Political Philosophy and Ethics discussion

January 15, 2022 Revision of my original post in this topic:

The following excerpt is from Chapter 2 (“Human Reason”) of the draft of my forthcoming book Reason and Human Ethics (© 2022). This book will be published sometime in 2022.

Differences exist between reasoning about such abstract matters as mathematics and physics and reasoning about human decisions and actions. The question of human justice, addressed in Plato’s Republic, is not a subject of mathematics or physics. Mathematics and the physical sciences ask what is true about matters not involving human decisions and actions. Biology, unlike mathematics and physics, involves ends and means. Human decisions and actions involve reasoning about both ends and means. As Aristotle recognized in Book VI of his Nicomachean Ethics, correct reasoning should be applied both to the determination of ends and to the formulation of means. [Endnote: Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 6.1.1138b18–35, 6.2.1139a21–27, 6.5.1140b5–7, 6.13.1144b1–1145a11. Cf. Daniel C. Russell, Practical Intelligence and the Virtues (Oxford: Clarendon, 2009), pt. 1.]

One common error is to identify reason solely with abstract rationality. We are familiar with child prodigies who are mathematical geniuses but lack the ability to reason properly regarding human ethical and political affairs. As Aristotle remarked long ago, young people are not good reasoners about ethical matters, because they lack experience in actions pertaining to life. [Endnote: Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1.4.1095a2–12, 6.8.1142a11–22.] In our own time, Keith Stanovich, an applied psychologist, has demonstrated that many people—young and old—who score well on standard intelligence tests lack critical thinking skills, especially on matters pertaining to human decisions and actions. [Endnote: Keith E. Stanovich, What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009). See also Heather A. Butler, “Why Do Smart People Do Foolish Things? Intelligence Is Not the Same as Critical Thinking—and the Difference Matters,” Scientific American, October 3, 2017, https://www.scientificamerican.com/ar.... I disagree with Stanovich on some matters, but I agree with him on this point.]

The discipline of “formal logic” involves abstract (symbolic) philosophical, mathematical, computational, or linguistic propositions that ignore questions about correct reasoning in ordinary human decisions and actions, whereas “informal logic” and “critical thinking” address the actual content of human thought and communication.

More precisely, formal logic is “the abstract study of propositions, statements, or assertively used sentences and of deductive arguments. The discipline abstracts from the content of these elements the structures or logical forms that they embody. The logician customarily uses a symbolic notation to express such structures clearly and unambiguously and to enable manipulations and tests of validity to be more easily applied.” [Endnote: G. Hughes and Morton L. Schagrin, "Formal logic," Encyclopedia Britannica, November 2, 2018, https://www.britannica.com/topic/form....] “Formal” logic deals with “form.”

In contrast, “informal” logic is not limited to “form.” It includes inductive reasoning, evidence evaluation, and critical thinking as well as nonsymbolic deductive logic. Informal logic is greatly concerned with the correction of logical fallacies as they appear in human reasoning. [Endnote: See Leo Groarke, “Informal Logic,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, fall 2021 ed., ed. Edward L. Zalta, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lo... David Hitchcock, “Critical Thinking,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, fall 2020 ed., ed. Edward L. Zalta, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cr....] Informal logic and critical thinking are an important focus of the present book.

The foregoing explains why I added (on 10/25/2018) the adjective "Informal" to "Logic" in the title of this topic. Since logic can be relevant to both political philosophy and ethics, I have no problem with discussions of informal (nonsymbolic) logic here. But abstruse questions of theoretical, symbolic logic (as in formal, abstract philosophy or computer science) should be avoided as being irrelevant to the subject matter of this forum. Basically, the test is whether a post relates to questions about human ethics and/or human government. If it does not, it belongs elsewhere.

Note: Some of the following exchanges are with Randal, who later decided to withdraw from this group.

July 9, 2022 NOTE:

Today, I posted the following on Academia.edu: “Excerpts from Reason and Human Ethics by Alan E. Johnson” (https://www.academia.edu/82835731/Exc...). The front matter (excerpts), Chapter 1 ("What Is the Basis of Human Ethics?"), and Chapter 2 ("Human Reason") of Reason and Human Ethics were included in this public post. Chapters 3 ("Individual Ethics"), 4 ("Social Ethics"), 5 ("Citizen and Media Ethics") 6 ("Political Ethics"), and the Appendix ("Conflicts among the Claims to Revelation") were not included.

The above-referenced excerpts are from the published book (see https://www.amazon.com/Reason-Human-E....

I also deleted the previous papers on Academia.edu that constituted excerpts from earlier drafts of this book.

I have a freeware installed on my PC which gives me instant reference to all logical fallacies, with a quiz function and examples, too. Its from some university somewhere. The authors are Dr. Michael LaBossiere & Jay Lichtenauer.

Feliks wrote: "I have a freeware installed on my PC which gives me instant reference to all logical fallacies, with a quiz function too. Its from some university somewhere. The authors are Dr. Michael LaBossiere ..."

Interesting.

Alan wrote: "The word "dialetheism" sounds and looks like a Greek neologism. I cannot find it in any English or Greek dictionary, including the Merriam-Webster Online Unabridged Dictionary and Liddell and Scott's unabridged Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996). From what I have read so far, Priest does not explain how he derived this word. Do you have any information about this?..."

