Dennis Hackethal’s Blog
My blog about philosophy, coding, and anything else that interests me.
History of post ‘Reason by Purge or by Patch?’
Versions are sorted from most recent to oldest with the original version at the bottom. Changes are highlighted relative to the next, i.e. older, version underneath. Only changed lines and their surrounding lines are shown, except for the original version, which is shown in full.
Revision 1 · · View this (the most recent) version (v2)
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ An interviewer of Rand’s once put it this way: you can’t be a little bit pre [People commonly](https://x.com/clayfrith/status/1822797165451686306) point to, say, Newton’s religiosity to claim that reason and unreason can be mixed without issue. He was a genius, after all. It may not always be their intention, but they implicitly credit his unreason for the achievements of his reason. The same thing happens when parents and educators of successful children credit coercion for the achievements of freedom – and also vice versa: people blaming reason for man’s shortcomings, like blaming economic downturns on the free market instead of the government; calling them ‘market failures’ when they are really government failures. Due to objectivism’s zero-tolerance policy for mysticism, *gradual* improvement toward a less mystic state is not-enough: it’s all or nothing.+good enough. This all-or-nothing nature of rationality seems to require that a mind with mixed premises abandon all of its mystic premises at once. Anything else would be temporizing. Objectivism seems to require a purge of sorts. It’s better if someone steals only once a month instead of once a week, but he’s still a thief. According to critical rationalism, however, such a sudden improvement is impossible: the mind is a knowledge-laden system; error correction must be piecemeal, evolutionary – ie, small, reversible patches that add up over time. Trying to make too drastic a change would be revolutionary. Critical rationalism says to avoid revolutions. They almost always make things worse and result in a loss of knowledge at best, violence at worst. As quoted [here](/posts/starting-over):
Original · · View this version (v1)
# Reason by Purge or by Patch? Objectivism holds that *reason* should never collaborate or compromise with *unreason*. Don’t mix truth and falsehood, good and evil, rationality and irrationality: > % source: Ayn Rand. *Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.* ‘“Extremism,” or the Art of Smearing’ (p. 182) > % link: https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html#order_2 > There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction. <!-- --> > % source: Ayn Rand. *Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.* ‘The Cashing-In: The Student ”Rebellion”’ (p. 255) > % link: https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html#order_4 > Contrary to the fanatical belief of its advocates, compromise \[on basic principles\] does not satisfy, but *dissatisfies* everybody; it does not lead to general fulfillment, but to general frustration; those who try to be all things to all men, end up by not being anything to anyone. And more: the partial victory of an unjust claim, encourages the claimant to try further; the partial defeat of a just claim, discourages and paralyzes the victim. <!-- --> > % source: Ayn Rand. Galt’s Speech. *For the New Intellectual* (p. 216) > % link: https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html#order_5 > In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. And, one of my favorite quotes on this topic: > % source: Ayn Rand. *Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal* (p. 161). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. > ##### What is the moral status of an honest man who steals once in a while? Many people hold what objectivists call ‘mixed premises’: they are partly rational, partly irrational. Like the guy who tells the truth but also steals once in a while. (I have trouble even making the previous sentence coherent: I’m tempted to write that he *mostly* tells the truth at best, since he would have to lie about his theft, lie to storeowners about his intentions when entering their stores, etc.) Another example is people who work as scientists during the week but go to church on Sundays. Their mind is a giant hodgepodge of compromises between reason and unreason/mysticism. Ideally, these people would abandon mysticism and become completely rational. An interviewer of Rand’s once put it this way: you can’t be a little bit pregnant. Logically, it doesn’t make any sense. There’s a difference between principles and gradual matters like hunger or sadness: you can be little hungry or a little sad. Small deviations don’t destroy the underlying concept. But you can’t be a little honest or a little rational: these concepts are very vulnerable and ‘unstable’ in that sense. [People commonly](https://x.com/clayfrith/status/1822797165451686306) point to, say, Newton’s religiosity to claim that reason and unreason can be mixed without issue. He was a genius, after all. It may not always be their intention, but they implicitly credit his unreason for the achievements of his reason. The same thing happens when parents and educators of successful children credit coercion for the achievements of freedom – and also vice versa: people blaming reason for man’s shortcomings, like blaming economic downturns on the free market instead of the government; calling them ‘market failures’ when they are really government failures. Due to objectivism’s zero-tolerance policy for mysticism, *gradual* improvement toward a less mystic state is not enough: it’s all or nothing. This all-or-nothing nature of rationality seems to require that a mind with mixed premises abandon all of its mystic premises at once. Anything else would be temporizing. Objectivism seems to require a purge of sorts. It’s better if someone steals only once a month instead of once a week, but he’s still a thief. According to critical rationalism, however, such a sudden improvement is impossible: the mind is a knowledge-laden system; error correction must be piecemeal, evolutionary – ie, small, reversible patches that add up over time. Trying to make too drastic a change would be revolutionary. Critical rationalism says to avoid revolutions. They almost always make things worse and result in a loss of knowledge at best, violence at worst. As quoted [here](/posts/starting-over): > % source: Karl Popper, *Conjectures and Refutations* (p. 173) > % link: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Conjectures_and_Refutations/fZnrUfJWQ-YC > [W]e cannot start afresh; [...]