Practical Reason

Paradoxum said:

Hi,

Do you think a good case can be made for distinguishing between what we know by pure reason and what we should believe by practical reason?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure about your choice of words. I would say that "pure reason" is that which we might reason about without having any evidence at all. I would think that if we arrive at some untestable conclusion from a set of premises, either it was a useless exercise or there was a bad assumption.

But I'll proceed in the apparent spirit of the subsequent questions.

Even though there might not be free will, shouldn't we suppose we do for practical purposes?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure we have a choice.

But I don't know how "should" enters into it.

Even though we can't prove an objective morality, shouldn't we should one?

Click to expand...

Why would we? Belief in objective morality doesn't seem to help its adherents in behaving better than those who don't. As quatona routinely points out, we need to distinguish between an absolute and an objective morality.

Even though we can't prove God exists, perhaps it is helpful to believe He is there for spirituality or purpose?

Click to expand...

I haven't seen any reason to believe that it is helpful.

I've answered essentially no to all your examples. When it comes to belief, I think that it is never helpful to assert a proposition merely because it is supposedly useful. It is best that to the best of our individual abilities, we know the truth as it is and act accordingly.

In other areas, temporary assertions may be valuable, such as "for this problem, assume pi = 22/7", or Newtonian physics giving completely useful results even though it isn't strictly correct (if any mathematical model is).

Tinker Grey said:

I'm not sure we have a choice.

Click to expand...

Free will is fun, isn't it? Is there meaning in either of these statements, regardless of one's position?
1. I choose to believe in free will.
2. I choose not to believe in free will.

Taking the question at face value and assuming I know what you're getting at, I would say yes, absolutely. There are all kinds of things we in general take for granted, but when actually thought through are debatable at best (free will being a good example). There's a reason social sciences like sociology are separate from philosophy.

I think the idea of an objective morality serves to confuse people. It is better to accept the link to the mind, prefernces, attitudes, pleasure and pain etc. At least then we have an understanding of our situaiton and are therefore less likely to mislead ourselves.

Paradoxum said:

Hi,

Do you think a good case can be made for distinguishing between what we know by pure reason and what we should believe by practical reason?

Click to expand...

Yes, I think such good cases can be made for each individual personally.

Even though there might not be free will, shouldn't we suppose we do for practical purposes?

Click to expand...

I don´t know that we should. Please explain.
Personally, I feel I am determined not to believe in "freewill" - so the word "should" is not really applicable here.

Even though we can't prove an objective morality, shouldn't we should one?

Click to expand...

Not sure what the verb in the second half of the sentence was actually supposed to be. My answer might depend on that.
Anyway - I don´t see any practical advantages coming from believing there is an objective morality, as long as everyone disagrees what it is. I doubt that declaring my morality objective would make anyone adopt it who didn´t agree with it in the first place.
See also my comment above: I don´t experience myself as adopting and/or changing my beliefs at will. Therefore I wouldn´t know how to manage to believe in an objective morality although I don´t believe in it.

Even though we can't prove God exists, perhaps it is helpful to believe He is there for spirituality or purpose?

Click to expand...

It may be helpful for some. Personally, I rather think that even though I can´t prove that gods exist it is helpful not to believe there are.
Btw., I don´t think that spirituality requires a god, a god concept or the the belief in a god.

Resha Caner said:

Free will is fun, isn't it? Is there meaning in either of these statements, regardless of one's position?
1. I choose to believe in free will.
2. I choose not to believe in free will.

Click to expand...

Not to a determinist.

quatona said:

Not to a determinist.

Click to expand...

Not even to someone who believes in free will - at least not me.

Resha Caner said:

Not even to someone who believes in free will - at least not me.

Click to expand...

Colour me surprised.
Care to explain?

quatona said:

Colour me surprised.
Care to explain?

Click to expand...

It was a passing comment on how absurd I think some of these things become. It's not worth discussing it in detail.

Resha Caner said:

Free will is fun, isn't it? Is there meaning in either of these statements, regardless of one's position?
1. I choose to believe in free will.
2. I choose not to believe in free will.

Click to expand...

But what if I believe in free will and there is not any. Then I had no choice but to believe something that is false.

Resha Caner said:

Free will is fun, isn't it? Is there meaning in either of these statements, regardless of one's position?
1. I choose to believe in free will.
2. I choose not to believe in free will.

Click to expand...

Free will is even more fun in that there is no way to know that we could've ever behaved, thought, or acted differently in a specific situation.

Paradoxum said:

Hi,

Do you think a good case can be made for distinguishing between what we know by pure reason and what we should believe by practical reason?

Even though there might not be free will, shouldn't we suppose we do for practical purposes?

Even though we can't prove an objective morality, shouldn't we should one?

Even though we can't prove God exists, perhaps it is helpful to believe He is there for spirituality or purpose?

Some of these are probably more agreeable than others of course.

Click to expand...

i call them terminal truths. Basically, failing to believe in them results in logical dead ends. Like if you don't accept your sensory data as legitimate, or the validity of reason itself, they both result in a dead end and an invalidation of the whole thought process. So you assume they are true. You need to assume an objective morality in the same manner in order to have sensible action.

Paradoxum, I am rather pleased by where your thoughts are going. Basically, you are a meditation on authority away from coming to an apostolic church

Paradoxum said:

Do you think a good case can be made for distinguishing between what we know by pure reason and what we should believe by practical reason?

Click to expand...

I think you need to define what is "pure reason" and "practical reason".

Paradoxum said:

Even though there might not be free will, shouldn't we suppose we have free will for practical purposes?

Click to expand...

I suppose. I think, in practice, everyone lives as if they have free will. Even determinists would live life as if they choose what cereal to eat in the morning. The illusion of choice is vital to happiness.

Paradoxum said:

Even though we can't prove an objective morality, shouldn't we assume one?

Click to expand...

I suppose. Again, I would argue that most people, in practice, live life as if there was an objective morality. This is because people ultimately think their view of things is correct. If they didn't think it was correct, they wouldn't hold the view. So, even the subjective moralist acts in outrage when he sees someone doing something that he does not think is correct. He's living as if his view is objective. That's what we do.

Paradoxum said:

Even though we can't prove God exists, perhaps it is helpful to believe He is there for spirituality or purpose?

Click to expand...

No. Because many people do not need the idea of God for any purpose or function. I personally think that you need God to actualize your greatest potential and I believe God is present in all that we do, theists and atheists alike. But, from your perspective, this is serving some purpose in my life; for others it apparently doesn't so they have no reason to make the assumption.