Alan,

Beyond the Limits of Thought is a relatively late book in Priest's oeuvre. The original idea for "dialetheism" (but not the word itself) was presented in a paper "The Logic of Paradox" (1979, Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 219-41.) He has written A LOT. Check the references in Beyond the Limits of Thought. The word is indeed a neologism. In his book in contradiction (First Edition 1987, Second (my) edition 2006) in a footnote in the introduction he explains the origin of the word as follows, "The word 'dialetheia' owes its coinage to Richard Routley and myself. Although it is not a bona fide Greek word, its Greek roots are meant to be indicative of the Janus-headed nature (Wittgenstein 1956, pt IV, sect. 59) of a true contradiction: if alpha and not alpha is a true contradiction, alpha faces both truth and falsity."

In short, he and Routley made it up. The derivation is roughly from the Greek for “two (δι) truth (ἀλήθεια)”. There is also a long entry on the word in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Priest here. In the text of the introduction to in contradiction he says, "So as to avoid any confusion, let me say, right at the start, that a dialetheia is any true statement of the form: alpha and it is not the case that alpha" (p. 4).

Whatever one says about Priest, it is not reasonable to say that he is a member of any group proposing "anti-rationalism, (which) along with other influences, has morphed into what we now call postmodernism, which is nothing if it is not a frontal attack on reason and logic." Dialetheism is a frontal attack on classical logic, but you will search wide and far to find a person better versed in reason and logic than Priest. Oxford picked him for their “Short Introduction” series on logic for a good "reason", because he is a master in its use.

Randal

I love that VSI series. Gonna grab that entry. Grab it like a rabbit.

Randal wrote (post 4): "The word is indeed a neologism. In his book in contradiction (First Edition 1987, Second (my) edition 2006) in a footnote in the introduction he explains the origin of the word as follows, "

Thanks, Randal. That explains it. It should have been obvious to me—and probably would have been more obvious if he had not tacked the un-Greek "ism" onto the word. I'll read the Stanford Encyclopedia article before proceeding further in Priest's book. By the way, I was not referring to Priest when I was dissing the postmodernists. In any event, I should probably not be evaluating people I have not yet read, and I have not read any of the postmodernist lot. Everything I know about postmodernism is second-hand, which violates one of my cardinal rules, but there it is. Reading the postmodernists is, for me, like going to the dentist: I procrastinate as long as possible, especially when there are so many more worthwhile things to read. Sooner or later, I suppose, I will have to eat my spinach.

I read and used W. Ward Fearnside and William B. Holther's Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Spectrum, 1959) when I was a high-school debater during the early 1960s. I still have the copy I purchased at that time. It is an oldie but goodie. Amazon currently has the book available through third-party used-book dealers here. And the price is right! Most of the copies sell for $0.01 plus $3.99 shipping.

Another great oldie is How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff. I first read this book in hardcover during the 1970s or 1980s. Although I misplaced my hardcover copy, it is now available in Kindle and paperback at very reasonable prices, and I have just now downloaded the Kindle edition for rereading.

The book aptly describes its subject matter in its introduction:

"This book is a sort of primer in ways to use statistics to deceive. It may seem altogether too much like a manual for swindlers. Perhaps I can justify it in the manner of the retired burglar whose published reminiscences amounted to a graduate course in how to pick a lock and muffle a footfall: The crooks already know these tricks; honest men must learn them in self-defense."

I have not trusted the use of statistics ever since reading this book. The book taught me to detect how statistics are misused by politicians, the media, and many others on a routine basis. No political or economic ideology is immune from such abuse. Although statistics are probably a necessary evil, one should be very wary about how they are deployed in our public discourse.

Statistics are often used in connection with classic fallacies. Because statistics have an aura of scientific respectability, it is easy to miss how such frauds are perpetrated. One of the most common fallacies used with statistical data is the post hoc fallacy, which is discussed in Chapter 8 of the book. I see this fallacy being committed again and again in many different contexts. It is always important to remember that a statistical correlation does not alone prove a causal relationship.

Feliks wrote: "I love that VSI series. Gonna grab that entry. Grab it like a rabbit."

Feliks,

The VSI Logic says nothing about dialetheias. Need to look elsewhere for discussion of that.

Randal

Alan wrote: "I read and used W. Ward Fearnside and William B. Holther's Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Spectrum, 1959) when I was a high-school debater during the early 1960s. I st..."

Alan,

A "classic" argument that contradictions cannot be true or that "Once that principle (non-contradiction) is out the window, anything goes, and all is babble" is one of those fallacies, according to Priest and based on the argument of Anderson and Belnap in Entailment The Logic of Relevance and Necessity. I have tried to explain why this argument is faulty in a post that I have referenced earlier here.

Randal

Randal wrote: "Alan wrote: "I read and used W. Ward Fearnside and William B. Holther's Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Spectrum, 1959) when I was a high-school debater during the early..."

Thanks. I'll check this out later today. I have to leave in a couple of minutes for a family Labor Day gathering.

Alan wrote: "Thanks. I'll check this out later today...."

This stuff is not simple. There are lots of logicians today who don't agree with Priest. His old teacher, Susan Haack, is a classical logic believer who has written against both Priest and the "relevance" logic of Anderson and Belnap. You get a flavor of the state of disagreement in the "Further Reflections" last chapter in BTLT. Priest there takes on his critics. Another brilliant critic of Priest, who is in the "anti-realist" three-valued truth camp, but who is also very respectful of Priest is Hartry Field. See Saving Truth from Paradox.

