The leap of faith into absolutes

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

The leap of faith into absolutes.

Karl Popper authored the book “The Open Society and Its Enemies”. The concept Popper illustrates in this book sounds much like the concept of a liberal democracy but his concept is more epistemological than political. It is based upon our imperfect comprehension of reality more than our structure of society.

Popper argues that all ideology shares a common characteristic; a belief in their infallibility. Such infallibility is an impossibility, which leads such ideological practitioners to use force to substantiate their views and such repression brings about a closed society.

Popper proposed that the open society is constructed on the recognition that our comprehension of reality is not perfect—there is realty beyond our comprehension and our will cannot compensate for that lack of comprehension. Even though the will of the power structure can manipulate the opinions of the citizens sooner or later reality will defeat the will. Truth does matter and success will not always override truth—truth being reality.

[b]American culture has lost respect for truth. We have been swamped with PR and spin and untruth to such an extent that we have lost confidence in truth and it has lost its value.

I think that many Americans display and embrace their symbols so extravagantly because we have devalued truth and have glorified infallibility. When we reach such a situation ideologies become more and more important and the adoration of symbols is our method of showing our evaluation of our ideology which is one of our gods.[/b]

I think that for many Americans the natural sciences have come to represent that which is infallible. Rather than a solution science/technology has become the problem because it is ill used, especially when applying the scientific method when dealing with human problems.

I think that the more attached we are to what we consider to be absolute truth the more we idolize such things as science/technology and symbols such as flags, nations, and religion. Would you agree?

2

america hasn’t lost respect for “Truth”… “Truth” simply means something else to most americans… (usually a hedonistic “Truth”)

-Imp

3

On the palm of the right hand we see absolute truth. In the wrong hand we grasp religious/philosophical and other absolutes (noun). The former is absolutely liberating. The latter are absolutely restrictive (10). We use both hands but the former much less than the latter. It is a struggle between life and death. Death is winning.

4

where is the integrety of the good heart that treats his relationship partners (buyer/seller, teacher/student ,ect…) as equals. Thus giveing them every right they themselves desire. Thus furthering their own understanding of desire vs need.

5

Amen!

6

rubs eyes

Is Poppy impossibly claiming that infallibility is impossible?

Popper is off his rocker. An entire book on that stuff? Scary.
People use force because of absolutes? Heh. Read more biology popper, or even pseudo-biology (psychology).

-Mach

7

You dare speak with such scorn about Sir Karl Popper!!

8

We live in two different worlds.

I recently had occasion to hang out in the waiting area of St Joseph Hospital in Asheville for a few hours. I was free to walk many of the corridors and rest in many of the waiting areas along with everyone else. It was early morning but it was obvious that the hospital functioned fully 24/7.

A person can walk the corridors of any big city hospital and observe the effectiveness of human rationality in action. One can also visit the UN building in NYC or read the morning papers and observe just how ineffective, frustrating and disappointing human rationality can be. Why does human reason perform so well in some matters and so poorly in others?

We live in two very different worlds; a world of technical and technological order and clarity, and a world of personal and social disorder and confusion. We are increasingly able to solve problems in one domain and increasingly endangered by our inability to solve problems in the other.

Normal science is successful primarily because it is a domain of knowledge controlled by paradigms. The paradigm defines the standards, principles and methods of the discipline. It is not apparent to the laity but science moves forward in small incremental steps. Science seldom seeks and almost never produces major novelties.

Science solves puzzles. The logic of the paradigm insulates the professional group from problems that are unsolvable by that paradigm. One reason that science progresses so rapidly and with such assurance is because the logic of that paradigm allows the practitioners to work on problems that only their lack of ingenuity will keep them from solving.

Science uses instrumental rationality to solve puzzles. Instrumental rationality is a systematic process for reflecting upon the best action to take to reach an established end. The obvious question becomes ‘what mode of rationality is available for determining ends?’ Instrumental rationality appears to be of little use in determining such matters as “good” and “right”.

There is a striking difference between the logic of technical problems and that of dialectical problems. The principles, methods and standards for dealing with technical problems and problems of “real life” are as different as night and day. Real life problems cannot be solved only using deductive and inductive reasoning.

