Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuts.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuts!orb
From: orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Reason Is The Opposite Of Force (Proof)
Message-ID: <503@whuts.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 23-Jan-86 13:30:11 EST
Article-I.D.: whuts.503
Posted: Thu Jan 23 13:30:11 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 24-Jan-86 22:43:58 EST
References: <1596@hound.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 88

Mr. Stubblefield has certainly presented an elaborate opus of the
foundations of his moral philosophy.  But both that foundation
and the conclusions he somehow incredibly flies to, are muddled.
 
He and other Libertarians would certainly be enlightened by a study
of philosophy, economics and society beyond the narrow circle of
Ayn Rand and her cohorts.
 
Mr. Stubblefield makes a number of basic confusions which were pointed
out by other philosophers a long time ago.

For one thing his whole *moral* philosophy (and Ayn Rand's) is based
on a number of assumptions which make no sense in reality.  The 
deification of Individualistic "Reason" is merely a variation of
Hegel's grand theories of Zeitgeist and the progress of the Ideal
in history with which Hegel made such grand apologies for the social
order of aristocratic rule by the few in his own day.  Marx said
then that he would "turn Hegel on his head" and he did.
Let us now see how we can do so for this argument.
Very late in his elaborate exposition Mr. Stubblefied admits:
 
>     All the aspects of reason discussed thus far apply in society or in a 
> desert island environment--i.e., for a single human in isolation.  
 
In the first place we must recognize that "reason" is not some disembodied
innate ability but something culturally learned and intimately
connected with language.  We have no evidence whatsoever that an infant
left on a desert island will learn language - indeed it will not survive
at all without human care.  Moreover as Piaget has shown even learning
such elementary principles as conservation of mass requires activity
*within* the world.  This was what Marx meant when he spoke of "turning
Hegel on his head".  Not to speak of some abstract supernatural "Reason"
independent of our material and social existence but to realize that
ideology itself is transmitted through physical means - the electrons 
on this terminal for example, printing in books, vocal expression,etc.
Even our most basic perception, sight, is to some extent *learned* -
people who have been blind and suddenly gain their sight must learn
how to focus, how to distinguish objects, etc.
Piaget's studies show how children must physically interact with the
world to learn the most reasonable physical principles.
Vygotsky's studies in "Mind and Society" go further and show how
conceptual thinking is intimately connected with language via
"inner speech".  And that such "inner speech" is socially learned.
Piaget had noted that at a certain age children will
talk to themselves as they solve a problem.  He had assumed that this
was a symptom of an autistic, social isolate stage of development.
Vygotsky realized that this was not the case at all - children in
talking to themselves aloud were simply *reasoning* aloud and applying
the language skills they had learned from their peers and adults to
solve problems.  Later they would no longer talk aloud because they
would internalize their speech - the process which we call reasoning.
Peter O'Toole uses this fact that "reasoning" is simply internalized
speech in the movie the Ruling Class.  In this movie Peter O'Toole
plays a young eccentric heir who believes he is Jesus Christ and God.
When asked how he came to this farout conclusion, he answers:
"Simple.  I found out that when I pray I am talking to myself."
 
So "reason" itself is no socially isolated absolute.
But this same problem plagues another part of Mr. Stubblefield's
argument when he says:
 
>     Reason is the only process of consciousness that produces abstractions 
> consistent with reality.  To do this, it must meet two essential 
> criteria.  First, to qualify as reasoning, a process must deal in 
> abstractions ultimately based on the evidence of the senses.  Second, it 
> must integrate new conclusions non-contradictorily with all previous knowledge
> of the reasoner.
 
Does scientific knowledge really depend upon my own personal evidence
of the senses?  Of course not, it cannot be so dependent or else we
would spend all our lives trying to discover *anything*. I have
never seen Betelguese and yet I have every confidence that it is there.
I have never seen the Galapagos turtles or finches with my own eyes
and yet I believe they are there as well as the mountains of evidence
supporting the theory of evolution.  I have gained this "knowledge"
not directly through my own senses, for that would be impossible,
but through the reports of others in books, articles, etc.  In other
words through *social communication* and through trust that others
will accurately report what they have seen, heard, or perceived.

Again, then we find that even scientific knowledge, which strives to
be as objective as possible, is still based upon social interaction.
 
If reason and scientific knowledge cannot be divorced from social
interaction then *how* can the problems of ethics?
this will be continued later .......
       
     tim sevener   whuxn!orb