Alan wrote: "It is always important to remember that a statistical correlation does not alone prove a causal relationship. ..."

Agreed. American society thrives on this fog of statistical assumptions and pseudo-progress and popular science. Scientists are our mystics. The public landscape often feels no more advanced than it was under the robber-baron and feudal era. We need more guys like HL Mencken...

Re Randal's posts 9 and 11, supra:

Randal,

As you write in one of your linked posts, "it is only the special class of things that inhabit the margins of experience that fall into dialetheism." I agree: see my post 1, supra, in which I observed, inter alia, that "I discussed at some length in chapter 2 [of my book First Philosophy and Human Ethics] the fact that the concepts of infinite space, infinite time, and the origin of the universe necessarily violate the law of noncontradiction as we understand it." I have now read (albeit not well understood) Graham Priest's essay in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and your external posts linked above. It appears that Priest might accept my formulations (infinite space, infinite time, origin of the universe) as being truly dialetheic (see his discussion of Kant), but he seems to extend the realm of true dialetheism to many other things that I don't currently understand. I grant, as he says, that he is not a trivialist, i.e., that he does not accept that all contradictions are true. But my comprehension of these matters is currently too superficial for me to evaluate whether his additional applications of dialetheism withstand rational scrutiny.

You are much more advanced in the weeds of formal, theoretical, and symbolic logic than I, and I doubt that I will ever reach your level of knowledge. Having passed my seventieth birthday, I realize that I need to prioritize. The questions raised by Priest et al. are, in my view, essentially metaphysical. My main interest regarding logic, as indicated in my posts 1 and 7, supra, is in its practical application to questions of ethical and political philosophy. The theoretical speculations of Priest et al. are, to my mind, interesting but not applicable to ethical and/or political questions, unless one ponders, say, the possible dialetheic implications of the libertarian nonaggression principle (no one has a right to initiate force against another). That principle, as construed by the Objectivist followers of Ayn Rand and the libertarian followers of anarchocapitalists such as Murray Rothbard, precludes taxation (Rand and Rothbard) and (in the case of Rothbard) any kind of government. However, a complex society without government and taxation is, in my view, ontologically impossible. There may be other such ethical or political applications of dialetheism, though I don't understand Priest as having properly addressed them. His discussion of law is curious. The kind of law to which he is referring is positive or conventional, not natural. Of course, there can be contradictions in various actual legal regimes: as a retired lawyer and active legal historian I can testify to that. But such contradictions in the world of conventional experience are not surprising. In fact, Plato's entire dialectic was a progression from the contradictions of experience to the noncontradictions of the essential natures (call them forms or ideas) of ethical and political matters. Whether Plato (or, more precisely, any of his dialogic characters) was successful in this regard is, of course, another question. especially since many of his dialogues end with aporia

So I conclude, at least provisionally, that the law of noncontradiction (LNC) applies to most (perhaps not all) ethical and political matters, especially in the evaluation of the public statements, written or oral, of political and other actors in the real world. However, the LNC does not apply to certain questions on the verge of metaphysics or the boundary between metaphysics and physics. I will continue to read Priest's Beyond the Limits of Thought for further insight, but I must acknowledge that I will not have time to master the details of his analysis.

Alan

(originally posted September 5, 2016, with minor edits on September 6, 2016)

Alan wrote: "So I conclude, at least provisionally, that the law of noncontradiction (LNC) applies to most (perhaps not all) ethical and political matters, especially in the evaluation of the public statements, written or oral, of political and other actors in the real world. ..."

Alan,

Totally agree. Given that, perhaps we can close discussion of the LNC in this context. Not so sure about Strauss's argument against historicism, but I myself don't have time or inclination to pursue that at the moment. So, as the mayor of our little town always says, onward!

Cheers,

Randal

Randal wrote: "Totally agree. Given that, perhaps we can close discussion of the LNC in this context. Not so sure about Strauss's argument against historicism, but I myself don't have time or inclination to pursue that at the moment. So, as the mayor of our little town always says, onward!"

and (per Plato) upward!

Neuroscientist Daniel Levitin has published a book titled A Field Guide to Lies: Critical Thinking in the Information Age that focuses especially on the fallacious use of statistics and other information on the Internet.

(updated January 16, 2022)

That's a book well worth the writing, seems to me.

As far as I'm concerned the medium itself destroys critical thinking. Demolishes it outright. It hijacks the brain. It's like the clear-cutting of forests.

I see occasional webizens who understand and explore rationale (such as in this group) but it's more like, you all possess this habit in your personal life and simply 'speak of it' here in this environment. The web itself, does not engender or support thought. When one's eyes are distracted by this 'flitting' type of entertainment, the brain is effectively 'on hold'. 'Deliberation' is extinguished. That's how it looks to me, anyway.

I earnestly hope someone or something turns this trend around. EMP blast, hurry up!

Feliks wrote: "EMP blast, hurry up!"

What is "EMP blast"?

