is the way my name sounds in my native toung.
A3