Squonk --? ? > Hold on a moment please: You refer here to the presentation of my? > arguments from analogy. But i am referring to the logic you employ? > within your own Essentialism. You have not addressed this point Ham.? > This is most important.? ? Whether your propositions were analogous or not, grouping them in the way you did implies that they lead to a logical conclusion; namely, that Pirsig's "excellence in human affairs" and Ham's "shared experience of discourse" are (or can be) "elevated to a cosmic principle". I deny this conclusion. Human experience cannot logically identify a "metaphysical" principle. If, by Cosmic, you mean "universal" in the sense of predictable or empirical, then I misunderstood your question.
Hello Ham, I should like to know how you deny it Ham, not simply read a statement that you do so. This is the third time i have had to ask you, which seems a little unfair. Hume, following John Locke, argues that finite experience can be extrapolated to infinite proportion.? ? Ham: Specifically, what is the point about Essentialism that you want me to address? I had asked you for an example of a "cosmic principle" I have postulated from personal experience. So far you haven't cited one. s: Undifferentiation is experienced in personal experiences of visual blackout, etc. A better?example may be numerical undifferentiation associated with the terms Zero or One. ? [Ham, previously]:? > Utilitarianism is the principle of scientific objectivism and is based on? > the premise that truth and goodness equates to "what works".? ? [Squonk]:? > A. In order to understand happiness one simply has to experience happiness? > for oneself. If one accepts that it is good to be happy, and if one > > observes? > the same behaviour in other people, it can be argued that it is a good for > > people? > to be happy by employing it as a postulate in a moral philosophy.? >? > B. Happiness is neither intuitive or intellectual; it is a subjective > > feeling.? > The whole point of my argument from analogy is to extrapolate from finite? > experience to infinite Cosmic principle pars Hume:? ? Ham: I suppose one could call this a form of logical deduction. s: There is a huge western philosophical tradition that does. Having been introduced to it i felt it appropriate to employ it. Ham: However, the quality of "happiness" is, as you say, subjective experience. As such it doesn't fall into the category of utilitarian phenomena. Happiness has no quantitative standard of measurement, therefore is not pragmatically testable. It is "good" for people to be happy because individuals equate pleasure with goodness. No cosmic principle is implied in that precept. s: I shall remind you of the following: 8th June 2008 s: Utilitarian ethics does just this: It observes Human happiness to be the good and then postulates methods of maximising it. Utilitarianism may be problematic, but the attempt is made. s: To state that, happiness doesn't fall into the category of ulitilitarian phenomena is diametrically opposed to the very utilitarian principle proposed by John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism 1861: His Utilitarianism 1861 remains the classic defence of the view that we ought to aim at maximizing the welfare of all sentient creatures, and that welfare consists of their happiness. Mill's defence of the view that we ought to pursue happiness because we do pursue happiness, has been the object of savage attack by, among others, F. H. Bradley in his Ethical Studies 1874 and G. E. Moore in Principia Ethica 1903. But others have argued that on this particular point, Mill was misinterpreted by his critics. His insistence that happiness was to be assessed not merely by quantity but by quality - the doctrine that a dissatisfied Socrates is not only better than a satisfied fool, but somehow happier, too - has puzzled generations of commentators. And his attempt to show that justice can be accounted for in utilitarian terms is still important as a riposte to such writers as John Rawls (A Theory of Justice 1971) http://www.utilitarianism.com/jsmill.htm s: Note that happiness has been misrepresented by some of Mill's critics?in terms of quantity when Mill intended it to be qualitative. I have not suggested happiness can be quantitatively measured for pragmatic application. Re. Cosmic principle: Hume argues that finite experience of any kind may be extrapolated. If the good is associated with pleasure then it becomes possible to imagine a God of pleasure, and there is nothing new in that. ? [Ham, previously]:? > Causation is an intellectual interpretation of temporal experience,? > not a Cosmic principle. If man did not experience reality as a? > continuum of events, cause-and-effect would be meaningless.? ? [Squonk]:? > Causation is also concerned with effects: How does a tiny Oak seed? > grow into a huge Oak tree?? > One argument suggests that it is not possible for the