I find the Internet quite helpful for research purposes. For example, one can locate otherwise unavailable books through Google Books and other online sources. In researching my recent book on Roger Williams, I found Early English Books Online (EEBO) invaluable in accessing seventeenth-century original editions of important works (including all the original editions of books authored by Roger Williams and his opponents). JSTOR provides access to previously inaccessible scholarly articles. Even Wikipedia has its moments. Although some Wikipedia articles are inferior in quality, others far exceed even the Encyclopedia Britannica in the breadth and depth of their treatment of a subject (though I would never rely on or cite Wikipedia in formal scholarship).

I remember the many hours I used to waste in libraries trying (often unsuccessfully) to locate important primary and secondary sources. I wouldn't go back to those days. Now, such information is often available instantly with a couple of clicks.

Yes, of course, a lot of people (perhaps the vast majority) misuse the Internet. But people will always misuse any technology. There was, originally, a lot of opposition to the automobile. The old folks said it would lead to teenage pregnancy (which it did). Chaperones became a thing of the past for young people mixing with those of the opposite sex. That was a hundred years ago. Although the internal combustion engine has contributed substantially to undesirable climate change, I don't think many people today oppose the automobile because it affords young people too much opportunity for unsupervised recreation.

As for the medium being the message, I've never quite accepted Marshall McLuhan's famous trope. See my 1967 essay "Hippies and Pioneers" at pages 4-5. True, recent neuroplasticity research has proved that repeated activity can alter one's brain. But the Internet was not the first, nor is it the only, contributor to such a phenomenon. This kind of thing has been going on for a long time in many different contexts. Ibid. And use of the Internet might actually improve one's brain in many respects. For the first time, ordinary people have unlimited access to material that is of high, as well as low, quality. It's the old story of the good, the bad, and the ugly. Some people will become smarter by using the Internet; others will go the other way. So be it. I call this "free will"—an outdated concept to which I, nevertheless, continue to assent.

If we accept the utilitarian notion of the greatest good for the greatest number, we risk descending into the kind of authoritarian society depicted in Plato's Laws or the theocratic Puritan society of seventeenth-century Massachusetts Bay. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I say, with Jefferson, let our minds be free. I have enough faith in human nature that I think reason will survive and even (eventually) prosper. Or at least I keep telling myself so. In any event, I am not willing to give up my intellectual freedom for the sake of mass morality.

The internet is not the only media being misused. Fox "News" became the propaganda mouthpiece of the Republican Party under Roger Ailes. In Western Pennsylvania, the Tribune-Review is the printed Republican mouthpiece.

It's an unfortunate trend in this country that whether on the internet or in print or on cable TV or on radio talk shows, people can find what they want to hear and self-segregate.

They are also self-segregating in choosing where they live, which has been going on since humans evolved but which has been accelerating again after a period of easing. Gated communities are relatively new in America.

We need to find ways to use the internet and other media to promote logic and critical thinking. There have been books on the general subject recently, including "A Field Guide to Lies: Critical Thinking in the Information Age", which I have not read yet but plan to.

Alan wrote: "I find the internet quite helpful for research purposes...."

I suppose it's everyone's individual prerogative. If I was still a researcher myself, (I'm in my career field now) I wouldn't even think to touch the www for any serious endeavor. I wouldn't even mention it in a paper. By its very construction, it is inherently undependable. There is absolutely no website which is immune to hacking or distortion of information. To date, 1 billion webpages have been hacked. When I was in school it was regarded as no better than a periodical.

It is 'convenient', I admit--but as far as I am concerned, only for utterly informal purposes. This is just my personal sentiment on the matter.

What is "EMP blast"?...."
I'm surprised you have never heard of it. EMP stands for 'electromagnetic pulse' and is a very real possibility, one way or another. It may result from a solar flare; it is also reproduce-able in portable bomb format from any enemy of this country who wishes to disrupt our society. It doesn't take a missile platform to deliver. EMP would certainly would do some major disruption, of a kind it might take a decade to recover from. EMP renders almost all electronic devices inoperable, useless, hunks of scrap metal. All data expunged. Mobile, desktop, servers, every single silicon-circuit based device. This is why 'porting' our entire society onto a digital format is foolhardy. If an EMP should occur, we would be thrown back into a medieval lifestyle.

Feliks wrote: "Alan wrote: "I find the internet quite helpful for research purposes...."

I suppose it's everyone's individual prerogative. If I was still a researcher myself, (I'm in my career field now) I would..."

I think we're talking about two different things. The Internet references I mentioned (other than Wikipedia) are serious scholarly sources that were mostly previously inaccessible absent travel to libraries in London and other places around the world. Not everyone (including myself) has the time or money for such expensive research.

Not contradicting you here--I recognize the benefits you're speaking of. But any virtual format as a whole, is all tarred by the same brush. First, how do you get the data converted? User-entry is faulty and so is OCR. Every net-related issue really, is 'vexed' like this, once you explore it. Eh, no matter. 'Good source' or 'bad source', the delivery method itself is corrupt. Anything delivered via a screen, deserves second-guessing. In my career, I work with the highest technology in this country. Behind the scenes, (speaking of my colleagues here) no one actually in charge of it, can issue the slightest guarantee to its security or authenticity. Yes, I'm sure that popular pressure today induces people to give digital media all sorts of trust that ought not to be truly vouchsafed. It's hard to fight against a tsunami this massive. The urge for 'modern convenience' is overwhelming. And naturally its disappointing to see research efforts hobbled in any way. Yet...somehow research was carried out successfully long before the net arrived, one way or another...

