Every day axioms

[WonderBeat]

That's nice.

Thank you.

No, it is the classical understanding of axioms.

As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy. The word comes from the Greek ἀξίωμα 'that which is thought worthy or fit,' or 'that which commends itself as evident.'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom#cite_note-2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

And I would say that definition is fully consistent with my axiomatic stance, seen from the perspective of my own worldview.

I can only do that if you actually go to the trouble of making a case.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I think that I have made my case, but you have to take the time to examine it closely.

 

[bricklayer]

Axiom:

Gods are real and the analytical method of parsing and proving their non-existence is necessarily wrong.

The above is an excellent example that, although truth exists, there is always more than one way to look at anything, and we are all left to believe something.

 

[WonderBeat]

The above is an excellent example that, although truth exists, there is always more than one way to look at anything, and we are all left to believe something.

Bricklayer,

 

[Beechwell]

Truth exists.

Maybe a better formulation would be:
"There are true statements."
That seems to me to be clearer and more precise.
Or is that not what you mean by "truth exists"?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Maybe a better formulation would be:
"There are true statements."
That seems to me to be clearer and more precise.

I agree.

Axioms, in order to serve well as axioms, should smuggle as little content as possible into themselves. They should be little more than tautologies because they shouldn't say all that much.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bricklayer]

Maybe a better formulation would be:
"There are true statements."
That seems to me to be clearer and more precise.
Or is that not what you mean by "truth exists"?

No effect can transced its cause. If true statements exist, the Truth must exist.

 

[Eudaimonist]

No effect can transced its cause.

I've heard this before, but I can't think of a single reason why it might be true.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gadarene]

I've heard this before, but I can't think of a single reason why it might be true.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Seconded. Often asserted, never substantiated in my experience.

I suppose it'd be quicker to think of an effect that does transcend its cause, but as with Anselm's ontological argument, the fluff in these statements depends on lawyering madly away at the definition of "greater/transcendent".

 

[bricklayer]

Any attempt to explicitly affirm an effect's transcendence of its cause implicitly denies it transcendence because one must then include one's self as the cause of the affirmation. Such claims cannot exist apart from a claimant; in other words, such a claim cannot transcend the existence of a claimant.

Causality, the fact that no effect can transcend its cause is axiomatic because it cannot be logically denied. Although any axiom can be literally denied, they cannot be logically denied. That is to say that any attempt to explicitly deny an axiom implicitly affirms it. Denials of axioms are logically self-defeating.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Any attempt to explicitly affirm an effect's transcendence of its cause implicitly denies it transcendence because one must then include one's self as the cause of the affirmation. Such claims cannot exist apart from a claimant; in other words, such a claim cannot transcend the existence of a claimant.

Gobbledygook.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bricklayer]

Gobbledygook. Mark

Or perhaps just beyond "the exalted spirit of man". Talk about gobbledygook.

Some people are only sincere when assuming their own superiority.

 

[Beechwell]

Any attempt to explicitly affirm an effect's transcendence of its cause implicitly denies it transcendence because one must then include one's self as the cause of the affirmation. Such claims cannot exist apart from a claimant; in other words, such a claim cannot transcend the existence of a claimant.

Causality, the fact that no effect can transcend its cause is axiomatic because it cannot be logically denied. Although any axiom can be literally denied, they cannot be logically denied. That is to say that any attempt to explicitly deny an axiom implicitly affirms it. Denials of axioms are logically self-defeating.

could you explain that again, please? preferably without using the word "transcendence"? because frankly, your explanation seems to hide more than it reversals. Especially since I see no obvious connection between that speech of yours and "the truth".

 

[bricklayer]

could you explain that again, please? preferably without using the word "transcendence"? because frankly, your explanation seems to hide more than it reversals. Especially since I see no obvious connection between that speech of yours and "the truth".

To accept one's denial of causality (no effect can transcend it cause) one must assume that one's very denial exists apart from (transcends) the one making the denial. One's denial would have to exist without one making the denial if one's denial can transcend the cause of the denial.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Some people are only sincere when assuming their own superiority.

This has nothing to do with any comparsion between you and myself. I'm saying that you made absolutely no sense whatsoever, and you still don't in your previous post. You could be "superior" (your term) to me and that would still be true.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bricklayer]

This has nothing to do with any comparsion between you and myself. I'm saying that you made absolutely no sense whatsoever, and you still don't in your previous post. You could be "superior" (your term) to me and that would still be true.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You go with your inference and your "exalted spirit of man".
I'll stand by what I wrote.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I'm not so sure about that.

