The most extensive and complex principles of logic, and philosophy, begin with a simple premise.
Son: Why? Father: Because I said so.
That people appeal to authority so much on philosophy forums should become linked to this simple dynamic. Where do babies learn their (masculine, authoritative) knowledge from? From their fathers. And if people are bastards, then they grow up without fathers. These people, bastards, are much more psychologically inclined to appeal to (higher) social authorities. This is common and predictable. In fact, I run across this so often that I can almost determine if a person is fatherless by the formal structures of his arguments, and the logical premises he rests his points upon. But this should be a simple fact to understand. Let me explain.
When babies are born, they ask why a lot after they figure out how to (acquire knowledge). Who do they ask? Everybody. Who has the most predominant affect on their learning? Biological parents, two people with the deepest genetic connections. Therefore, when any child seeks authority, he/she will seek out the father figure as the be-all, end-all authority on matters. Why not women??? That is another matter to debate, another time. For now, all that matters, is this logical principle, an axiom. One of authority. Now extend the fact higher. If a child grows, and rejects his/her father as an authority, or as a superior authority on issues of great importance in life, then who does one turn to for absolution? Either : another, or, yourself. If you choose another, then your logic contorts to the logic of another. This is demonstrateable. We can empirically verify this through science. However, if you choose yourself, then you probably will become inclined toward philosophy as a domain for your knowledge, unable to rest on other institutions, such as religion. Religion, or science, are the two other predominant institutions for human knowledge insofar as one can rest a fact upon anything stable (as a foundation for belief).
The more stable the demand, the more stable the demand for an authority as well, whether you are one or not. If you are not, then another is.
Simple dynamic. And it begins at birth. ‘God’ = ‘Father’, per se.
I’m sure he meant “God Authority” as someone of absolute knowledge and how like babies look up to their fathers for knowledge we as humans and society look up to god with the questions ever our fathers couldn’t answer.
And…? So what? Some people use idiot statements like “Because I said so” in order to avoid having to show their kids what a fucking moron they are, because they cant answer a simple question reasonably, or justify their actions or demands upon them. But that idiotic behavior has nothing to do with the “complex principles of logic and philosophy”.
If your idea of logic and philosophy is anywhere near the idiot self-obcessed narcissism of typical asshole parents who tell their kids “Because I said so”, then truly you have no idea what logic or philosophy actually are.
Theres no such thing as “masculine, authoritative” knowledge, what does that even mean? Its nonsense. Knowledge is knowledge. Logic may support a statement as true or not, but regardless it doesnt matter where the statement comes from or what its about.
Once again, perhaps this is where you learned your “knowledge”. But so what?
Try making an argument. This is a philosophy forum after all.
Seriously that is just nonsense. You make totally arbitrary assignations like “knowledge is masculine” or whatever, presumably learned from the father (as if we dont gain “masculine” knowledge from other males, culture, media, etc), or as if mothers are somehow incapable of passing on knowledge of an authoritative form or grounding to their children, and expect us to just take your word for it? I could easily make the argument that people without fathers appeal less to higher social authorities - its all meaningless, there is no necessary connection, and even if there is you certainly havent even begun to demonstrate it here.
I can think of people I know who rely a lot on what you seem to so simplistically call “masculine authoritative knowledge”, appeal to authority (sort of like what you are doing with this entire post) and these people all have fathers. So what now? Looks like your statement is not only unsupported and patently absurd at face value, but also at odds with real experience. And I would imagine that most other people who think about those they know who appeal to authority could find plenty of them who have fathers.
But once again, it doesnt matter, there is no connection between having or not having a father when it comes to whether or not one can form rational arguments. Most people dont even know what a rational argument is. Most people who fancy themselves “interested in philosophy” couldnt form a rational argument to save their lives. There are a lot of reasons for this, but certainly the sole fact of whether or not they had a father is not one of them.
Genetic connections? Nonsense. You think a baby listens to its parents more because of their DNA? Its the fact of proximity and extent of intimate contact that matters. Raise a baby with foster parents and it will ask questions of and believe or disbelieve its foster parents just as much as if those parents were its real parents. A baby doesnt know whether its parents share its DNA or not. It has no fucking idea, it attaches itself to whoever plays the parental role, regardless of how common that figure’s DNA might be to its own.
