Do you have a coherent ideology?

[El_Machinae]

The guy who comes at you saying "I'm going to stab you unless you kill me with your shotgun" is, as far as I can tell, essentially consenting to being shot. He's creating a dog eat dog world, so it's not anyone else's fault if he's forced to live in it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The guy who comes at you saying "I'm going to stab you unless you kill me with your shotgun" is, as far as I can tell, essentially consenting to being shot. He's creating a dog eat dog world, so it's not anyone else's fault if he's forced to live in it.

I agree in principle. Of course if you are the guy that lets all your neighbors know you have a shotgun and you aren't afraid to use it and then acts like a jerk every time someone turns around that's a different story.

 

[Quackers]

Whenever I encounter a new issue I have two responses. Initially it is the gut. It is the emotion I feel at that particular point of time. A lot of people will tell me, "Quackers this is an emotional response, you should ignore it". they are wrong. I find that often my emotions lead me to the right path. After i listen to the facts I am usually have more evidence to support my gut reaction.

My brain will do that "thinking" after a while. Unfortunately It always come to the conclusions that the politically correct elite want me to do. In the end I am always blaming myself. It isn't a healthy view point to have, so i eschew it.

 

[Tahuti]

Whenever I encounter a new issue I have two responses. Initially it is the gut. It is the emotion I feel at that particular point of time. A lot of people will tell me, "Quackers this is an emotional response, you should ignore it". they are wrong. I find that often my emotions lead me to the right path. After i listen to the facts I am usually have more evidence to support my gut reaction.

My brain will do that "thinking" after a while. Unfortunately It always come to the conclusions that the politically correct elite want me to do. In the end I am always blaming myself. It isn't a healthy view point to have, so i eschew it.

Think harder. Often, thinking a little will steer you away from your gut feelings, only to learn that thinking harder will strengthen your gut feelings.

 

[brennan]

I don't believe a government should be able to take a person's life, because once we authorize that, we come to the problem of whose life they will take. It shouldn't be up to them.
Lock them up, throw away the key.

But, now comes the problem... what about a guy like OBL? Is assassination not a form of the death penalty?

Not seeing how this is a consistency problem. At least for me.

 

[El_Machinae]

I can see it. It's a struggle as to whether you authorize the government to kill people, using gov't funds and resources. Lots of people find it intuitive that the State be allowed to kill (especially in self-defense), but it's actually a direct political choice. It's one of the first steps in accepting an authoritarian state.

Now, in the real world, it's obviously a practical choice. If you don't politically support a state that will tax you to fund its defense of you, then some other state will just come along and do it.

 

[brennan]

I only 'authorise' my government or anyone else to kill people in self defence.

Consistency, see?

 

[Daw]

I am not sure I get "coherent" right, and also the "ideology" word has become sort of obscene word in my country for about quarter of a century, but I think I do have a logically consistent system (and I also tend to patch it to be logically consistent where it's proven to be not) of views onto and positions about most aspects I think to be relevant, so it's "yes" or "mostly and preferably yes" if you like.

 

[Traitorfish]

Think harder. Often, thinking a little will steer you away from your gut feelings, only to learn that thinking harder will strengthen your gut feelings.

Some anti-rationalist you are!

 

[Tahuti]

Some anti-rationalist you are!

The great misconceptions of anti-rationalism is that it is supposedly a rejection of reason as an epistomological tool. Rather, it is more the rejection of the universal applicability of reason because rational faculties of humans are too weak to understand things and in some cases can never be solved by reason alone. Most intellectuals and political pundits are rational in a naive sense.

 

[El_Machinae]

I only 'authorise' my government or anyone else to kill people in self defence.

Consistency, see?

It's more than authorise to kill in self defense. You're authorizing them to tax me to help fund that killing.

It's not like I come to your house, take your kitchen knives, and go stab people on your behalf.

Loosely, we tend to find 'defense of innocents' an easy thing to allow, morally. Then, both Just War and the Death Penalty fall out of that. Step 2 is authorizing governments to do it.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Rather, it is more the rejection of the universal applicability of reason because rational faculties of humans are too weak to understand things and in some cases can never be solved by reason alone.

Just a methodological question, then. How do you sort out the things that you think might bear more consideration (just haven't solved them yet) from the things that you sense (?) exceed the power of human thought (pretty sure I'm never going to solve them, so I'll apply something other than reason)?

Not a hostile question. I'm actually pondering a somewhat analogous question.