Feliks wrote: "Not contradicting you here--I recognize the benefits you're speaking of. But any virtual format as a whole, is all tarred by the same brush. First, how do you get the data converted? User-entry is ..."

The primary source material to which I am referring (e.g., EEBO) consists of photographic replicas of the original editions of books. These are exactly the same things you would see if you traveled to another continent and inspected the originals in the rare book rooms of famous research libraries. Neither OCR nor user-entry is involved. There is no opportunity for error by present-day editors, unless they fail to photograph a particular page (which does not routinely happen).

The secondary source material to which I am referring (e.g., JSTOR) also usually consists of photographic replicas of articles in scholarly journals.

I am not talking about such Internet rewrites as Project Gutenberg.

In looking in Plato's Republic for another passage, I reviewed, and was reminded of, Plato's definition of the principle of contradiction (a/k/a the "noncontradiction principle”): “It’s obvious that the same thing isn’t going to put up with doing or undergoing opposite things in the same respect and in relation to the same thing at the same time . . . ." Republic 436b, trans. and ed. Joe Sachs (Newburyport, MA: Focus, 2007), Kindle ed. In a note to this passage, Sachs observes: "This clause is the first known articulation of what Aristotle later called the principle of contradiction. The verb Socrates uses here indicates an uncertainty about what the proposition rests on, though the statement is highly precise in other respects. As always, Socrates is offering a starting point for discussion. It should also be noted that he is not speaking about what can be said or thought, but making an observation about the way things are in fact." Ibid., Kindle loc. 3572-75).

Allan Bloom translated the statement in 436b as follows: "It's plain that the same thing won't be willing at the same time to do or suffer opposites with respect to the same part and in relation to the same thing." The Republic of Plato, trans. and ed. Allan Bloom (New York: Basic Books, 1968), 115. In an endnote to this passage, Bloom wrote: "This is the earliest-known explicit statement of the principle of contradiction—the premise of philosophy and the foundation of rational discourse." Ibid., 457n25.

Plato's definition may be even better than Aristotle's—of course, with the proviso that it may not apply to certain ultimate questions of physics and metaphysics.

For other discussions of reason versus emotion (or reason and emotion) as the basis of human ethics, see, inter alia, the Ancient Greek History and Religion topic, especially posts 69-78, in this group. See also the Philosophy, Theology, and Human Ethics and the Neuroscience, Evolutionary Biology, and Ethics topics. Also, the Jacques Derrida topic passim.

(revised 9/30/2016)

I received today in the mail, from an Amazon used-book vendor, a paperback copy of Stephen Toulmin, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik, An Introduction to Reasoning, 2nd ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1984). Unfortunately, this book appears to be out of print and available only from used-book vendors.

An Introduction to Reasoning was designed as a text for a college course, whether in philosophy, communication, English, law, or business. The authors state that this book "presupposes no familiarity with formal logic, and is intended to provide an introduction to ideas about rationality and criticism without requiring a mastery of any particular logical formalism." Ibid., v. Part IV (pages 129-97) is an extensive examination of fallacies.

I have only read a few pages, but this book looks like my kind of treatment of reason and logic. It is an elaboration and application of Stephen Toulmin's approach to rational thinking as set forth in some of his other books.

Alan wrote: "Fine, but I don't see its relevance to the issues at hand. That we use our senses, our rationally developed tools, and our reason to apprehend reality doesn't mean that reality doesn't exist or that we cannot form some reasonably accurate understanding of it...."

Here's an interesting angle to consider:
Our human brain is incapable of conceiving of the idea of a circle having anything other than 360 equidistant points around it's center. Therefore, all the logic we utilize with regard to circles, could be said to proceed 'from' this limitation. What we can do governs what we imagine can be done at all.

Or is this mere sophistry? ha

Feliks wrote: "Our human brain is incapable of conceiving of the idea of a circle having anything other than 360 equidistant points around it's center. Therefore, all the logic we utilize with regard to circles, proceeds from this limitation. What we can do governs what we imagine can be done at all."

There may be beings in another solar system, perhaps another galaxy, perhaps another universe, who are capable of understanding reality better than we. Call them "gods," if you will, but we know nothing of them or their powers. Under such circumstances, I think we have to go with what we've got. All the rest is idle speculation unless one believes that one has had a personal revelation from another dimension. I haven't, and nobody can convince me that anyone else has. Ergo, we can rely only on the brains we possess (subject, of course, to long-term evolutionary development), and I know of no other way to understand ethical and political principles, let alone ultimate reality.

Again, what's your point?

I merely thought it worth posting. It doesn't necessarily tie in to any point I've been making. In private, maybe I'm personally inclined to a certain frame-of-mind (and that, maybe only lately) based on what's going on in the course of my day or week...but not everything I might post stems from that. I am not 'pressing' a P-O-V on anyone. It's simply engaging to compare and contrast various notions against each other.

Sometimes the discoveries of all these philosophers seem to relate to or depend on each other; or else depend upon certain common-ground. What is that common-ground? Sometimes its very much in question. Maybe we can shed some light on it by holding up this-or-that perspective for consideration.