A proximate cause is the most immediate cause of something. I don't see how evolution is the proximate cause of morality. It seems somewhat more distant than a proximate cause.

Proximate, and God is the more distant cause.

I agree that morality promotes life, but I'm not sure how to draw that conclusion from evolution. Even if evolution makes morality possible, that doesn't mean that evolution determines morality's content.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Evolutionary morality must as a rule promote that which promotes life. If we are axiocentric (revolve around value) and our sense of value is evolved and naturally selected we ought to be valuing things which promote life. Eg the sex drive the value of an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. Or eg empathy as a means of reading situations and causing cooperative responses. In a broad sense this is responding to evolved axiology of pleasure and pain, and secondly in a cultural sense reactions to our capacity for culture which promote life (e.g. early christianity promoting welfare and family) ought to be culturally selected via feedback with the more basic systems mentioned above. So there are basic biological and cultural adaptations selected by natural forces. Could you believe an evolved axiological landscape that promoted outright genetic suicide would last long?

 

[bricklayer]

Proximate, and God is the more distant cause.


Evolutionary morality must as a rule promote that which promotes life. If we are axiocentric (revolve around value) and our sense of value is evolved and naturally selected we ought to be valuing things which promote life. Eg the sex drive the value of an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. Or eg empathy as a means of reading situations and causing cooperative responses. In a broad sense this is responding to evolved axiology of pleasure and pain, and secondly in a cultural sense reactions to our capacity for culture which promote life (e.g. early Christianity promoting welfare and family) ought to be culturally selected via feedback with the more basic systems mentioned above. So there are basic biological and cultural adaptations selected by natural forces. Could you believe an evolved axiological landscape that promoted outright genetic suicide would last long?

If things were different, that may work; however, that is not at all what I am left to believe is what's going on around me. You describe what you see from that point of view well, in my opinion; however, that is not the only way to look at it..

Although truth exists, there's always more than one way to look at anything, and we're all left to believe something.
How well can you describe what Christians see?
(You are on a Christian web site. So, in need of an example-perspective, I think it a fair example.)

Can you represent another's ideas to the degree that the other agrees with your characterization? Or, are you, as the bible put's it "stiff necked"?

Denise and I can call for a "reality check" at any time during any disagreement. Then each must give account for the other's "side of it" to the other's satisfaction.
Although truth exists, there is always more than one way to look at anything, and everyone's left to believe something.

On one hand, in my opinion, if I could not represent you, I cannot legitimately disagree with you.
On the other hand, there is a world of difference between disagreeing with people and disagreeing with ideas. Nothing good comes from disagreeing with people instead of ideas. The very worst things come from agreeing with people instead of ideas.

I make no attempt to represent any other human being but Denise, my wife.
Here, we represent ideas.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Thanks for that BL. Ill try and remember the family nature of these forums. Just because Im a convert to Christianity doesn't mean I naturally grasp and follow Christian ethics. I might be regarded as an elder chronologically, but religiously I am still in my infancy.

 

[bricklayer]

Thanks for that BL. Ill try and remember the family nature of these forums. Just because Im a convert to Christianity doesn't mean I naturally grasp and follow Christian ethics. I might be regarded as an elder chronologically, but religiously I am still in my infancy.

We are both in the first half of our first century in Christ. One could say that we are growing up together.

I was saved two days after my sixteenth birthday nearly thirty four years ago, but I was chosen before the foundation of the world just like you.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Evolutionary morality must as a rule promote that which promotes life.

Why? It may promote reproduction, but not necessarily life as such. It's all about the DNA, not its protein and lipid containers.

Indeed, if there is anything like evolutionary morality, it may be something we are obligated to ignore at times. What is "good" for your genes isn't necessarily good for you as a living being. Evolution doesn't necessarily determine correct behavior, even if at times it may reward it. For example, rape exists among animals, but that doesn't mean that we should rape, no matter how "life" promoting that may seem from some purely evolutionary perspective.

Whatever urges we may feel that come from evolution require judgment to act upon with intelligence and wisdom. Urges aren't moral commandments from on high. They are simply motivations for comprehending beings to use as they judge best. We could simply act unthinkingly on our urges, and pregnancy rates would go up, and yet human beings are capable of forming judgments about how and when to have sex.

Anyway, I'll just say that I understand now why you regard evolution as a proximate cause of morality, though I see it as someway less than proximate. It is somewhat more distant than that, like your God, but not quite as God-like, since evolution does not actually determine morality, and only "cares" about genes, not living beings.

I'm curious though how you explain Christian vows of chastity. Are those immoral? How do they even occur?


eudaimonia,

Mark