Bluewing thinks Feeling has cooties

[SolitaryWalker]

For instance, how can one achieve value-less appraisals of the death penalty, or jail terms, or criminal rehabilitation?

What is the problem? The existence of our values does not imply the need to be ruled by them. Simply analyze the situation and see what choice leads to the greatest possible utility. Value-less thinking is neither possible nor desirable, our aim is to interpose rational analysis between our values and our actions.

 

[Orangey]

Vagueness in wording may have led to your reading my saying that use of non-monotonic logic implies use of the Feeling function. This is absolutely not what I meant and I must accept responsibility for poor phrasing.

However, I'll point out two sentences of mine:

"With the assertion that cutting out all Feeling functioning from debates regarding human affairs, one is faced with the fact that we can't reason monotonically and in our world Feeling is a way of dealing with non-monotonic situations on a case by case basis as new information comes in."

I never said non-monotonicity implies the use of Feeling function. I said that Feeling is a way of dealing with non-monotonic situations --- in our world.

Also, I did not say that abductive thinking means we must use Feeling functioning. However, when it comes to abductive thinking in moral realms, Feeling function is a sine qua non, as I like to say.

So, what I meant by my post about monotonic-versus-non-monotonic logics is that when people contrast firm logical thinking with rational thinking that involves the feeling function, it seems to me that they associate rational thinking with classic monotonic logic, with simple inferential chains that do not account for the exigencies of imperfect knowledge bases and limitations in obtaining accurate knowledge about various situations.

If we acknowledge that non-monotonic logic is far more representative of how we deal with real-world situations, then the role of Feeling in rational decision-making is made far easier to swallow by hardcore Thinking types like Bluewing. This was my aim in raising this admittedly esoteric subject.

______________

I think we're on the same page, frankly... to summarize as succinctly as possible my point:

When someone says, 'you're not being logical because you're letting your emotions get involved', it's not always because he/she has a valid point about emotion running riot. He/she may be thinking of classic monotonic arguments and cutting the possibility of using the Feeling function out of the decision-making process. If people prejudiced against use of affect in rational thinking were to make a more concentrated study of different but equally justifiable systems of logic, they would probably be less willing to condemn outright the use of the Feeling function in decision-making. Hence my raising of the issue of non-monotonicity as a logic which can accommodate Feeling function (but which, Orangey, as you pointed out, doesn't in anyway entail the use of Feeling function).

Ah okay...I seem to have misinterpreted your posts. I pretty much agree with what you've said, then. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

What is the problem? The existence of our values does not imply the need to be ruled by them. Simply analyze the situation and see what choice leads to the greatest possible utility. Value-less thinking is neither possible nor desirable, our aim is to interpose rational analysis between our values and our actions.

If one were speaking about utility, and abjuring arguably arbitrary value-standards, then all prisoners with life-terms sans chance of parole should be summarily executed, thereby saving the state millions upon millions of dollars of taxpayer money. These people are criminals who have militated against the peaceful cohesion of society and, to boot, are to unnecessarily drain its resources, given the fact that they're not even going to re-enter society? But such a solution, though promising great utility, would probably be unpalatable for most people.

I don't know whether my example works or not, either as a defeater or as evidence that can be viewed as supporting your contentions. But I'm intrigued as to why you aren't addressing any case-examples... if you feel your approach is applicable, then why not, even in sandbox fashion, apply it? License is of course extended if your attempt must be ad hoc. But at least we can get a true flavor of how you might actually go about this scheme, which has remained a scheme and not crossed into even a mock-demonstration.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I can't imagine the second person really existing... I mean, what would be his/her method of making decisions? She/he would be a robot which merely takes inputs... the only human beings I could think who would act like this are completely demoralized slaves or wage-laborers...

well... I guess that means I can imagine some like that.

My unasked-for guess is that Bluewing would probably be forced to choose the first one (the logically-tempered temperamental fellow) unless the second one (the automaton) was supervised by one of his philosopher-kings.

Well, supposing the second one is now granted the ability to undestand logic, but is merely totally uninterested in addressing it, and has as a result also not trained their abilities with it beyond a minimal human level, then the person would no longer be an automoton.

While I said he has no logic, I didn't say the person was lacking in other considerations. I think a problem here is the assumption that we are either looking at logic or passion. Perhaps BlueWing's idea of "passion" includes the most benign, tranquil, and self-contained of non-logical thoughts, but I'd consider that a really unreasonable definition.