For example, this thread is 'Reason, Logic, and Critical thinking'. What are some ways to flesh out what these terms mean and how they are applied? How do we understand them, what are their limits? Their legacy? Just musing aloud here.

For analysis and documentation of the emerging post-fact world, see Margaret Sullivan's December 2, 2016 column here. As I had done earlier, before the recent US election, she quotes George Orwell's 1984. Orwell's prophecy was a bit off on the anticipated timeline. He should have named his book 2017.

For a critique, by the same professor (Peter Dreier), of failures of critical thinking, both Right and Left, see his articles here (Right) and here (Left). In the first article, which addresses phony right-wing attacks on him, he cites his second article for the proposition that this kind of thing "is also, to a lesser extent, partly the result of left-wing postmodernism, which posits that there are no facts, just points-of-view—something I wrote about earlier this year in an article titled 'Academic Drivel Report,' for The American Prospect." The far Right seems to meet the far Left on such issues, though the far Right will, shortly, now dominate at least one of the three branches of the US federal government and is thus more politically dangerous in the near term.

Addendum to my preceding post:

Hypothesis: the Left provides the theory ("left-wing postmodernism, which posits that there are no facts, just points-of-view" in Dreier's words) and the Right provides the practice (Alt-Right, Fake News, Trumpism, etc.).

In the introduction to his 1953 book Natural Right and History, Leo Strauss referenced a pre-World War II book by Otto Gierke, Natural Law and the Theory of Society, in making the following remarks:

"While abandoning the idea of natural right and through abandoning it, [Gierke] continued, German thought has 'created the historical sense,' and thus was led eventually to unqualified relativism. What was a tolerably accurate description of German thought twenty-seven years ago would now [in the early 1950s] appear to be true of Western thought in general. It would not be the first time that a nation, defeated on the battlefield and, as it were, annihilated as a political being, has deprived its conquerors of the most sublime fruit of victory by imposing on them the yoke of its own thought."

Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), 1-2 (footnote omitted).

Is history repeating itself? Will the West (this time including the United States) once more descend into fascism after becoming intellectually enervated by relativism? This is the kind of thing that happens when reason, logic, evidence, and critical thinking are all thrown out the window as being just somebody's subjective point of view. We shall see—perhaps within the next decade—whether the West repeats the intellectual, moral, and political errors that led to Mussolini and Hitler. There's a guy in the Kremlin who is counting on it.

I have reviewed Professor Patrick Grim's DVD course entitled "The Philosopher's Toolkit: How to Be the Most Rational Person in Any Room," here. (Note: this DVD series is considerably less expensive on Amazon than it is on the Great Courses website.)

I just stumbled over a factoid I wasn't aware of:
Socratic learning in Athens wound up being the preferred mode of schooling for the richer students, the brighter students, the ambitious students, those imbued with eager and genuine curiosity. The Socratic schools were populated by these students because such tutelage took a longer period of time to master. Thus, since these schools "cost a pretty penny" only well-to-do families could send their youths there.

But another thinker, Isocrates, created a more plebian system of basic, rudimentary education to serve all the other types of Athenian; and it is this model which was adopted by Rome and then passed down to the rest of Western civilization. Mighty interesting!

I'm paraphrasing a passage I just read, so feel free to amend my word-choice.

Feliks wrote: "I just stumbled over a factoid I wasn't aware of:
Socratic learning in Athens wound up being the preferred mode of schooling for the rich, the brighter students, the ambitious students, those imbue..."

Interesting. Is there a specific book or article in which you read this?

yes, that Auden essay again
(so, it needs more corroboration before it can be parroted as a fact)

still, I was pleased to see this little morsel mentioned by him, since we were just talking over the 'Roman legacy' in that other thread...

Alan wrote (post 30, above): "For analysis and documentation of the emerging post-fact world, see Margaret Sullivan's December 2, 2016 column here. As I had done earlier, before the recent US election, she quotes George Orwell..."

Orwell's classic novel 1984, first published in 1949, was written when Stalin was still ruling the Soviet Union and memories of Hitler were still fresh. One of Orwell's themes is how totalitarian regimes create alternative facts (i.e., lies). Here is an excerpt from 1984:

"The Party said that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed— if all records told the same tale— then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.' And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. 'Reality control,' they called it; in Newspeak, 'doublethink.'”

George Orwell, Animal Farm and 1984 (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2003), 119-20.

Feliks wrote (post 34): "Socratic learning in Athens wound up being the preferred mode of schooling for the richer students, the brighter students, the ambitious students, those imbued with eager and genuine curiosity. The Socratic schools were populated by these students because such tutelage took a longer period of time to master. Thus, since these schools "cost a pretty penny" only well-to-do families could send their youths there."

Of course, Socrates himself, unlike the sophists, did not charge anything to those with whom he conversed. My recollection is that this is what he said in Plato's Apology of Socrates and perhaps in some of Plato's other dialogues. I don't know about Plato, who, I understand, had inherited wealth and may not have needed to charge anything to students in the Academy. But Plato emphasizes that Socrates, who of course was himself a plebian (see, for example, Nietzsche, who criticized him on that account) never took money.

So I don't know what is meant by "the Socratic schools." I would also like to know what evidence Auden gave for this conclusion, assuming he cited any evidence at all.

Alan wrote: "Alan wrote (post 30, above): "For analysis and documentation of the emerging post-fact world, see Margaret Sullivan's December 2, 2016 column here. As I had done earlier, before the recent US elect..."

