Re - Evaluation of All Principle
A booklet that will question the standards by which fundamental principles can be determined as valid - or not valid. A hand book that will Provide means to easily determine the difference between "deceptive manipulation" and "plain simple truth".
I'm working on it !
“REAP" is about addressing the primary methods of reason - "reducing the methods to their lowest possible denominator".
I believe this will help people with two things:
1) Build their theories on more solid ground. 2) Quickly reduce current beliefs (often well established) to the fundamental foundations upon which they were built (the founding denominator).
I feel this will help people discover (quickly) - how/where particular idea's get started, helping people accurately determine right from wrong ideas which lead to good, or bad, actions and results.”
I will write a general (user friendly) litmus test to determine the difference between true verses false premise. But first ...
#1) Words
It's important to address what words can do when they are creatively used to manipulate what people are aware of, and how they think about the truth, and the real world. Many words that were once considered meaningful and concrete - are now totally subjective and meaningless. Reducing the capacity to comprehend real verses imagined phenomena.
Sophism
(arguments correct in form, but invalid)
Is a sophisticated method (tool) of deception; born circa 400 B.C. in Athens. Sophism is taught among elite scholars, leaders, philosophers and politicians. Deception through the creative use of wording (and other forms of communication) is found throughout all history, including all living organisms, (particularly viruses). Sophism, however, became a prominent, academically sophisticated - political tool used to counteract the affect of reason, a tool introduced to the general public by Socrates. Reason and Sophism will forever - together - evolve. - the better the safe crackers get - the better the safe gets - the better the safe crackers get ... and so on. This "tit for tat" situation was not invented by mankind, nor is mankind the most efficient user of sophisticated deception. It was invented by life itself. It is responsible for the survival and extinction of all living organisms.
Incidentally - few living species "make it" very far and no known species have survived minor geological changes on Earth. Physical changes occur faster than any living organism's capacity to adapt. There's more behind the "chicken little" story than meets the eye. This will be addressed later in the book.
Reason
Reason is a tool that helps us identify and remove the effect of deceptive communication. It is a viable method that helps people gain accurate perspective, communication and knowledge ---- This is unacceptable to those charged with controlling, or destroying the minds of others. Therefore - reason has been under attack by sophisticated philosophers, rulers, scholars, and wise politicians (for obvious reasons).
In the long evolutionary run, the results of the struggle between reason and deception is found throughout the infinite history of all cultures, living species (including micro organisms, especially viruses), and paradigms. Failure to accomplish reasonable perspective leading to how a species responds to the real world (and physical changes) only leads to one of two results - extinction / annihilation. Therefore, accurate and objective observation of these things is regarded as hugely important by almost 5% of today's human population.
Is this enough?
The following article by Ron Paul, published in the Liberty Crier, is a simple example of how deceptive wording works and how we are all subject to it's influence. - And how we all... carelessly / dangerously / unknowingly, incorporate it in our thinking; the result being - "Dangerously blinding, but real, consequences".
September 4, 2012
As we enter the fall political season, we will hear a great deal of rhetoric from both major political parties and their many candidates for office. It’s important for us to remember, however, that words can be made meaningless by misuse or overuse. And when we as citizens allow politicians to obscure the truth by distorting words, we diminish ourselves and our nation.
For example, we’ve all heard politicians use the words “democracy” and “freedom” countless times. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different. They have become what George Orwell termed “meaningless words”. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused for so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, such words were “often used in a consciously dishonest way.”
Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As just one example, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom. Thus we are conditioned to believe that democracy is always and everywhere benevolent.
The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with freedom. While our Constitution certainly features certain democratic mechanisms, it also features inherently undemocratic mechanisms like the First Amendment and the Electoral College. The U.S. of America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Yet we’ve been bombarded with the meaningless word “democracy” for so long that few Americans understand the difference.
If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom or liberty–regardless of the issue being discussed– ask yourself whether he is advocating more government force or less.
The words “liberal” and “conservative” have also been abused. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government. Liberalism has been redefined to mean liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth.
“Conservatism,” meanwhile, once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government. But in recent decades conservatism has been redefined as support for big-government grandiosity via military adventurism, corporatism, and inflationary monetary policy. The modern political right has redefined conservatism into support for an all-powerful central state, provided that the state furthers supposedly conservative goals.
Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. Our task, therefore, is to reclaim our language and reclaim our liberties. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us.
************************************
Relativism and Subjectivism:
How to recognize it:
They are, for the most part, the same animal but have different teeth. They occur when words, phrases and concepts are regarded valid merely because a person (any person) interprets them as valid. It is convenient for those who wish to avoid intellectual heavy lifting, and still win arguments, get friends and influence people. Opinions that are "relative or subjective in nature" are are not burdoned by the rules of reason, objective observation, or the scientific process.
How to prevent it:
Don’t allow people to redefine words to fit what they think words “ought” to mean. Don’t do it yourself. Never go past a word you don’t understand. Demand .. that yourself and others, use words that have universally understood definitions found in a dictionary. Many words have been abused to the point they are meaningless (This is found evident when they have several, often contradictory definitions) and therefore cannot be used to increased comprehension. Don’t use meaningless words to define ideas, concepts, or things that need to be understood. Reserve these words for “whispering sweat nothings”.
Example:
Suppose you choose to avoid letting a relativist “go past " a relative or subjective set of words with regard to an important concept. “That word is meaningless” you say. At this point a relativist will attempt to turn things around and ask you “Well, how do you define 'meaningful?”. Relativism and subjectivism are animals that do exist - we must deal with it - when we do so - correctly - these people will go back to doing what they do best - “whispering sweet nothings” and quit leading consensus with regard to huge and important matters.
Sophism
How to recognize it:
Sophism is nothing more than “hugely, sophisticated, well disguised bullshit”. It usually contains claims and arguments that blend subjective wording, phrases, and concepts with objective wording / concepts to make claims seem credible, logical and within reason. It comes in various levels of sophistication - from the family unit to the governance of nations. It is also used at advanced studies in philosophy. Universal principles regarding Objective Ontology have been literally, sophistically redefined by some of the best minds, writers, thinkers on Earth. The techniques of sophism are constantly updated to counteract, subdue, or delay reasoning capacity with regard to objective epistemology, ontology, and metaphysics. It is often hugely hard to recognize sophism, it’s often adopted (unknowingly) by otherwise objective - reasonable thinkers. It’s a huge business and very important to those who are in control, and wish to remain in control of socio-economic paradigms, large and small.
How to prevent it:
Good luck. Through practice, and the careful use of modern objective epistemology, you can quickly become a really good “bullshit detector”. However, avoiding the affects of sophism is, for the most part, impossible. Great uses of sophism have shaken the fundamental foundations of reason for millenniums! No person is immune to it’s effect, nor it’s results. What can help, is a deep seated, bigoted, unrelentingly objective - life or death - hell or high water conviction to fundamental principles you are prepared to take to the grave with you. A strictly objective interpretation of scripture can help. (Jesus Christ might have really believed in what he was telling people) This kind of “adamant conviction” may be found in the person who said “Give me Liberty, or give me death” and meant it. On the lighter side of this observation, note people who are thoroughly committed to the following convictions - “No matter how profound, if it doesn’t make sense - ‘it’s not true” --- “If it seems too good to be true - it is” --- “"What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity's ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth." --- “No honest, reasonable man of principle can be conned.”
Example:
“Honest, reasonable, and principled people tend to have an accurate perspective regarding reality. (they know that it is in their self interest to have / hold objective virtues) regardless of what things appear to be. They know that nothing comes without a price. Con artists depend upon, and prey upon people who have no such virtues - people who think they will get a break and get something free, at the unwitting expense of another - or many others. Honest - principled people never do this, - thus - by default - are never conned. Where few people hold principles based on reality, honesty, and self interest, people wind up getting conned consistently. This is why sophism is such big business, it helps create huge profits off the backs of unprincipled people. In the field of socio-economics - the degree to which a society of people are “conned” is directly proportionate to the degree they hold / or don’t hold honest, reasonable principles. This book focuses primarily on the philosophical aspects of virtue and how people can come to know the difference between good and bad premises. I do not address the details of the socio-economic results of “Failing to know the difference” or when people “sell out”. But I think it is important to note … Con artists and sophists that cash in among unprincipled people are those who are able to offer free lunches at the expense of others, such as bankers, collectivists, politicians, lobbyists, special interest groups, etc.
