From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Jan 08 2003 - 19:10:19 MST
Samantha writes
> The above assumes that reason alone is sufficient for all
> things. But some quite fundamental philosophical decisions,
> such as the Primacy of Matter vs. Primacy of Consciousness, are
> not decidable on the basis of reason alone. They are at a
> nearly axiomatic level not further reducible.
Yes.
> There is also the matter of a more inductive approach to
> certain questions of life and value. For that matter,
> the entire sphere of values is not easily reduced to that
> which reason alone recommends.
Hear, hear! IMO, reason is completely incapable of
establishing values---reason can do no more than
explore the consistency of values.
Now, that being said, it still says a lot! Obtaining
consistency throughout a value system is hardly simple.
Today we are met with any number of examples in the
news that severely tax outmoded systems.
> > If the extropian dumbs down his/her language in such a forum to
> > include the uncritical word belief and thereby justifies by implication
> > the view that beliefs are as good as reasons, the extropian has handed
> > over a large part of their natural advantage. The listener(s) hear both
> > the extropian and the extropian's adversary talking in terms of belief
> > and may get the message that as both sides are talking about beliefs
> > they may as well choose whichever uncertainty they like. Hell vote
> > for the better looking politician, or the tall one.
>
> I do not agree and it is not part of Extropian Principles that
> we are or should be limited to "reasons" alone.
Yes, that would be impossible as well as unwise. Still,
Brett does have a point. Even in values, it is unwise
to say "Blah, blah blah, and blah. This is what I BELIEVE!",
e.g., "It is horrible and obscene and cruel and therefore
WRONG for a woman to cut the arms off her daughter, and THIS
IS WHAT I BELIEVE", completely shutting oneself down to further
critical inquiry and pursuit of consistency.
> It would be better if our democracy was actually a republic
> where the majority of people had no right at all to "vote"
> on a great number of things interfering with the freedom of
> individuals and groups.
...so long as the freedom of one individual or group
does not trespass the freedom of other citizens. (Of
course, it is the decision as to how broad citizenship
should be construed, i.e., whether or not it should
include fetuses, trees, rocks, babies, children,
white people, women, GAIs, aliens, etc.)
Lee
> However, it would be MUCH better to remove stem
> cell research and development from that which is
> subject to a "vote".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST