Knowledge isn't sufficient: a thought experiment with the licensing effect

[Gottservant]

Why not? Aristotle pointed out that human beings, by nature, desire to have knowledge. Human beings are naturally curious, and want to understand reality for what it is. Why wouldn't that be a virtuous human activity? Why wouldn't honesty about reality be a virtue and worthwhile in itself? Aren't we malfunctioning as the "rational animal" if we decide to turn our backs on reason and seek unreality instead?

I'm not at all convinced that one can never justify the possession of knowledge, and the virtues of rationality, honesty, and integrity, as worthwhile in their own right.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You are not at all convinced, but you must clearly address the example I gave. You cannot rationally reward yourself on the basis of rewarding yourself, without doing it on the basis of rewarding yourself when you have a reason. That is the point.

If you ask the impossible of yourself, you do not find that values you thought were eternal are actually eternal.

Honesty may be a value, but I'm asking you to be honest about your limitations and you are not doing it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I sometimes wonder if Gottservant is worth replying to, because often he justs runs off and makes a new thread without looking at his past ones (HINT).

 

[Gottservant]

I sometimes wonder if Gottservant is worth replying to, because often he justs runs off and makes a new thread without looking at his past ones (HINT).

I am mortal, I can't reply to everything, you realize that right?

And replies that amount to "I disagree" are incomplete statements of opinion, you understand that right?

And replies that do not in some way quote or refer to the specific content of the OP, the subject, are not really rational, you are aware of that right?

And if you got disagreeable, opinionated, irrational responses all the time, you would start to focus on only reading as much as helped your personal growth, correct?

So what exactly is the problem?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I am mortal, I can't reply to everything, you realize that right?

And replies that amount to "I disagree" are incomplete statements of opinion, you understand that right?

And replies that do not in some way quote or refer to the specific content of the OP, the subject, are not really rational, you are aware of that right?

And if you got disagreeable, opinionated, irrational responses all the time, you would start to focus on only reading as much as helped your personal growth, correct?

So what exactly is the problem?

You generate more threads than responses within threads. If you want to learn about this stuff, you could at least give a sign that you read it.

 

[Gottservant]

You generate more threads than responses within threads. If you want to learn about this stuff, you could at least give a sign that you read it.

I give some sign; you are projecting disinterest.

Back to the topic, if you please.

You are once again demonstrating that it is not necessary to reply to everything.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You are not at all convinced, but you must clearly address the example I gave.

The example you gave is incomprehensible to me.

You cannot rationally reward yourself on the basis of rewarding yourself, without doing it on the basis of rewarding yourself when you have a reason. That is the point.

There are activities that are ends-in-themselves, and not merely a means to some other end. For instance, one need not look at art simply as a necessary means to some other activity. One can enjoy art simply for its own sake. Likewise, one can, through human curiosity, gain knowledge for no other reason than to gain knowledge.

That is entirely rational.

If you ask the impossible of yourself, you do not find that values you thought were eternal are actually eternal.

I don't think that any values are eternal. They may, however, be worthwhile in themselves.

Honesty may be a value, but I'm asking you to be honest about your limitations and you are not doing it.

You need to be honest about your limitations... you aren't a mindreader.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

The example you gave is incomprehensible to me.

My apologies. How many times did you try to make sense of it?

[...]Likewise, one can, through human curiosity, gain knowledge for no other reason than to gain knowledge.

That is entirely rational.

Yes, except it is rational as an exercise, in which you forcibly deny yourself the desire for what is necessary, in order to be flooded with a desire for what is sufficient. It's a kind of twisted and indirect self-gratification.

I don't think that any values are eternal. They may, however, be worthwhile in themselves.

Something worthwhile in itself, implies a subtext of eternal consistency.

You need to be honest about your limitations... you aren't a mindreader.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Arriving at one's limitations by oneself, is no easy task, even if one devotes one's life to it. Thankyou for humbling yourself enough to admit that recognizing it, is important.