Burn It Down: Article 18 Is a Free Pass for Mass Delusion

[Skepdick]

Big Mike supports reason , which I suppose you may call "monolithic". To give pride of place to reason puts one in good company of not only scientists but also poets, and philosophers.

Of course. But the process is fundamentally exclusionary/discriminatory. He is devaluing anyone who doesn't fit his prejudices of what "reason" looks like. It's basic Gatekeeping.

This amoral/factual description of what's actually going in practice; not a judgment of his behaviour as being right/wrong.

On consequentialism; any discrimination can be viewed as immoral. Even intellectual elitism. If the practical effect of privileging "reason" is to exclude or silence certain voices, then regardless of the intention, the outcome may be harmful.

Of course reason itself is valuable, but the social enforcement of particular conceptions of reason become a form of intellectual authoritarianism that undermines the very pluralism that makes reasoning valuable in the first place; and so normativity ultimately undermines the value of reason.

[Belinda]

But voluntary choice is determined or not according to whether one is a determinist or a free willist. Voluntarism does not support free will .

Your freedom lies precisely in the plurality - the ability to make either argument; or hold either belief.

I choose to not forget the explicit wording and the lexicon of philosophers!

Imagine you had no choice... Then you certainly wouldn't have this freedom.

You can choose to be a philosophical purist. Or not.
You can insist on precise terminology. Or not.
You can argue for determinism or free will. Or neither.
You can reject or accept different frameworks.

So much freedom...

I am a British subject (I know subject sounds odd but the monarchy is not much trouble in respect of freedom ), so I have freedom of thought, speech ,and assembly. Of course I can imagine what it's like to be an Iranian or an Afghan!, or Saudi Arabian.

Political freedom is only tangentially related to the determinism/free will debate.
Really, until you edit your use of English you will not make yourself clear and may even confuse yourself.

[Belinda]

Big Mike supports reason , which I suppose you may call "monolithic". To give pride of place to reason puts one in good company of not only scientists but also poets, and philosophers.

Of course. But the process is fundamentally exclusionary/discriminatory. He is devaluing anyone who doesn't fit his prejudices of what "reason" looks like. It's basic Gatekeeping.

This amoral/factual description of what's actually going in practice; not a judgment of his behaviour as being right/wrong.

On consequentialism; any discrimination can be viewed as immoral. Even intellectual elitism. If the practical effect of privileging "reason" is to exclude or silence certain voices, then regardless of the intention, the outcome may be harmful.

Of course reason itself is valuable, but the social enforcement of particular conceptions of reason become a form of intellectual authoritarianism that undermines the very pluralism that makes reasoning valuable in the first place; and so normativity ultimately undermines the value of reason.

It's important to not devalue the person or forum persona who holds a faulty idea. To my knowledge Big Mike devalues the idea and the belief in it, but not the forum persona who holds the belief. I can't remember. I myself try to not do so, and it's not easy easy, epecially when there are trolls and slanderers on the forum.

[Skepdick]

Political freedom is only tangentially related to the determinism/free will debate.

I don't think so. I view them as identical.

Imagine a philosophical world where one; or the other was unquestionable Orthodoxy - absolute Truth. The one thing everyone agrees on... except you; which renders you a heretic and subject to social ostracism and excommunication by fellow philosophers.

Tell me all about your political freedom.

Really, until you edit your use of English you will not make yourself clear and may even confuse yourself.

And yet - all I have is clarity... Clarity I couldn't have possibly acquired if I weren't able to violate conventions.

Protecting intellectual nonconformity isn't just about tolerance - it's about preserving the conditions that make genuine insight possible.

There's the conformist view.
There's the non-conformist view.
And there's truth somewhere in the middle.

The process matters far more than the position one holds.

[Skepdick]

It's important to not devalue the person or forum persona who holds a faulty idea.

The entire philosophical enterprise is marred by the inability to determine whose ideas are "faulty"...

Mostly because philosophers can't ever agree on what is; or isn't a "fault", but imagine those answers were pre-determined, unquestionable and unanimous.

How then would we prevent any single perspective from becoming tyrannical/totalitarian? Trust anyone who seeks truth; and distrust everyone who finds it! Philosophical inquiry is just another system for social control...

[Belinda]

It's important to not devalue the person or forum persona who holds a faulty idea.

The entire philosophical enterprise is marred by the inability to determine whose ideas are "faulty"...

Mostly because philosophers can't ever agree on what is; or isn't a "fault", but imagine those answers were pre-determined, unquestionable and unanimous.

How then would we prevent any single perspective from becoming tyrannical? Trust anyone who seeks truth; and distrust everyone who finds it! Philosophical inquiry is just another system for social control...

The philosophical debate is not "marred" but is enabled and enhanced by a multiplicity of ideas. Reason determines which ideas are or are not faulty.