. If we start afresh, then, when we die, we shall be about as far as Adam and Eve were when they died [...]. <!-- --> > % source: Ibid. (p. 323) > (Were we to start the race where Adam started, I know of no reason why we should get any further than Adam did.) <!-- --> > % source: Ibid. (p. 462 f.) > Some people say [...] that it is their greatest wish to clean the canvas thoroughly—to create a social *tabula rasa* and to begin afresh by painting on it a brand new social system. But they should not be surprised if they find that once they destroy tradition, civilization disappears with it. They will find that mankind have returned to the position in which Adam and Eve began—or, using less biblical language, that they have returned to the beasts. All that these revolutionary progressivists will then be able to do is to begin the slow process of human evolution again (and so to arrive in a few thousand years perhaps at another capitalist period, which will lead them to another sweeping revolution, followed by another return to the beasts, and so on, for ever and ever). In other words, there is no earthly reason why a society whose traditional set of values has been destroyed should, of its own accord, become a better society [...]. Also see [this article](/posts/a-programmer-s-guide-to-revolutions). Another reason changes toward rationality are necessarily gradual is that some bad ideas won’t just leave you alone voluntarily. They will plead and seduce. The harder you fight them, the more they will punish you. They are what David Deutsch would call ‘anti-rational’: they make you feel bad for questioning them. A deeply religious person can’t just become an atheist over night. But again, objectivism would (presumably) see any merely gradual change toward rationality as just another compromise between reason and unreason: another deal with the devil. So there seems to be a conflict between objectivism and critical rationalism. It’s a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ type of situation. You’re either a mystic or a revolutionary. Both are bad. Below, I discuss this problem with Dirk Meulenbelt and Roshan Ali. --- <div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66108"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> [T]here was quite a bit of mysticism in my home growing up.<br><br>My mom believes in astrology and reads her horoscope in weekly magazines. Like, she doesn’t think it completely determines her life but she does think it impacts her life to some non-negligible degree.<br><br>She thinks the full moon negatively impacts her sleep.<br><br>She has a horseshoe hanging above the front door for good luck.<br><br>Somehow, none of that nonsense rubbed off on me. I think I learned some methods of rationality in [but also despite] school that helped me identify it as nonsense or at least make it explicit. Sam Harris might have helped too. But I think part of me always knew. I don’t think I ever fell for any of it.<br><br>My grandmother once gifted me a framed four-leaf clover, but I think she knew the clover doesn’t magically influence my life. She saw it as a symbol of her affection. And so do I.<br><br>So it’s possible to have little trinkets of mysticism but view them in a completely rational way.<br><br>But it’s still strange that the mysticism is involved at all. Like, gifting someone a gameboy would be a completely rational counter example. (Not trying to look a gift horse in the mouth here) </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66109"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> Oh that reminds me, my mom also told me my dead guinea pigs would go to heaven lol </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66111"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> Yes [this is widespread in the West today and can serve as a good model for, say, non-Western muslims, so] I am quite happy for people to keep their irrationalities for that reason </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66112"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> you mean to like gradually ease them into secularity? </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66113"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> Yes. If you think about it, mysticism is not even slightly compatible with reason or a rational stance </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66114"> <div> <div> I’m happy to split the difference </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66115"> <div> <div> And there are great religious scientists like Francis Collins </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66116"> <div> <div> So people can apparently have two sets of books </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66117"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> i don’t understand. if mysticism is “not even slightly” compatible with reason (i agree), how can you be “happy” to split the difference (ie happy to try to make them compatible or at least have them coexist) </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66118"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> Because then we can ease them into secularism as you say </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66119"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> yes but your approach requires the (temporary) compromise you say is impossible </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66120"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> people can apparently have these blind spots and operate according to reason in some domains. what i mean is that if you take the ideas of epistemology seriously, there is no room for mysticism. so an intellectual i find difficult to take seriously if they are also religious </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66121"> <div> <div> however I've talked to and have been acquainted to some