To prevent wasting time - we should first establish agreement that there is a huge difference between the two following quotes, and that that the difference matters....
“What you think is true and important - IS as true and important as is anything else.” this notion is convenient, but it is a product of hallucination, relativism, subjectivism, and sophism.
“What IS true and important, IS true and important, regardless of what anybody thinks”. This notion is not so convenient, but realizing this gives us incentive to adopt objective methods that help us accurately determine true verses false principles. And help us determine the actual price of a free lunch ! The goal is not to be right - but to get "Less Wrong" whenever possible.
So what?
To be continued.
*******************************************
Glossary of terms:
RELATIVISM
A theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing. The view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups that hold them. First used in 1865.
RELATIVE
A thing having a relation to, connection with, necessary dependence on another thing.
SUBJECTIVISM
A theory that limits knowledge to subjective experience or stresses the subjective elements in experience. The doctrine that the supreme good is the realization of a subjective experience or feeling (as pleasure) That individual feeling or apprehension is the ultimate criterion of the good and the right. First used in 1856.
SUBJECTIVE
Reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind. Knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics. and peculiar to an individual - modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background.
SOPHISM
An argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially: such an argument used to deceive. First known use 15th century.
LIBERTY
The quality or state of being free, the power to do as one pleases - free from physical restraint, arbitrary or despotic control. It includes the power of choice, and the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges.
LIBERTARIAN
An advocate of the doctrine of free will. A person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action. Capitalized - a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles. First used in 1789.
OBJECTIVISM
Theories asserting the validity of objective phenomena over subjective experience. The ethical theory that moral good is objectively real and that moral precepts are objectively valid.
OBJECTIVE
An object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers. Expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without being distorted by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. Reality being independent of the mind and perceptible by persons other than the affected individual. Involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena.
LOVE
A strong, warm, attachment, affection, or benevolent concern for people, places or things. A feeling often marked by one or more of the following: Admiration, common interest, enthusiasm, assurance of affection, devotion, endearment, loyalty, adoration, maternal attachment. Love is often confused with and/or associated with amorous feelings for another.
REASON
A rational ground or motive. Logical defense of a conclusion or fact. The thing that makes a fact intelligible. The power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly, rational ways; intelligence and proper exercise of the mind; Sanity. The sum of intellectual powers. First used in the 13th century
EPISTEMOLOGY *
The study of knowledge, especially with reference to its limits and validity. First Known Use: circa 1856
ONTOLOGY *
A branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being . A particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of things that have existence First Known Use: 1721
METAPHYSICS*
A division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being. it includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology and abstract philosophical studies; a study of what is outside objective first used in 1569 Medieval Latin Metaphysica, title of Aristotle's treatise on the subject.
UNIVERSALITY (philosophy)*
A doctrine or school claiming that universal facts can be discovered and is therefore understood as being in opposition to relativism.
Kantian and Platonist notions of "universal", are considered by many to be separate notions.
In ethics, universality refers to that which is true for “all similarly situated individuals” REAP regards this as “the state of being human”. In logic, or the consideration of valid arguments, a proposition is said to have universality if it can be conceived as being true in all possible contexts without creating a contradiction. In metaphysics a universal is a type, a property or a relation.
The problem of universals is an ancient problem in metaphysics concerning the nature of universals, or whether they exist. Part of the problem involves the implications of language use and the complexity of relating language to ontological theory (the study of what reality really is, and whether it can be known). “Might is Right” - Napoleon. “Right is Might” - Lincoln
For the purposes of this book, universality is about concrete, fundamental principles as defined in this quote by Steven Robiner - “What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity's ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth."
*The words ontology, metaphysics, epistemology and Univesality should be used very carefully. We all know from experience that “things are rarely what they appear to be”. However the subjective notion that “Things are exactly what they appear to be” have been subtly incorporated in the use and definition of these words. Perhaps rightfully so... ? However, this book is about “objective and honest evaluations of premise and principle” and about distinguishing the difference between true/false premise, regardless of appearance.