Sure, mention the counterpoint objection to your assertation here but refuse to address it, great argumentation, no appeal to authority here. You are unwilling to even back up your claim to the simplest extent as would be required to even differentiate it from the obvious counterpoint. You cant even define your position, let alone argue for it.
Yes, the axiomatic principle that whatever you say is true despite that all you do is utter it and provide no reason or justification for any of it. I suppose you base this principle of authority on your own apparent authority as the arbitor of truth who has no need whatsoever to demonstrate, argue or back up anything he says, whose mere utterances alone are enough to show true from false. Great job proving your own point, albeit not without a hilarious amount of irony and hypocrisy, regarding the pitfalls and irrationality of appeal to authority.
I guess I should infer from your little post here that you are fatherless?
So demonstrate it.
And yet you fail to empirically verify this through science, or show where or how this might be done.
Heres a hint: just saying “Dont worry, my statement is true, it can be empirically verified by science” doesnt actually mean that it can, in fact, be empirically verified by science. Talk is cheap, so put up or shut up - show the “empirical verification”, or at least explain it to some extent. If you cant, then dont go around lying about how empirically verified your assertations are, because the whole point of scientific empiricism is its demonstrability - thus, if you cant demonstrate it, your claims about empiricism or whatever are meaningless.
More nonsense. Nothing youve said here has a single thing backing it up except your appeal to your own authority, and ignoring the obvious hypocrisy there you psychologically project all over humanity as if your sole experiences with your dad give you knowledge into the psyche of all mankind. Except of course where someone has a different experience and environment than you had, which is to say, for everyone else on the fucking planet other than you.
Try making an argument, you know, giving a reason or forming your own logical premises and conclusions for what you claim. There is nothing backing anything you say here, and anyone with a fraction of a functioning brain can see that this entire post is nothing but nonsense.
In philosophy, an assertation without reasoning or justification backing it up is a nonsense statement. Just so you know. And this is a philosophy forum, after all.
Yes thats it, just ignore everything I wrote and ask personal and useless questions. Maybe if you pretend that I didnt just refute your entire topic here then no one will notice.
And my father never abandoned me or my mother, as if that has anything to do with anything here.
I don’t see what difference this makes though. Even if you are right, does it really matter? My dad left shortly after I was born, but I was fortunate enough to get a stepfather a year or so later, who stayed, so I grew up with a real father figure. Still, I never accepted his authority on “important questions”. What did I do instead? Through reason and research, I found the answers myself. I never leaned on any authority, but I have a mild tendency of being fascinated by great people(certain philosophers, scientists, etc), but this quickly wears off and the valuable insight from each one of them is scrutinized and checked for flaws(after the initial ‘onslaught’). Your theory works for me in a sense, since I did turn to philosophy, and science to some extent. Overall though, I take myself to be my main source of authority, and I don’t feel that this is compromised by listening to others who have authority on certain matters. The important thing is to avoid blind belief, but keep your eyes open to take their knowledge, scrutinize it and turn what is left into your knowledge, rather than copying theirs. It is somewhat interesting that I can draw parallels between my level of reliance on myself vs authority and to what extent I let my stepfather be an authority. The two probably aren’t too different.
What difference does this make though? You ‘figured me out’. Congratulations. How does this information affect me?
It’s not supposed to. This thread is about a father-son relationship and how people mistakingly produce the god-concept of divine authority, an all powerful entity.
I have learned better methods on how to deal with emotional teenage boys.
It does. It has everything to do with everything here. I detect a lot of resentment between you and your father. Otherwise this thread would not have conjured such personal resentment. Perhaps this is universal, though. I will respond to your long post after you calm down and take a seat. Breathe for a few minutes. Then tell me what your response has to do with authority and logic, which, by the looks of it, has nothing to do with either.
Yes, it really does matter. Because when people appeal to authority within any logical argument, it signifies an automated psychological process, and a history. This is VERY important information, especially considering logical principles and their subsequent ramifications.
You are correct. They aren’t too different.