muslims, one of whom is doing a phd in biology, who said that they could never in their lives tell their parents that they do not believe in the quran </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66122"> <div> <div> even though neither they nor their parents live anything like what that book would have you live like, if you considered it truly the word of god </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66123"> <div> <div> so let them think that this is somehow fine, long enough to outlive the need for the mystic </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66124"> <div> <div> if you loudly proclaim that this cannot be done, i.e. nobody could be a real intellectual or scientist, while keeping religiosity </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66125"> <div> <div> then we'd lose a great deal of people who could never at the outset give up their religion </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66126"> <div> <div> so then let there be piecemeal change in their thinking </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66127"> <div> <div> my mother would be a great example. enthusiastic leftist, but can't find fault in my calm economic analysis </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66128"> <div> <div> so i'll win her over one little crack in her worldview at a time </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66129"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> i consider this an important open problem/outstanding conflict between oism and cr:<br><br>oism: no compromise between reason and mysticism is possible; the smallest amount of mysticism corrupts reason entire<br>cr: avoid revolutions, make piecemeal changes<br><br>oism seems to require a revolution in a mind </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66130"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> i don't think people naturally extend their beliefs in one domain to another </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66131"> <div> <div> this too is an act of creativity </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66132"> <div> <div> virtually everyone is libertarian when it comes to personal relationships </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66133"> <div> <div> nobody seems to argue that i need to share my girlfriend with an incel, because the poor man can't get laid </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66134"> <div> <div> they're told to man the fuck up, get into a gym, etc </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66135"> <div> <div> but i do have to share my money with the people who can't seem to make any, or squander it, or what have you </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66136"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> to be clear, you’re giving examples showing that compromise between reason and mysticism is possible after all? because the mysticism will not automatically extend from one area to the next? </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66137"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> possibly depending on what definition of compromise we're taking on </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66138"> <div> <div> in some sort of psychosocial sense, yes </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66139"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> ok but i don’t think those are examples of mysticism, just regular mistakes </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66140"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> in a philosophical search for truth, of course not </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66141"> <div> <div> there is no such thing as the world of conjecture and criticism, and then some things are 'faith' </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66144"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> ah </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66145"> <div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66137">this message</a> </div> <div> <blockquote class="my-3">A compromise is an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual concessions. This means that both parties to a compromise have some valid claim and some value to offer each other. And <em>this</em> means that both parties agree upon some fundamental principle which serves as a base for their deal.</blockquote> from <a href="https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html">https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html</a> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66146"> <div> <div> mysticism has no valid claim to make and no value to offer </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66147"> <div> <div> so no compromise is possible with it </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66148"> <div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66130">this message</a> </div> <div> thought <em>processes</em> often do extend across domains. methods of thought vs particular ideas. psycho epistemology </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66149"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66145">this message</a> </div> <div> in this case, the compromise isn't possible. so then I think i was correct in saying they are incompatible </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66150"> <div> <div> what i'm talking about is people thinking that they are compatible and kind of larping that it is </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66151"> <div> <div> so perhaps more of a delusion that i'm happy for people to have considering the alternative, which is total delusion </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66152"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66122">this message</a> </div> <div> eg you pointed out an inconsistency in a muslim’s lifestyle. they would need to suppress any inquiries into this inconsistency in order to keep it alive for as long as they have. which means they have dishonest thought processes that are deeply engrained and automated, which in turn means they can’t just decide to turn those off for some areas </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66153"> <div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66151">this