I mean, what about a lot of the world's ascetics? They seem to be a lot more involved in Feeling type rationalization than Thinking type rationalization, but they hardly come across to me as raging with passions.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

If one were speaking about utility, and abjuring arguably arbitrary value-standards, then all prisoners with life-terms sans chance of parole should be summarily executed, thereby saving the state millions upon millions of dollars of taxpayer money. These people are criminals who have militated against the peaceful cohesion of society and, to boot, are to unnecessarily drain its resources, given the fact that they're not even going to re-enter society? But such a solution, though promising great utility, would probably be unpalatable for most people.

I don't know whether my example works or not, either as a defeater or as evidence that can be viewed as supporting your contentions. But I'm intrigued as to why you aren't addressing any case-examples... if you feel your approach is applicable, then why not, even in sandbox fashion, apply it? License is of course extended if your attempt must be ad hoc. But at least we can get a true flavor of how you might actually go about this scheme, which has remained a scheme and not crossed into even a mock-demonstration.

How people will react should be taken within our Utilitarian calculations.

In other words, we should consider the retributions we would incur as a result of having incurred their wrath. Slowly though, we should do all we can to lead them away from value-centered thinking.

That way we will have less interferences by way of our pragmatic decisions. Namely we will not have to refrain from making most practically sound decisions because of the retributions we shall incur as a result of us having crossed values of certain people.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

How people will react should be taken within our Utilitarian calculations.

I think that's a very simple response to a very complicated situation.

The reaction for everyone will be based on subjective Feeling values, and the reaction is going to be diverse, and not in agreement between much of the population.

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

How people will react should be taken within our Utilitarian calculations.

In other words, we should consider the retributions we would incur as a result of having incurred their wrath. Slowly though, we should do all we can to lead them away from value-centered thinking.

That way we will have less interferences by way of our pragmatic decisions. Namely we will not have to refrain from making most practically sound decisions because of the retributions we shall incur as a result of us having crossed values of certain people.

I think your ideal state is inescapably veering towards being very much like Plato's Republic.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I think your ideal state is inescapably veering towards being very much like Plato's Republic.

Plato's republic was run by philosopher kings. Yes. The vulgar were expected to do as they said without question.

However, the difference here is. We will do everything our power to encourage all to think autonomously. We will force them to do so if necessary, to whatever degree they are capable of thinking for themselves they will, or starve.

This is the opposite of Plato's ambitions.

‘The strongest principle is that everybody, whether they are male or female, should have a leader. Likewise, no one should get into the habit of doing anything at all on his own initiative-either in earnest or in jest. Both in war and during time of peace, he should respect his leader and follow him faithfully. He should look up to his leader and follow his guidance in even the smallest matters. For example, he should get up, move around, wash, and have his meals.. only at such times as he has been ordered to do so. In other words, he should get into the habit, by a long process of training of never dreaming of acting independently, and thus becoming utterly incapable of such action. In this way the life of all is spent in total community. There is no law, and there never will be one, which is above this. It is the most effective way of achieving salvation and victory in war. And in peacetime, and from earliest childhood, this should remain the highest law- the need to rule others and be ruled by others. All trace of independence or anarchistic spirit must be completely eradicated from the life of all men, and even the wild beasts which are kept by these men.”---Plato, Laws

He gave up on the endeavor to inspire the philistines to think for themselves. Plato decided that it is best that there be a rigid code of behavior imposed upon them in order to ensure that they stay out of our way.

 

[Owl]

We will do everything our power to encourage all to think autonomously. We will force them to do so if necessary, to whatever degree they are capable of thinking for themselves they will, or starve.

This is the funniest, scariest thing I've ever read.

 

[Ivy]

Again, there is rational foundation for the value judgments I have. Being married to an idea is a result of subjectivity. Valuing the idea in itself. If you value objectivity, you will be chiefly concerned with the truth, this means coming up with new ideas if necessary to replace the ones you've had for a while.

You keep saying this as if other people don't also think they have a rational foundation for their value judgments. I think you, like everyone else, may not realize when you are too close to a topic to be truly objective about it. To my eye, one limb of a policy of objectivity is recognizing when you're not capable of it.

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

Plato's republic was run by philosopher kings. Yes. The vulgar were expected to do as they said without question.

However, the difference here is. We will do everything our power to encourage all to think autonomously. We will force them to do so if necessary, to whatever degree they are capable of thinking for themselves they will, or starve.

This is the opposite of Plato's ambitions.

....

He gave up on the endeavor to inspire the philistines to think for themselves. Plato decided that it is best that there be a rigid code of behavior imposed upon them in order to ensure that they stay out of our way.

You're right... Plato was far more merciful to those who didn't think like him. He proposed that those who were made of 'baser metals' be allowed to live their lives within the confines of general societal guidelines. He didn't leave them to die.