The difference it makes is in understanding the (biological) processes through which memetic/genetic information becomes passed. There is a direct correlation within these specific premises (of fatherhood). However, the most interesting aspects of authority are dealt with between family units and which parental figure assumes the position of (male) authority over the children. Does a mother or father doll out punishment, for example? And why. The psychological implications for this (authorization) become endless with further analysis. Hence, logic becomes grounded in a human dynamic, or, how one expresses statements between family members, why, to what end, and more. If children grow up without parents, then, this obviously affects their intelligence, mostly for the worse. This fact is no coincidence. Thus, intelligence can become correlated to physical backgrounds, genetically, and with respect to one’s upbringing. A child who grows up in an AIDS striken, starving village in Africa, compared to one in the abundant cities of America, there will appear a great diversity of human intelligence, inferior in that of an African child, compared to an American child. Such factors can become measured. Poverty begets impoverished minds, and such. Although, there are exceptions.
Must I repeat myself? No, I musn’t. I will not repeat myself. What I DO know, is, that you impose yourself upon me in a private message, inviting me to your secret hideout. I can see you are impressed by this fellow. I find that fact very interesting. Mistaking me for him, is even more interesting. You obviously seek him out. I am afraid that I cannot help you or your lapdog.
And neither can you hide what you are, my friend. Now, shall we stick to the topic of this thread, or continue to engage your off topic delusions? May I ask why you seek this individual with such a fervor to project his character upon complete strangers? No, save your psychological aspirations for another thread to ruin. You have gone on long enough with such inanity. Take your projections and fears elsewhere, for now.
Parents have good reason to say “because I said so”. If both parent and child are intelligent, sane and reasonable, the child will likely come to the same conclusion about whatever the issue is over time. Meanwhile, it doesn’t make sense to expect the child to have mature sensibilities. The child wants to have sex at 13, the parent says no. Explaining why not won’t make a lot of sense to the child of 13.
I don’t know if this is relevant or not, but I thought of an interesting variation on your hypothetical mini-conversation:
Your seeming obcession with teenage boys notwithstanding, do you intend to continue to deliberately ignore my comments to you? Do you think this gives you any sort of legitimacy or argumentative credibility, that you are either unable or unwilling to respond to the arguments against your position which I have presented?
In fact, I have a lot of resentment against people like you, who make blind assertations with no arguments or reasons backing them up, and then act self-righteous and arrogantly dismiss others who actually attempt to engage the conversation on a level of reason or fact. Those such as yourself, the religious type, are the scum of the earth, and your pathetic display of hypocritical ignorance here is more amusing than anything else, as is the fact that you somehow manage to rationalize your willing blindness to the arguments presented by others against your position. The depths of depravity and intellectual dishonesty that a mind such as your must have reached in order to accomplish such a feat are staggering, but also, again, not without their amusement value.
Ah yes, you take the high road only so you can take the low road. Your type is ubiquitous here. And dont expect me to repeat myself, I have already sufficiently shown the flaws and irrationality in your position here - you say nothing at all about authority, other than revealing your own narcissistic self-love with your own supposed authority on this subject, being as you seem to have no problem with making bold universal statements with absolutely nothing backing them up. And as for logic, you clearly lack even the capacity to know what logic is, much less make accurate use of it. And the fact that you reduce the conversation to a level of “calm down”, another hilarious irony from one such as you, only further solidifies the fact that you are unable to converse on a level of ideas and logic, and must drag every conversation, when it starts to actually get serious, into the gutter, thus avoiding the responsibility of having to actually compete in an rational and free universe of discourse.
But I await your response to my initial arguments against your position, you certainly have every opportunity here to prove me wrong in my assessments of you - though it goes without saying that I know with almost perfect certainty that you will not take such an opportunity, even one handed to you so nicely gift-wapped.
Responses will be hard to come by unless the tone of this thread changes. Last Man - that’s a lot of personal stuff. And a case could be made that you were provoked.
So listen up, both of you - play nice or the playground gate gets locked.
If you were NOT so busy perhaps projecting all over the place (your option when it comes to philosophy?), clearly trying to control by hitting below the belt you might have noticed that the below words which you put into the mouth of The Last Man did NOT come from The Last Man but came from Keyser. Look above.
My question to you would be why can’t you have a fair discussion in here without seemingly attacking with your words?