True, reason has a history which historians tell us ebbed and flowed . The recent flow started circa Descartes with vast input from Galileo and age of enlightenment science. Big Mike is an efficient "gatekeeper" for reason on this forum. He did not invent reason nor is he in a sufficient position to be authoritative.
The great thing about reason is it's universally attainable in theory. It's the job of educationists in this day and age to put the theory into practice so reason is available to benighted masses. Does that sound to you like old -fashioned missionaries? Perhaps so, and I intended it so, as reason is the compass that indicates truth for philosophers and all others who have had a liberal education free from indoctrination.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Old fool that I am, I obviously still had, have even, a residual belief that we were long arcing toward justice. Where on Earth is reason guiding passion? Where is the mahout soothing Russia's elephant? Or China's? Or, most importantly, America's? Israel's? India's? Pakistan's? Britain's. Costa Rica's? Anywhere?

Where is there any, actual, enlightened political philosophy in action?

This is the best of all possible worlds, my stunned stoic realises anew.

[Belinda]

Old fool that I am, I obviously still had, have even, a residual belief that we were long arcing toward justice. Where on Earth is reason guiding passion? Where is the mahout soothing Russia's elephant? Or China's? Or, most importantly, America's? Israel's? India's? Pakistan's? Britain's. Costa Rica's? Anywhere?

Where is there any, actual, enlightened political philosophy in action?

This is the best of all possible worlds, my stunned stoic realises anew.

Reason is not reason at all unless it's based upon passion. Reason governs and refines passion. For 'passion' read sympathy . Sympathy and other passions without reason can result in uninhibited emotional reaction.

Without passion reason would be impaired, and possibly the sufferer would benefit from endocrine replacement therapy.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Old fool that I am, I obviously still had, have even, a residual belief that we were long arcing toward justice. Where on Earth is reason guiding passion? Where is the mahout soothing Russia's elephant? Or China's? Or, most importantly, America's? Israel's? India's? Pakistan's? Britain's. Costa Rica's? Anywhere?

Where is there any, actual, enlightened political philosophy in action?

This is the best of all possible worlds, my stunned stoic realises anew.

Reason is not reason at all unless it's based upon passion. Reason governs and refines passion. For 'passion' read sympathy . Sympathy and other passions without reason can result in uninhibited emotional reaction.

Without passion reason would be impaired, and possibly the sufferer would benefit from endocrine replacement therapy.

I agree completely, Hume was 1000% right. But reason is not refining passion. Or rather, I'm afraid it is. Israel warns Gazans before area bombing. Not precision bombing of manned Hamas targets. 50,000 collateral dead and counting is reasoned. What reason is refining Putin? What reason is refining the British press? What reason refines the ruling class anywhere and everywhere? Barely ameliorated self interest.

The only hope is therefore economic growth. Trickle down. The third way. Empowering the poor to make you even richer. To achieve even public luxury in the built environment, social housing, health, education, work, leisure. But never equality of outcome. So I should vote one-nation Tory?

[Belinda]

Old fool that I am, I obviously still had, have even, a residual belief that we were long arcing toward justice. Where on Earth is reason guiding passion? Where is the mahout soothing Russia's elephant? Or China's? Or, most importantly, America's? Israel's? India's? Pakistan's? Britain's. Costa Rica's? Anywhere?

Where is there any, actual, enlightened political philosophy in action?

This is the best of all possible worlds, my stunned stoic realises anew.

Reason is not reason at all unless it's based upon passion. Reason governs and refines passion. For 'passion' read sympathy . Sympathy and other passions without reason can result in uninhibited emotional reaction.

Without passion reason would be impaired, and possibly the sufferer would benefit from endocrine replacement therapy.

I agree completely, Hume was 1000% right. But reason is not refining passion. Or rather, I'm afraid it is. Israel warns Gazans before area bombing. Not precision bombing of manned Hamas targets. 50,000 collateral dead and counting is reasoned. What reason is refining Putin? What reason is refining the British press? What reason refines the ruling class anywhere and everywhere? Barely ameliorated self interest.

The only hope is therefore economic growth. Trickle down. The third way. Empowering the poor to make you even richer. To achieve even public luxury in the built environment, social housing, health, education, work, leisure. But never equality of outcome. So I should vote one-nation Tory?

Putin, Netanyahu, Hitler, and all had insufficient reason, perhaps because they lacked ordinary human sympathy due to previous indoctrination, fear-anger, or due to brain damage or endocrine damage. Indoctrination can account for deliberately biased reportage, and also for the act of rationalising greed. Do you remember Mandy Rice-Davies?
Does anyone still believe in trickle down?

Perfect equality of outcome is impossible. Jesus taught equality of outcome via reasoning. However equality of outcome was not going to absolutely happen, it was an aim and moral principle. Truly, Conservatives are well -named conservatives; they aim to conserve the default position where greed is the status quo.

[Skepdick]

The philosophical debate is not "marred" but is enabled and enhanced by a multiplicity of ideas. Reason determines which ideas are or are not faulty.