Dialectical reasoning methods require the ability to slip quickly between contradictory lines of reasoning. One needs skill to develop a synthesis of one point of view with another. Where technical matters are generally confined to only one well understood frame of reference real life problems become multi-dimensional totalities.

When we think dialectically we are guided by principles not by procedures. Real life problems span multiple categories and academic disciplines. We need point-counter-point argumentation; we need emancipatory reasoning to resolve dialectical problems. We need critical thinking skills and attitudes to resolve real life problems.

9

It’s just that he’s not here, so we can either claim he’s all knowing, or off his rocker, but neither position impacts reality or the debate. It’s like when someone doesn’t show for a meeting at work, their answer is always “yes I’ll sign up for that task!”.

And to your “two different worlds”, no. It’s just your experience was focused in one area, and now in another. Until you fill that gap it may appear to be two worlds, but trust me, it’s just one, same universe, same you. Thankfully so, else, nothing would make sense.

Precisely the same techniques used in engineering can be and are regularly used in solving every day problems, marriages, friendly arguments, and who did right or wrong. In fact, matters of good and right are ONLY able to be determined through reason.

Reason is not just a tool, it’s just the best tool. Reasons can include emotions, don’t separate them without justification.

-Mach

10

The weak strive in absolutes but the strong man thrives on mystery.

11

What is dialogic? Dialogic is the combination of dialogue coupled with a dialectical process.

When we come together to try to solve the problem of terrorism we must approach the problem from many views. The problem requires an analysis of why terrorism exists and how to combat it offensively and defensively. We must do it together we must develop a method whereby all participants can dialogue together and from this dialogue we create first a thesis. Then we create a counter thesis, i.e. an antithesis, from these two we develop a synthesis. A synthesis combines in some fashion the thesis and antithesis. This synthesis becomes a new thesis and so on. This is a technique for solving multilogical problems.

There are no paradigms for multilogical problems. Perhaps we might use the phrase ’frame of reference’ instead. A jury trial might be a useful example of a problem engaged by many reflective agents with a multiplicity of frames of reference. In such a situation the jury must utilize communicative techniques to enter into a dialogue wherein there is a constant dialectic until a unanimous solution is reached or deadlock prevails. The example of jury trial is useful but is a snapshot of experience and details agents in a one-time sort of experience.

Socratic dialogue is a technique for attempting to solve multilogical problems. Problems that are either not pattern like or that the pattern is too complex to ascertain. Most problems that we face in our daily life are such multilogical in nature. Simple problems that occur daily in family life are examples. Each member of the family has a different point of view with differing needs and desires. Most of the problems we constantly face are not readily solved by mathematics because they are not pattern specific and are multilogical.

Dialogue is a technique for mutual consideration of such problems wherein solutions grow in a dialectical manner. Through dialogue each individual brings his/her point of view to the fore by proposing solutions constructed around their specific view. All participants in the dialogue come at the solution from the logic of their views. The solution builds dialectically i.e. a thesis is developed and from this thesis and a contrasting antithesis is constructed a synthesis that takes into consideration both proposals. From this a new synthesis, a new thesis is developed.

When we are dealing with monological problems well circumscribed by algorithms the personal biases of the subject are of small concern. In multilogical problems, without the advantage of paradigms and algorithms, the biases of the problem solvers become a serious source of error. One important task of dialogue is to illuminate these prejudices which may be quite subtle and often out of consciousness of the participant holding them.

12

the terrorists don’t want to talk, they want your submission to allah, infidel.

allah allah ackbar!

-Imp

13

Framing the issue: Petraeous—Betray us

George Lakoff, linguist, cognitive scientist, author of “Philosophy in the Flesh” was the mind behind the ad. He has framed the issue that will focus upon dishonesty and untruth for the next 16 months. One cannot say Petraeous without thinking ‘betray us’.

14

the mcgovernites lost the first time, and they will lose again…

the only dishonesty and untruth has been spewed by the democRATS…

and the tighter the democRATS hold onto their socialist totalitarian lies and their surrender in iraq now plans, the deeper the grave they dig for themselves… it will be a fun 14 and a half months…

but of course, this is a nice dodge of the original point: the terrorists don’t want to negioiate or talk or dialouge. they want you DEAD. republican, democRAT it doesn’t matter. the terrorists want you DEAD. republicans will fight back and win. democRATS will surrender and lose.

-Imp