Apparently within days of Conway's "alternative facts" comment Amazon sold out of copies of 1984!

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ent...

If nothing else people are reading the right texts.

What a week! Joint chiefs of staff no longer sit on the security council replaced by Bannon who has claimed he's an admirer of Lenin and like Lenin he wants "to destroy the state"!
Then the executive order banning Muslims from the 7 states.

It caused chaos out here as well though not nearly as much I'm sure. Australian businesses had Muslim staff on planes or in airports and were scrambling to get them back.
Half the political class on the right were hiding in shame for having been seen to be to accommodating to Trumpism, the other other half were dog whistling to the far right part of our electorate.

If Bannon and Trump want to pull down the state they are off to a rip roaring start!

Alan wrote: "Of course, Socrates himself, unlike the sophists, did not charge anything to those with whom he conversed. My recollection is that this is what he said in Plato's Apology of Socrates and perhaps in some of Plato's other dialogues. I don't know about Plato, who, I understand, had inherited wealth and may not have needed to charge anything to students in the Academy..."

According to some quick internet research I can confirm that the standard academic view is that Plato did not charge during his lifetime and there was no set course structure. Apparently the 'Academy' in it's early incarnation (about 390 BC) was a kind of private club and the 'course' consisted of Plato posing problems and either setting 'students' to present arguments around them or open discussions. Sounds like what a good uni tutorial should be like. There is even some evidence of Plato giving 'lectures' with one lecture, "On the Good" still surviving.

Later it shifted to a larger group and was less exclusive though still unpaid and the Academy is considered to have been founded as a proper school with junior and senior students in about 387 BC.
Some time after Plato's death (348 BC) the Academy shifted to a paid system with entry available to all who could pay but specific dates for the introduction of charges are uncertain.

Isocrates did have a school and he asked for significant fees and became quite rich. Isocrates though was basically teaching rhetoric as opposed to what we would consider the more philosophical themes that Plato taught.

So if Auden was talking about the Academy, which to apply the principle of charity seems likely, then he is most likely to have been talking about the post Platonic Academy. It did after all last for just over 300 years (about 84 BC).

Thank you, Gerard, for your posts 39 and 40.

Re your post 39: It is hard to believe that, so far, we have seen only one full week of the Trump administration. Most of the conservatives here are lining up in support of his policies. Notable exceptions include the likes of Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham, whom Trump accuses of wanting to start World War III. It’s a sad day when progressives have to form an alliance with neocons. Needless to say, it will be a very long four years. Even if Trump is impeached and removed from office (probably unlikely), Vice President Pence, albeit slightly more rational, is an extreme right-wing figure who would, unlike Trump, do things with a smile. Better to hear the rattlesnake coming than to be put off guard by the smiley treatment. Pence is more like Reagan (though Reagan was sunnier) while Trump reminds one of Nixon (though Nixon was more rational). As Marx (with whom I have many disagreements) once wrote , history repeats itself, first as tragedy and then as farce.

Re your post 40: I figured that those were the facts, though I have not personally researched this. At a certain point, I suppose, the Academy had to decide whether to disband, for lack of funds, or start charging for its services. Not everyone had Socrates's self-imposed poverty or Plato's inherited wealth. It might, of course, be argued that the later Academy was not of the same caliber as the Academy under Plato's stewardship. Since I know little about the post-Plato Academy, I will not opine on that question.

The phenomenon known as "gaslighting" is explained here.

Ah, yes. Gaslighting. Trump gas-lighted Australia last week.
Made ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims (flat out lies) against us. Then made nice to us like he'd never said those things. Then just as we started to look away, he slammed us again.

In the small city I live, Darwin, we currently have 1250 marines stationed just a few kilometres away. This contingent is due to grow to 2,500 over the next 18 months. When you go into town in the evenings US troops are to be found in the local pubs and restaurants and it is not unusual to see US MP's patrolling our streets in military vehicles. US jets scream overhead through our skies during joint forces activities. All this is part of the US military's 'pivot to Asia' policy.
From our paper of record, the Sydney Morning Herald "According to the 2015 Lowy Institute Poll, 80 per cent rated it [Aus / US alliance] as either 'very' or 'fairly' important for Australian security. At the same time, a full 58 per cent of respondents believe that the US-alliance makes it more likely that Australia will be drawn into a war in Asia that would not be in our own interest."

So generally we support the involvement but we are pretty worried about the implications. Regardless of Trump's comments why might that be?
Well we also pay a fair bit towards those troops and it's a significant burden for a small country. Yes, the US contributes as well but the US has significantly more financial resources and we would not need to spend the money if we were not hosting US troops.

We have the Pine Gap radar and electronic spying installation here in the Northern Territory as well. This is part of the 'Five Eyes' agreement and without it the US would be effectively blind in the pacific as the US has itself admitted. Now that base is a recognised nuclear target should a war break out because it would instantly disrupt communications for the US pacific fleet. We are pretty nervous about people dropping nukes on us, understandably. This is for a facility that Australia's military and intelligence personnel were often not even allowed to enter for decades. Effectively an annexation of a small piece of land in Australia that drew nuclear attention to us.

Then of course there is the fact that in every major US war for 100 years Australian troops have answered the call and our citizens have died or been maimed in defence of US interests. Was the UK fighting alongside the US in North Korean or Vietnam? Nope.
Did our citizens die on a dodgy 'fake news' version of intelligence during the second Gulf war? Yes.

And consider that no country in the world is as well placed to be an honest broker between China and the US in any future confrontation. We have good relations with both sides and we know China.

To add insult insult to injury our "President" "Trumbull" (over three days this childish name calling went on - for the record it's Prime Minister Turnbull) was leaked and accused of wanting to smuggle terrorists into the US (on Twitter!)!

So we carry a heavy financial burden. Our citizens have been dying for 100 years in defence interests that are often solely to the immediate advantage of the US.

After all this Australia twice asked for a quid pro quo. Military support for Australian interests. Firstly during the "Konfrontasi" with Malaysia in in the early 60's and the again during the East Timor move to independence when we merely asked for a bolster to our peace keeping force.

Guess what. We got turned down BOTH times. Makes us think that sometimes in the words of a certain President "people have been taking advantage of us."

And yet Trump believes that we deserve to be 'trolled' on twitter. Then he expects us to believe he "loves" Australia and not take that as utterly disingenuous and insincere. Indeed just another insult.

So when words start getting thrown around by "unnamed sources in government" here in Australia like "stabbed in the back" we can only hope that sensible, historically educated citizens in the US might understand why we are so p****d off.

Yep, we know what gas-lighting means.

Note that this is not an anti US rant. We were gratified to see US senators and diplomats scrambling to re-assure us. Our papers we also full of letters from regular US citizens writing to let us know that were deeply appreciated.

Someone might want to tell Trump that before Australia decides a more independent Aus foreign policy does irreparable damage to US interests in the Pacific.

___________________________________________________

I thought long and hard for days before writing this because I know Alan does not want this to develop into a political affairs soap box but after three days I still felt that I could not say nothing.
Apologies for those on this site. This is certainly not directed at any of you.

Gerard wrote: "Ah, yes. Gaslighting. Trump gas-lighted Australia last week.
Made ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims (flat out lies) against us. Then made nice to us like he'd never said those things. Then just..."

No problem, but you should be apprised that, as a result of the subject telephone conversation, the US is now gearing up for a war against Australia, to be followed by a war against Iran, to be followed by a war against China. Or perhaps we'll do all three at the same time. For Trump (like God), all things are possible.

Our president is, of course, also saying that the New York Times and the Washington Post are "fake news."

The next few years are promising to be every bit as tumultuous as the Nixon years. We're all brushing up on our constitutional law here, especially the provisions governing impeachment. Some are even suggesting that the 25th Amendment be utilized, but that would require the cooperation of Vice President Pence as well as the cabinet, and that won't happen unless Pence gets a streak of ambition that he has not heretofore displayed.

As Tom Paine told us in 1776, "These are the times that try men's souls."

This situation, far from being a normal political squabble, goes to root principles of our political order. It's totally different from Obama vs. Romney in 2012, for example. Accordingly, it is the exception that proves the rule regarding, as you say, political soap boxes.

The "theoretical" basis of the Trump administration's war on facts and logic is explained here.

Alan. One possible suggestion (apart from invading us - at your own risk buddy!) might be to open a new topic called "Soapbox". That way when the inevitable hot button issues come up they can be expressed but not derail the specific topic. Just a thought, seen it work before. It's going to a contentious few (I hope) years and it would be a shame not to capture the thrust and cut while corralling it away from specific arguments. Just a thought.

Describing Bannon as “the most well-read person in Washington,” is like describing Savanarola as the most distinguished art critic of the 1400's. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girol... If Knowing who to burn at the stake qualifies as knowledge then I might revert to my Trotskite days and start publishing lists of enemies of the people.

Gerard wrote (post 46, above): "Alan. One possible suggestion (apart from invading us - at your own risk buddy!) might be to open a new topic called "Soapbox". That way when the inevitable hot button issues come up they can be ex..."

I think I would rather have any current issues addressed in their larger philosophical and historical contexts, as I have tried to do in this and other topics. Trump is unlike most other contemporary political figures in that he is truly "radical" in the original sense of going to the root of issues. I disagree with him on most everything, possibly excepting the issue of trade agreements, though I think that genie is probably already out of that bottle and cannot be put back in. And Bernie Sanders addressed the trade agreements issue in a much more rational way than has Trump.

So, like I say, Trump is the exception that proves the rule, because almost every one of his positions can be tied to some larger radical ideological agenda. Let's say that the present forum was active during the time of Mussolini and Hitler. It would not have been inappropriate to discuss the ideological or philosophical clashes between fascism or Nazism, on the one hand, and liberal democratic principles, on the other. I use the term "liberal" for want of a better term, and I will discuss that concept further in the topic you have just created on it.

Understood. We can only hope that things calm down to the extent we might all be pulling our hair out and howling at the moon - though I don't have any money on it.

A slogan for our times: "Rebuild Our Crumbling Rationality!"

I'm adding this to my email signature block. My wife heard it on TV. I doubt there is a copyright on it.

For those who do not follow the finer details of US politics, one of Senator Bernie Sanders's favorite sayings is: "We must rebuild our crumbling infrastructure!" Oh, yes—that too. But we must start with rationality. Without rationality, there is nothing.