message</a> </div> <div> isn’t the choice between reason and mysticism, not partial mysticism and full-on mysticism </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66154"> <div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66149">this message</a> </div> <div> if they are incompatible after all (i agree), we are back to needing a revolution inside that mind </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66155"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Roshan </div> <div> 90% of the scientists in ISRO India’s space program are superstitious Hindus but they still manage to put stuff in space. Wouldn’t this contradict what you’re saying [Dennis]? </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66156"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> no why? liars sometimes tell the truth </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66157"> <div> <div> bad people sometimes do good things </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66158"> <div> <div> that doesn’t make them good </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66159"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Roshan </div> <div> Yes but they’re turning off their superstitions when they’re working on their work problems? </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66160"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> yes. that brings me to another instance i had with a muslim. she was drinking wine with me, which she thought was OK, even if she were a muslim. she was wearing a ninja hat too. then i pointed out that if she thought her religion was true, and dictated by god, wouldn't she think there isn't really some exception to the rules that she could decide on because well, wine is fine? this seemed to have created a bit of a crisis in her. <br><br>now imagine she takes me seriously, she is left with two options: drop her religion (which she cannot, psychologically, or even just practically given how muslims literally kill apostates), or take it a whole lot more seriously<br><br>for her, I am happy for her to keep up the pantomime </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66161"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66159">this message</a> </div> <div> how do you know that. maybe they don’t turn them off, maybe they could be making far more progress if they didn’t have those superstitions at all </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66162"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Roshan </div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66161">this message</a> </div> <div> Fair enough </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66163"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> yes i think people would be way better off without superstitions </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66164"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Roshan </div> <div> Or they’re making some insane reasonings which allow them to escape their superstition in some specific area </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66165"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66160">this message</a> </div> <div> the only other option i see is gradual change. she slowly stops associating with ppl who might kill her and replaces them with ppl who wouldn’t and so on </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66166"> <div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66164">this message</a> </div> <div> yes that compartmentalization takes effort and energy, all of which could be spent on just reason </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66167"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> yes, i totally agree, but that gradual change contains a stage where she is larping muslim </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66168"> <div> <div> also, failing to see how your worldview in one domain implies truths about other domains, is simply a mistake, that even popper himself was guilty of </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66169"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> if she’s only lying to others but not herself that would be fine and rational i think, given the threat of death </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66170"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> and you and i probably too </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66171"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> yes mere errors of knowledge are different i think </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66172"> <div> <div> mere errors of knowledge are not damning </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66173"> <div> <div> but failure to understand something you SHOULD understand given the evidence available to you is </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66174"> <div> <div> the change to larping is fine morally, i believe </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66175"> <div> <div> it assumes a prior change in her mind (sudden or gradual, we haven’t specified) </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66176"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> let's say you had a communist friend, and you wanted to talk him into free markets </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66177"> <div> <div> you would probably try to make him agree to little facts over time </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66178"> <div> <div> while absolutely avoiding saying that agreeing to these facts makes it impossible for him to see himself as a communist </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66179"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Roshan </div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66166">this message</a> </div> <div> Ah ok this is what I thought you meant wasn’t possible when you said they can’t turn it off on some areas </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66180"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66179">this message</a> </div> <div> impossible without those “insane reasonings” you spoke of </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66181"> <div> <div> as