True, reason has a history which historians tell us ebbed and flowed . The recent flow started circa Descartes with vast input from Galileo and age of enlightenment science. Big Mike is an efficient "gatekeeper" for reason on this forum. He did not invent reason nor is he in a sufficient position to be authoritative.

The great thing about reason is it's universally attainable in theory. It's the job of educationists in this day and age to put the theory into practice so reason is available to benighted masses. Does that sound to you like old -fashioned missionaries? Perhaps so, and I intended it so, as reason is the compass that indicates truth for philosophers and all others who have had a liberal education free from indoctrination.

And when "reason" comes to different conclusions in different people both parties usually conclude the other's "unreasonable".

Indoctrination is inevitable; else everyone has their own doctrine as to what "reason" is.

[ThinkOfOne]

But if there’s no such thing as free will—if thoughts and speech are outcomes of causality, not autonomous moral choices—then what, exactly, are we protecting with “freedom of speech”?

As per Articles 18 and 19 what we are protecting is the freedom to believe and say that you have no freedom; at the exact same time we are protecting the freedom of somebody else to believe and say a contrary metaphysical belief.

What we are protecting is the collective right to say and believe either one of those things without some pompous philosopher-idiot dehumanizing you; and demanding your head for it because of some idiotic notion like "truth".

From there it trivially follows that what we are really protecting is the right to choose what one believes; which is effectively the same as believing in free will; however you can't really say this without being dragged back onto the Merry-Go-Round.

There is NO pragmatic, philosophical, scientific or other methodology which can resolve the free will debate.
The stand-off will remain - the conflict is eternal.

The moment someone declares their metaphysical position to be objectively true and uses that as grounds to dismiss others as deluded, irrational, or <insert any other pejorative here>, they've crossed a line. They have weaponized metaphysical certainty and are abusing it against others.

Such sub-humans will even play victim and insist they are being dehumanized; when in fact they've simply dehumanized themselves.
You know that meme where you put the stick in your own bicycle wheel and then blame others? Just like that.

The real value isn't in resolving the free will debate but in maintaining the space where it can remain unresolved - where people can hold contradictory positions without being metaphysically excommunicated; or dehumanized.

With all that said we are back to Voltaire... I know you are deluded and wrong in denying your free will; but I will defend your right to believe that delusion!

When pluralism (of any form!) disappears - when we are permitted only one form of thinking, speaking and being - then free will disappears too!

The answer to the question "do we have free will?" is, in fact "only as long as we can meaningfully disagree about whether we have free will."
Any enforced consensus becomes the real enemy of freedom, regardless of which philosophical position wins the enforcement battle.

Within the quote box, you have incorrectly attributed to me a statement made by BigMike

[Belinda]

The philosophical debate is not "marred" but is enabled and enhanced by a multiplicity of ideas. Reason determines which ideas are or are not faulty.

True, reason has a history which historians tell us ebbed and flowed . The recent flow started circa Descartes with vast input from Galileo and age of enlightenment science. Big Mike is an efficient "gatekeeper" for reason on this forum. He did not invent reason nor is he in a sufficient position to be authoritative.

The great thing about reason is it's universally attainable in theory. It's the job of educationists in this day and age to put the theory into practice so reason is available to benighted masses. Does that sound to you like old -fashioned missionaries? Perhaps so, and I intended it so, as reason is the compass that indicates truth for philosophers and all others who have had a liberal education free from indoctrination.

And when "reason" comes to different conclusions in different people both parties usually conclude the other's "unreasonable".

Indoctrination is inevitable; else everyone has their own doctrine as to what "reason" is.

ChatGTP says that the definition depends on the context.
2. Philosophy and Logic
Reason (noun): The faculty of the mind by which humans make sense of things, establish and verify facts, and form judgments logically.

It's contrasted with emotion, instinct, or faith.

Used in reasoning, inference, and rational deliberation.

To reason (verb): To think, understand, and form judgments logically.

Example: "He reasoned that it was better to wait until morning."


Inference and rational deliberation are definitive of reason.

[Impenitent]

Does anyone still believe in trickle down?

Perfect equality of outcome is impossible. Jesus taught equality of outcome via reasoning. However equality of outcome was not going to absolutely happen, it was an aim and moral principle. Truly, Conservatives are well -named conservatives; they aim to conserve the default position where greed is the status quo.

JFK thought cutting the top tax rates would be a good thing (he invented trickle down 20 years before Reagan... maybe that's why Dallas happened...)

"The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed in all of its forms. Greed for life, money, love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind, and greed – you mark my words – will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A." - Gordon Gekko

-Imp

[godelian]

I always side with the winners. May the best win!

That's the strategy of every loser.

No, that is the strategy of every opportunist.

You see, if they are going to fight, they are going to need weapons. There is a lot of money to be made in selling them, preferably, even to both sides. It does not matter which side exactly shoots a bullet, because in both cases, someone is going to be willing to spend money on a new one.