For your system to work, better you create your own commune and build it up into a model nation-state than try to impose your ideas on any existing polities. Everyone, even the pure mathematicians, would revolt.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

You keep saying this as if other people don't also think they have a rational foundation for their value judgments. I think you, like everyone else, may not realize when you are too close to a topic to be truly objective about it. To my eye, one limb of a policy of objectivity is recognizing when you're not capable of it.

Yeah well, we have a VERY rigid formula for deciding what is objective and what isn't. No room for moosh there. I earnestly think that it is ridiculous to claim that most people DO have objective reasons for standing by their values, as this presupposes that they are skilled logicians.

You're right... Plato was far more merciful to those who didn't think like him. He proposed that those who were made of 'baser metals' be allowed to live their lives within the confines of general societal guidelines. He didn't leave them to die.

For your system to work, better you create your own commune and build it up into a model nation-state than try to impose your ideas on any existing polities. Everyone, even the pure mathematicians, would revolt.

Plato did not give any liberty to the vulgar. He imposed a very rigid code of behavior on them.

In our case everyone will be allowed to do as they please as long as they have a sound argument for doing so.

This leaves room for much more leeway than the rigid code of behavior, no need for revolt here.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Yeah well, we have a VERY rigid formula for deciding what is objective and what isn't. No room for moosh there. I earnestly think that it is ridiculous to claim that most people DO have objective reasons for standing by their values, as this presupposes that they are skilled logicians.

Okay. Why should I believe you have the skills to be so objective?

 

[Little Linguist]

Okay. Why should I believe you have the skills to be so objective?

Hey, I have an idea: Let's use feeling to decide what is objective?

Muhahahhahhahahha!

(Sorry, had to say it - now I am normal again).

 

[miked277]

Okay. Why should I believe you have the skills to be so objective?

the ole' bluewing defense, "i'm right because i'm me and you're wrong because you're you!"

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

Plato did not give any liberty to the vulgar. He imposed a very rigid code of behavior on them.

In our case everyone will be allowed to do as they please as long as they have a sound argument for doing so.

This leaves room for much more leeway than the rigid code of behavior, no need for revolt here.

Well, this is (my fault) but Plato's Socrates at the very least incorporated human passions into his consideration of the 'ideal' city-state. People cut out for war would go to war, those who were of a more capitalist disposition would conduct their trade in the agora.

In your vision, you would have an entirely cleansed city, a city cleansed of the passions, which is impossible... what I was saying is that Plato had more sense to include what you presume to summarily exclude.

Even if one disagrees with Plato, his position is more moderate than yours, which advocates the perfunctory dismissal of all elements without your demanding qualifications... Plato seeks, in whatever flawed way, to incorporate them into the city-state, since all of these people are necessary.

And Plato did allow for relative freedom within certain moral boundaries. Of course there were moral codes, but generally wine and sex were not entirely outlawed, but to be restrained. Only when the common folk stepped out of bounds would a rehabilitative process ensue... what you propose is to just kick everyone out, since most people would leave your city-state.

‘The strongest principle is that everybody, whether they are male or female, should have a leader. Likewise, no one should get into the habit of doing anything at all on his own initiative-either in earnest or in jest. Both in war and during time of peace, he should respect his leader and follow him faithfully. He should look up to his leader and follow his guidance in even the smallest matters. For example, he should get up, move around, wash, and have his meals.. only at such times as he has been ordered to do so. In other words, he should get into the habit, by a long process of training of never dreaming of acting independently, and thus becoming utterly incapable of such action. In this way the life of all is spent in total community. There is no law, and there never will be one, which is above this. It is the most effective way of achieving salvation and victory in war. And in peacetime, and from earliest childhood, this should remain the highest law- the need to rule others and be ruled by others. All trace of independence or anarchistic spirit must be completely eradicated from the life of all men, and even the wild beasts which are kept by these men.”---Plato, Laws

I should add, before you or anyone else responds to this post, that I have all the while been talking about Plato's Republic, not Plato's Laws or even Plato himself. This started with my characterizing your (BW's) vision as being much like Plato's republic and I eventually concluded that your vision is in fact even less realistic than his (in the Republic) was... regardless... the validity of your arguments doesn't rest on its consonance or dissonance with any of Plato's books, I was making an observation which, I think, generally holds true...

you propose that a group of 'high-minded' individuals runs everything... much like Plato's Republic... with all those who don't obey being cast to the wolves... not like Plato's Republic.

I was generally fixated on the more abstract issues regarding the role of Feeling in rational debate and didn't really bother to read through the first few posts... now that I've done some due diligence, I still stand by my defense of BW's right to argue without being verbally assaulted, but I also recognize why people got so offended....