“REAP" is about addressing the primary methods of reason - "reducing the methods to their lowest possible denominator".
I believe this will help people with two things:
1) Build their theories on more solid ground. 2) Quickly reduce current beliefs (often well established) to the fundamental foundations upon which they were built (the founding denominator).
I feel this will help people discover (quickly) - how/where particular idea's get started, helping people accurately determine right from wrong ideas which lead to good, or bad, actions and results.”
I will write a general (user friendly) litmus test to determine the difference between true verses false premise. But first ...
#1) Words
It's important to address what words can do when they are creatively used to manipulate what people are aware of, and how they think about the truth, and the real world. Many words that were once considered meaningful and concrete - are now totally subjective and meaningless. Reducing the capacity to comprehend real verses imagined phenomena.
Sophism
(arguments correct in form, but invalid)
Is a sophisticated method (tool) of deception; born circa 400 B.C. in Athens. Sophism is taught among elite scholars, leaders, philosophers and politicians. Deception through the creative use of wording (and other forms of communication) is found throughout all history, including all living organisms, (particularly viruses). Sophism, however, became a prominent, academically sophisticated - political tool used to counteract the affect of reason, a tool introduced to the general public by Socrates. Reason and Sophism will forever - together - evolve. - the better the safe crackers get - the better the safe gets - the better the safe crackers get ... and so on. This "tit for tat" situation was not invented by mankind, nor is mankind the most efficient user of sophisticated deception. It was invented by life itself. It is responsible for the survival and extinction of all living organisms.
Incidentally - few living species "make it" very far and no known species have survived minor geological changes on Earth. Physical changes occur faster than any living organism's capacity to adapt. There's more behind the "chicken little" story than meets the eye. This will be addressed later in the book.
Reason
Reason is a tool that helps us identify and remove the effect of deceptive communication. It is a viable method that helps people gain accurate perspective, communication and knowledge ---- This is unacceptable to those charged with controlling, or destroying the minds of others. Therefore - reason has been under attack by sophisticated philosophers, rulers, scholars, and wise politicians (for obvious reasons).
In the long evolutionary run, the results of the struggle between reason and deception is found throughout the infinite history of all cultures, living species (including micro organisms, especially viruses), and paradigms. Failure to accomplish reasonable perspective leading to how a species responds to the real world (and physical changes) only leads to one of two results - extinction / annihilation. Therefore, accurate and objective observation of these things is regarded as hugely important by almost 5% of today's human population.
Is this enough?
The following article by Ron Paul, published in the Liberty Crier, is a simple example of how deceptive wording works and how we are all subject to it's influence. - And how we all... carelessly / dangerously / unknowingly, incorporate it in our thinking; the result being - "Dangerously blinding, but real, consequences".
September 4, 2012
Ron Paul: Meaningless Words in Politics
As we enter the fall political season, we will hear a great deal of rhetoric from both major political parties and their many candidates for office. It’s important for us to remember, however, that words can be made meaningless by misuse or overuse. And when we as citizens allow politicians to obscure the truth by distorting words, we diminish ourselves and our nation.
For example, we’ve all heard politicians use the words “democracy” and “freedom” countless times. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different. They have become what George Orwell termed “meaningless words”. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused for so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, such words were “often used in a consciously dishonest way.”
Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As just one example, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom. Thus we are conditioned to believe that democracy is always and everywhere benevolent.
The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with freedom. While our Constitution certainly features certain democratic mechanisms, it also features inherently undemocratic mechanisms like the First Amendment and the Electoral College. The U.S. of America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Yet we’ve been bombarded with the meaningless word “democracy” for so long that few Americans understand the difference.
If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom or liberty–regardless of the issue being discussed– ask yourself whether he is advocating more government force or less.
The words “liberal” and “conservative” have also been abused. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government. Liberalism has been redefined to mean liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth.
“Conservatism,” meanwhile, once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government. But in recent decades conservatism has been redefined as support for big-government grandiosity via military adventurism, corporatism, and inflationary monetary policy. The modern political right has redefined conservatism into support for an all-powerful central state, provided that the state furthers supposedly conservative goals.
Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. Our task, therefore, is to reclaim our language and reclaim our liberties. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us.
************************************
Relativism and Subjectivism:
How to recognize it:
They are, for the most part, the same animal but have different teeth. They occur when words, phrases and concepts are regarded valid merely because a person (any person) interprets them as valid. It is convenient for those who wish to avoid intellectual heavy lifting, and still win arguments, get friends and influence people. Opinions that are "relative or subjective in nature" are are not burdoned by the rules of reason, objective observation, or the scientific process.
How to prevent it:
Don’t allow people to redefine words to fit what they think words “ought” to mean. Don’t do it yourself. Never go past a word you don’t understand. Demand .. that yourself and others, use words that have universally understood definitions found in a dictionary. Many words have been abused to the point they are meaningless (This is found evident when they have several, often contradictory definitions) and therefore cannot be used to increased comprehension. Don’t use meaningless words to define ideas, concepts, or things that need to be understood. Reserve these words for “whispering sweat nothings”.
Example:
Suppose you choose to avoid letting a relativist “go past " a relative or subjective set of words with regard to an important concept. “That word is meaningless” you say. At this point a relativist will attempt to turn things around and ask you “Well, how do you define 'meaningful?”. Relativism and subjectivism are animals that do exist - we must deal with it - when we do so - correctly - these people will go back to doing what they do best - “whispering sweet nothings” and quit leading consensus with regard to huge and important matters.
Sophism
How to recognize it:
Sophism is nothing more than “hugely, sophisticated, well disguised bullshit”. It usually contains claims and arguments that blend subjective wording, phrases, and concepts with objective wording / concepts to make claims seem credible, logical and within reason. It comes in various levels of sophistication - from the family unit to the governance of nations. It is also used at advanced studies in philosophy. Universal principles regarding Objective Ontology have been literally, sophistically redefined by some of the best minds, writers, thinkers on Earth. The techniques of sophism are constantly updated to counteract, subdue, or delay reasoning capacity with regard to objective epistemology, ontology, and metaphysics. It is often hugely hard to recognize sophism, it’s often adopted (unknowingly) by otherwise objective - reasonable thinkers. It’s a huge business and very important to those who are in control, and wish to remain in control of socio-economic paradigms, large and small.
How to prevent it:
Good luck. Through practice, and the careful use of modern objective epistemology, you can quickly become a really good “bullshit detector”. However, avoiding the affects of sophism is, for the most part, impossible. Great uses of sophism have shaken the fundamental foundations of reason for millenniums! No person is immune to it’s effect, nor it’s results. What can help, is a deep seated, bigoted, unrelentingly objective - life or death - hell or high water conviction to fundamental principles you are prepared to take to the grave with you. A strictly objective interpretation of scripture can help. (Jesus Christ might have really believed in what he was telling people) This kind of “adamant conviction” may be found in the person who said “Give me Liberty, or give me death” and meant it. On the lighter side of this observation, note people who are thoroughly committed to the following convictions - “No matter how profound, if it doesn’t make sense - ‘it’s not true” --- “If it seems too good to be true - it is” --- “"What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity's ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth." --- “No honest, reasonable man of principle can be conned.”
Example:
“Honest, reasonable, and principled people tend to have an accurate perspective regarding reality. (they know that it is in their self interest to have / hold objective virtues) regardless of what things appear to be. They know that nothing comes without a price. Con artists depend upon, and prey upon people who have no such virtues - people who think they will get a break and get something free, at the unwitting expense of another - or many others. Honest - principled people never do this, - thus - by default - are never conned. Where few people hold principles based on reality, honesty, and self interest, people wind up getting conned consistently. This is why sophism is such big business, it helps create huge profits off the backs of unprincipled people. In the field of socio-economics - the degree to which a society of people are “conned” is directly proportionate to the degree they hold / or don’t hold honest, reasonable principles. This book focuses primarily on the philosophical aspects of virtue and how people can come to know the difference between good and bad premises. I do not address the details of the socio-economic results of “Failing to know the difference” or when people “sell out”. But I think it is important to note … Con artists and sophists that cash in among unprincipled people are those who are able to offer free lunches at the expense of others, such as bankers, collectivists, politicians, lobbyists, special interest groups, etc.
