Note: I notice that Jones does not answer my reasoning in my prior post on
this topic, to the effect that his own argument to the conclusion that
ultimate premises must be simply assumed is self-refuting, because *it*
must rest on premises, and ultimately on ultimate premises. If they are
simply assumed, then what reason have we for thinking that the argument is
sound?
[...]
> CC Jones has even gone
> so far (following similar claims by Johnson) as to claim that ultimate
> starting points must be simply assumed, ...
> Indeed! If Chris disagrees how does he propose to arrive at an *ultimate*
> starting point except by, in the end, assuming it?
Chris
I left this as an "exercise for the reader" to answer this question in my
last post on this topic, in the hopes that it would prompt a few people to
think about it. I've answered it before, and I'll answer it again, but in
this post, I will simply give Stephen and others some helpful hints.
Hint 1: What's wrong with Stephen's argument?
Stephen
> Since reason works from premises to conclusions where does Chris get his
> ultimate premise from? If he bases it on another reason then that must rest
> on a yet more ultimate premise, unless he starts to reason in a circle.
Chris
Hint 2: So, Stephen, what would be the alternative to providing a yet more
ultimate premise that would still validate the ultimate premise? I think
you can work it out if you really try. Given the truth of what you imply,
that we cannot prove ultimate premises via a process of adopting *other*
premises and reasoning from them to the "ultimate" premises, what remains,
*other* than simply assuming them?
Stephen
> This is not to say that one's ultimate premise cannot be critiqued - it can
> and be replaced by another ultimate premise. To that extent Chris is
> misconstruing what Johnson (and I) are saying by prefacing "assumed"
> with "simply". The process at arriving at an ultimate premise does not have
> to be simple, but in the end an ultimate premise must indeed be assumed.
Chris
Hint 3: You (and many others) are committing a fallacy of the false
alternative when you make claims like this. You admit *only* two
prospective methods:
1. Simply assuming ultimate premises.
2. Unsound arguments for ultimate premises, arguments that
are unsound because either,
a. They rest on their own ultimate premises or on each other.
b. They rest on "yet more ultimate premises" and are thus not
actually ultimate premises at all.
But, are these the only alternatives?
Hint 4: No.
> An *ultimate* premise cannot, by definition, be supported by any reasons
> more ultimate than itself:
Hint 5: This is TRUE!!
<snip of long quote from guru Johnson>
> Chris no doubt dislikes this simple truth because he seems to fancy himself
> as something of a rationalist. But *pure* rationalism is a delusion. In the
> end one must chose one's ultimate premises by *faith* based on the best
> available, but necessarily limited, evidence. And of course one is strongly
> biased by what one *wants* to be true (see tagline).
Hint 6: Can you say, "False alternative"?
>
> And of course if one is wrong in one's choice of ultimate premise then all
> one's conclusions based on that premise are wrong too. For example,
> if Chris' ultimate premise is (say) that there is no God, and there is,
then all
> his reasons about evolution and Christianity are, to that extent, wrong (and
> of course vice-versa).
>
> This is the *real* reason for the intractable differences in
philosophies among
> humans. It is not that those one disagrees with are "irrational" (as
Richard
> naively imagines) but that we are all rational and have *chosen* different
> ultimate starting points.
>
> We can of course debate these ultimate starting points and indeed
> we do. But what *is* irrational is to deny that such ultimate starting
points
> must necessarily exist and/or that they have to be, at the end of the
> day, *assumed*.
Chris
Hint 7: What is the basis of reason itself?
Hint 8: No, it is *not* something assumed on faith or "simply assumed."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 08 2000 - 00:00:49 EST