 

[miked277]

I still stand by my defense of BW's right to argue without being verbally assaulted, but I also recognize why people got so offended....

i don't think anyone wants to shut bluewing up, so to speak, but as long as i've been a member here and at intpc he's been creating threads like this. while he does indeed make valuable contributions to this and other sites his contributions are at least equaled by his ability to arouse the general dislike of most. the cause is twofold, first he carries around an air of arrogance and immaturity. second, his arguments are infact built on some very faulty logic (in this case and others, not all)... full of non sequiturs, false dichotimites and the like. just an overall feeling i have regarding his arguments is that they are built on top of a *very* small foundation of actual experience and/or research.

my suggestion to him is to do *a lot* more investigation into not only the subjects which are touched on in your arguments but also on subjects which might seem tangental but infact are intricately related. a small example of how one might go wrong in this respect goes as follows... someone could be the foremost expert on the earth, it's geography, biology, topography, etc *but* if they are completely ignorant of anything outside the earth (ie. the sun, moon, other planets, the universe, astrophysics) and they try to make postulations on why the earth rotates or revolves, how it was formed, what is it's ultimate destiny then they simply don't have the data to do any of that accurately and furthermore attempts to do so will appear downright foolish.

anyways, that's my 2c. i was going to write up a long response to the OP (and i started to) but i'll just leave it at this for now.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

i don't think anyone wants to shut bluewing up, so to speak,

To be fair, I've implicitly called for banning him. I've describe him as an unusually elloquent troll and flamer, and I've said that we've already seen everything he has to contribute.

So, Samuel was talking about people like me.

 

[miked277]

To be fair, I've implicitly called for banning him. I've describe him as an unusually elloquent troll and flamer, and I've said that we've already seen everything he has to contribute.

So, Samuel was talking about people like me.

ah, gotcha.

but yeah, i don't think banning is the best course of action in this case. bluewing does have redeeming qualities. his more abrasive qualities i suppose are just part and parcel and can be curbed by say, moving threads like this to a section labeled "flame bait" or "useless but funny." his threads having prime space in the main sections of the site are in effect partially legitimizing what he has to say. that combined with his unusually elloquent style sort of reinforce how much weight people give to what he says. if, however, this type of his stuff were explicitly labeled as "trash" or "flame bait" then i don't think people would find his ramblings so offensive or take him so seriously.

that's what i think at least.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Well, this is (my fault) but Plato's Socrates at the very least incorporated human passions into his consideration of the 'ideal' city-state. People cut out for war would go to war, those who were of a more capitalist disposition would conduct their trade in the agora.

In your vision, you would have an entirely cleansed city, a city cleansed of the passions, which is impossible... what I was saying is that Plato had more sense to include what you presume to summarily exclude.

Even if one disagrees with Plato, his position is more moderate than yours, which advocates the perfunctory dismissal of all elements without your demanding qualifications... Plato seeks, in whatever flawed way, to incorporate them into the city-state, since all of these people are necessary.

And Plato did allow for relative freedom within certain moral boundaries. Of course there were moral codes, but generally wine and sex were not entirely outlawed, but to be restrained. Only when the common folk stepped out of bounds would a rehabilitative process ensue... what you propose is to just kick everyone out, since most people would leave your city-state.



I should add, before you or anyone else responds to this post, that I have all the while been talking about Plato's Republic, not Plato's Laws or even Plato himself. This started with my characterizing your (BW's) vision as being much like Plato's republic and I eventually concluded that your vision is in fact even less realistic than his (in the Republic) was... regardless... the validity of your arguments doesn't rest on its consonance or dissonance with any of Plato's books, I was making an observation which, I think, generally holds true...

you propose that a group of 'high-minded' individuals runs everything... much like Plato's Republic... with all those who don't obey being cast to the wolves... not like Plato's Republic.

I was generally fixated on the more abstract issues regarding the role of Feeling in rational debate and didn't really bother to read through the first few posts... now that I've done some due diligence, I still stand by my defense of BW's right to argue without being verbally assaulted, but I also recognize why people got so offended....

I am confused.

Summarize in 3 sentences what 'moderate' means and how Plato's view is more moderate than mine.

Unlike Plato I do not argue for aristocracy. But Democracy instead. Plato insisted on aristocracy because he recognized the need to make decisions rationally but only thought the intellectual elite were capable of rational decision-making. I insist that all become competent at rational decision-making.

Plato is the one who robs them out of the right of voice because they are plain stupid, despite that he involves them in his plans that you mention. I insist that they should not be left out, but as prerequisite for this, they must learn to think for themselves.