To prevent wasting time - we should first establish agreement that there is a huge difference between the two following quotes, and that that the difference matters....
“What you think is true and important - IS as true and important as is anything else.” this notion is convenient, but it is a product of hallucination, relativism, subjectivism, and sophism.
“What IS true and important, IS true and important, regardless of what anybody thinks”. This notion is not so convenient, but realizing this gives us incentive to adopt objective methods that help us accurately determine true verses false principles. And help us determine the actual price of a free lunch ! The goal is not to be right - but to get "Less Wrong" whenever possible.
So what?
To be continued.
*******************************************
Glossary of terms:
RELATIVISM
A theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing. The view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups that hold them. First used in 1865.
RELATIVE
A thing having a relation to, connection with, necessary dependence on another thing.
SUBJECTIVISM
A theory that limits knowledge to subjective experience or stresses the subjective elements in experience. The doctrine that the supreme good is the realization of a subjective experience or feeling (as pleasure) That individual feeling or apprehension is the ultimate criterion of the good and the right. First used in 1856.
SUBJECTIVE
Reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind. Knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics. and peculiar to an individual - modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background.
SOPHISM
An argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially: such an argument used to deceive. First known use 15th century.
LIBERTY
The quality or state of being free, the power to do as one pleases - free from physical restraint, arbitrary or despotic control. It includes the power of choice, and the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges.
LIBERTARIAN
An advocate of the doctrine of free will. A person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action. Capitalized - a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles. First used in 1789.
OBJECTIVISM
Theories asserting the validity of objective phenomena over subjective experience. The ethical theory that moral good is objectively real and that moral precepts are objectively valid.
OBJECTIVE
An object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers. Expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without being distorted by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. Reality being independent of the mind and perceptible by persons other than the affected individual. Involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena.
LOVE
A strong, warm, attachment, affection, or benevolent concern for people, places or things. A feeling often marked by one or more of the following: Admiration, common interest, enthusiasm, assurance of affection, devotion, endearment, loyalty, adoration, maternal attachment. Love is often confused with and/or associated with amorous feelings for another.
REASON
A rational ground or motive. Logical defense of a conclusion or fact. The thing that makes a fact intelligible. The power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly, rational ways; intelligence and proper exercise of the mind; Sanity. The sum of intellectual powers. First used in the 13th century
EPISTEMOLOGY *
The study of knowledge, especially with reference to its limits and validity. First Known Use: circa 1856
ONTOLOGY *
A branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being . A particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of things that have existence First Known Use: 1721
METAPHYSICS*
A division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being. it includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology and abstract philosophical studies; a study of what is outside objective first used in 1569 Medieval Latin Metaphysica, title of Aristotle's treatise on the subject.
UNIVERSALITY (philosophy)*
A doctrine or school claiming that universal facts can be discovered and is therefore understood as being in opposition to relativism.
Kantian and Platonist notions of "universal", are considered by many to be separate notions.
In ethics, universality refers to that which is true for “all similarly situated individuals” REAP regards this as “the state of being human”. In logic, or the consideration of valid arguments, a proposition is said to have universality if it can be conceived as being true in all possible contexts without creating a contradiction. In metaphysics a universal is a type, a property or a relation.
The problem of universals is an ancient problem in metaphysics concerning the nature of universals, or whether they exist. Part of the problem involves the implications of language use and the complexity of relating language to ontological theory (the study of what reality really is, and whether it can be known). “Might is Right” - Napoleon. “Right is Might” - Lincoln
For the purposes of this book, universality is about concrete, fundamental principles as defined in this quote by Steven Robiner - “What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity's ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth."
*The words ontology, metaphysics, epistemology and Univesality should be used very carefully. We all know from experience that “things are rarely what they appear to be”. However the subjective notion that “Things are exactly what they appear to be” have been subtly incorporated in the use and definition of these words. Perhaps rightfully so... ? However, this book is about “objective and honest evaluations of premise and principle” and about distinguishing the difference between true/false premise, regardless of appearance.
1 comment:
The next consideration is important. Does cause and effect matter to anyone?
Post a Comment