 

[Tahuti]

Just a methodological question, then. How do you sort out the things that you think might bear more consideration (just haven't solved them yet) from the things that you sense (?) exceed the power of human thought (pretty sure I'm never going to solve them, so I'll apply something other than reason)?

Not a hostile question. I'm actually pondering a somewhat analogous question.

That in itself is pretty hard. Actually, I'd say no one probably can. The best thing IMO is to keep thinking on, in the hope we stumble across something. Often, on the way to it, great discoveries are inadvertently made as well, so I would never consider it wasted effort.

 

[Gori the Grey]

But that strikes me as a new form of a "universal applicability of reason": this question hasn't yet yielded to my reasoning efforts, but I won't therefore altogether let off trying to apply them.

 

[Tahuti]

But that strikes me as a new form of a "universal applicability of reason": this question hasn't yet yielded to my reasoning efforts, but I won't therefore altogether let off trying to apply them.

Well, the simple point is that reason will not be able to solve anything. In part because the demarcation problem you have presented, decisions that may appear based on fallacious reasoning may prove beneficial much later on.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Definitely one of the most frustrating things about the US political system is that to be heard you basically have to chose one of just two parties even if you have pretty big ideological differences with both. It is much harder to pick a party or candidate that is close to your true values because unless that candidate belongs to one of the two parties, your votes won't get your side seats in government.

 

[kochman]

The guy who comes at you saying "I'm going to stab you unless you kill me with your shotgun" is, as far as I can tell, essentially consenting to being shot. He's creating a dog eat dog world, so it's not anyone else's fault if he's forced to live in it.

Obviously, but we're talking about state violence... I don't think anyone other than Akka would deny the right to defend one's self in such a manner.

 

[Daw]

But that strikes me as a new form of a "universal applicability of reason": this question hasn't yet yielded to my reasoning efforts, but I won't therefore altogether let off trying to apply them.

That's how science is based on theories, not dogmas.

This question hasn't yet yielded to my reasoning efforts, but I won't therefore altogether let off trying to apply them. And in the meanwhile, since and as long as I don't have anything better, my gut feeling will have to suffice.

That question has, I think, already yielded to my reasoning efforts, but there is a minuscule chance that I was wrong or missed something, so my trying to apply them is postponed for as long as my concept does not meet seemingly contradicting facts. When it does, both the facts and the concept are considered and ether the facts are coherently explained to fit the concept (contradiction is proven false) or the concept is altered to reasonably fit reality better than ever.

This all boils down to "applying reasoning efforts" is never finally done, just postponed at some points where coherence is seemingly achieved for now.

IMO.

Obviously, but we're talking about state violence... I don't think anyone other than Akka would deny the right to defend one's self in such a manner.

As for the state violence, my idea that it must be limited to defensive only. And that will be rendered useless once no offensive systems are left.

Another (or additional) version of it may be delegating protection to international authorities similarly to how personal protection is delegated to the police in many countries, which helps preventing schoolchildren from being shot by armed maniacs so often.

 

[Gori the Grey]

That's how science is based on theories, not dogmas.

This question hasn't yet yielded to my reasoning efforts, but I won't therefore altogether let off trying to apply them. And in the meanwhile, since and as long as I don't have anything better, my gut feeling will have to suffice.

That question has, I think, already yielded to my reasoning efforts, but there is a minuscule chance that I was wrong or missed something, so my trying to apply them is postponed for as long as my concept does not meet seemingly contradicting facts. When it does, both the facts and the concept are considered and ether the facts are coherently explained to fit the concept (contradiction is proven false) or the concept is altered to reasonably fit reality better than ever.

This all boils down to "applying reasoning efforts" is never finally done, just postponed at some points where coherence is seemingly achieved for now.

IMO.

Right, and that's how I understand the kind of claims that science makes also.

But I can follow kaiser, as well.

Well, the simple point is that reason will not be able to solve anything. In part because the demarcation problem you have presented, decisions that may appear based on fallacious reasoning may prove beneficial much later on.

If you presuppose that there are questions not finally susceptible to rational inquiry, then the inability of reason to distinguish which ones those are is itself a sign of the limitations of reason.

This is all pretty tangential to the main thread, I want to acknowledge that I realize. I have no coherent ideology, and it's no doubt because I take up questions like this.

 

[MacAttack]

What I am wondering is when do you consider incoherent ideology, hypocrisy? Is there a line or the moment you have incoherent ideology you are a hypocrite? I am curious to see what y'all have to say about that.