Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Ayn  Rand's  definitions of force and reason
Message-ID: <959@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Dec-85 09:06:37 EST
Article-I.D.: mmintl.959
Posted: Fri Dec 27 09:06:37 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 30-Dec-85 06:46:32 EST
References: <1482@hound.UUCP> <1910@psuvax1.UUCP> <309@l5.uucp> <1915@psuvax1.UUCP> <332@l5.uucp> <902@mmintl.UUCP> <355@l5.uucp>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 47


In article <355@l5.uucp> laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes:
>In article <902@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
>>
>>Your argument is similar to one I have been propounding in net.philosophy,
>>but there are some points of disagreement.  It is not clear to me that
>>moral decisions ultimately come down to self-evident truths.  I think at
>>the bottom one comes down to a question of belief.  I will agree that
>>emotional misses the mark, but I don't think rational is right, either.
>
>We may be using more than one definition of rational here; I hope not.
>If we go round and round in circles then I think that this is where the
>problem will lie.

Actually, from what you say below, I think it is more likely we are using
"self-evident" differently.

>Okay -- beliefs.  We all have them.  But why should you have any that
>you think are not either *self-evident* or *logically derived from
>self-evident truths*?  (I am including empirical evidence here as being
>``self-evident''.)  As a practical matter, everyone is bound to have
>beliefs that they have because they believed something that somebody
>else told them, or  that they read somewhere, but these beliefs can all
>be questioned and disgarded if it becomes likely that they are false.
>So, forgetting these for a moment, what other beliefs should you have?

In saying "these beliefs can be questioned and discarded", I think you are
making a false dichotomy.  ALL beliefs can be questioned and discarded.
This is true of empirical evidence, especially.  "I see a cloud on the
horizon."  "That's not a cloud, that's a mirage."  "Oh."

Likewise, if you believe something is self-evident because complicated
analysis led you to conclude that it had to be true, you must recognize
that you might have made a mistake in your analysis.

So I only call "self-evident" those things where is the analysis is so
simple that there is no chance of error worth considering.  "One plus
one is two" is self-evident.  "I am sitting on a chair" is also self-
evident -- I would have to be far more confused or deluded to be wrong
than is worth taking into consideration.  For more complicated cases,
there is more doubt; ranging up to when I believe my analysis is probably
wrong.

The important point here is that there is always an element of doubt and
a bit of analysis in any belief.

Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108