effect to be greater? > than the cause, for example. This is not a temporal question.? > In fact, this is how God can be derived as the supreme cause; not of? > temporality, but of ultimate being, with that which is the effect being > > less? > than the cause.? > I suspect you know this Ham.? > It is therefore understandable that it may be argued that God is the > > ultimate? > good.? > Modern scientific thinking recognises that the Cosmos is actually > > increasing? > in complexity, and that complexity may be a cause of life.? > This goes against the grain of entropy.? > With respect to my argument from analogy, the moq identifies excellence? > and raises this to a cause.? > With respect to your essentialism, the cause is dealt with in purely > > logical terms.? ? To argue that God is the ultimate good is an argument from human inference. s: Yes, and this argument is used by Hume to deny the existence of God. Hume was an atheist. Ham: Unless it can be established that 1. There is a God, and 2. Goodness is derived from God, the argument is only an analogous idea, not a cosmic law or metaphysical principle. s:?Hume agrees. Hume: Hume's 'Enquiry' contains the following argument:? ? "All the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into? two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of Fact.? Of the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic;? and in short, every affirmation, which is either intuitively or demonstratively? certain. ... Propositions of this kind are discoverable by the mere operation? of thought, without dependence on what is any where existent in the universe. ...? Matters of fact ... are not ascertained in the same manner; nor is our evidence? of their truth ...of a like nature with the foregoing. The contrary of every? matter of fact is still possible; because it can never imply a contradiction ...? We should in vain, therefore, attempt to demonstrate its falsehood. ..." ? He concludes that "there is no uniformity principle, that there is no good argument of any kind for uniformity. (I would imagine that Hume's "Uniformity Principle" is roughly equivalent to your "Cosmic Principle".) He goes on to say that "... there is no known connexion between the sensible qualities and the secret powers; and consequently ... the mind is not led to form such a conclusion concerning their constant and regular conjunction, by any thing which it knows of their nature. ...I say then, that, even after we have experience of the operations of cause and effect, our conclusions from that experience are not founded on reasoning, or any process of the understanding for UP." ? Squonk, I'll grant you that concepts are formed by the intellect and based on human experience. That makes even empirical deductions fallible from a metaphysical standpoint. But if metaphysical hypotheses were bound by the laws of logic, there would be no concepts, no ontologies, no reality theory consider. We reason, inductively and deductively, from the evidence of experience. We have no alternative for resolving the riddle of existence. If not for philosophy, we would all be nihilists or theists. Essentialism is no different than Idealism. Existentialism, or Qualityism in this regard. So, what is it you want me to confess about my philosophy? That it is unreasonable, implausible, or subjective?? ? If you could cite specific examples to demonstrate my errors in logic or reasoning, I'd be happy to address them.? ? Thanks, Squonk.? --Ham s: Your reasoning is logical Ham and i have no wish to try and demonstrate errors in it. You state: 'We reason, inductively and deductively, from the evidence of experience' and this brings us right back to square one. This is?implied at the beginning: 1. Pirsig has identified the shared experience of 'excellence' in human affairs. Ham: 'We reason, inductively and deductively, from the evidence of experience' 2. Following arguments presented by David Hume in his 'An Essay concerning Human understanding' he has elevated this experience to a Cosmic principle. s: Hume may not dismiss this: 'When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, XII, iii s: If excellence can be included in experimental reasoning because it is a matter of existence (and Pirsig insists that it is, and i tend to agree with him having experienced excellence in the Arts) then we're in business. 3. Ham has identified the shared experience of abstract intellectual discourse - specifically, concerning essence. s: You are strictly concerned with symbolic manipulation - a sub species of this being quantity and number. 4. Following David Hume, Ham has elevated this experience to a Cosmic principle. If these positions can be maintained, it may also be argued that 3 and 4 are specific examples of the more general 1 and 2. s: If symbolic manipulation is a sub species of excellence this last is fulfilled. squonk Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