in: something’s gotta give </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66182"> <div> <div> (I think you mean rationalization not reasoning) </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66183"> <div> <div> as in: the ‘collaboration’ between reason and mysticism is always to the benefit of mysticism and at the cost of reason </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66184"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> but i think we're conflating two conversations<br><br>1. Can mysticism ever provide valid criticism to our ideas -> no<br>2. Can people have incompatible worldviews in their minds and function just fine -> yes </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66185"> <div> <div> 3. Should we point out to people that these worldviews are incompatible -> case dependent </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66186"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> i think you might be able to discuss methodology in the abstract with people, ie without touching on anything they might find controversial </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66187"> <div> <div> then apply the methodology they agreed to, to the topic they find controversial </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66188"> <div> <div> but they will still heavily resist, hold it against you etc [if you reach a conclusion they don’t like] </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66189"> <div> <div> they will try to rationalize the methodology away after all </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66190"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> in the netherlands we have our version of santa claus, or rather its predecessor. he walks over the roofs with his horse, and then black pete goes through chimneys to drop presents in shoes of kids. <br><br>when i was about 5 or 6 i thought about it and figured that horses cannot walk over our roofs, because they are not flat, and also, the chimney just isn't wide enough for a person.<br><br>I concluded that it cannot be real, asked my father whether it was all a joke, and he said yes </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66191"> <div> <div> i already knew the sort of terrain horses need to walk, i already knew that areas for people to move through have to be at least as wide as the people </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66192"> <div> <div> but it took another act of thinking to get to the corollary </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66193"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66185">this message</a> </div> <div> well for the record, i don’t think the goal should be conversion </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66194"> <div> <div> if i find that someone is just permanently irrational, i avoid them </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66195"> <div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66184">this message</a> </div> <div> <blockquote class="my-3">Can people have incompatible worldviews in their minds and function just fine -> yes</blockquote> Rand stressed that contradictions aren’t just kinda bad but destructive, a matter of life and death </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66196"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> you won't take them seriously as thinkers, presumably, but you can still have a jolly good time with them </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66197"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> why would i do that when i can have a jolly good time with others who are also good thinkers </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66198"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66195">this message</a> </div> <div> there is a big world of happy and thriving christians out there that say otherwise </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66199"> <div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66197">this message</a> </div> <div> you are welcome to set your own criteria for whom you spend time with, of course, for me not everyone has to be a well-rounded intellectual </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66200"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66198">this message</a> </div> <div> those christians live despite their irrationalities, because of the achievements of rationality around them that christianity historically tried desperately to prevent </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66201"> <div> <div> in any case, i am unclear where we are re gradual changes vs no compromising </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66202"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> yes, and because they believe their christianity is compatible with that rationality, they are gradually becoming virtually secular if not for the occasional mention of jesus </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66203"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> so you’re suggesting that a mistaken belief that one is rational can help one be more rational? </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66204"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66201">this message</a> </div> <div> we are in agreement that mysticism provides zero benefit to truth-seeking. <br><br>the disagreement i am not sure of. im saying basically people can be eased into truth-seeking gradually without having to give up their dear toys </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66205"> <div> <div> by effectively banning their favorite toys to certain domains where we don't have to care about it </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66206"> <div> <div> and having them believe that you can just have them side by side without contradiction </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66207"> <div> <div> that may have negative side effects, but were they aware of the actual incompatibility, they might choose the religion </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66208"> <div> <div> which would be worse </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66209"> <div> <div> so really just more of a trick of persuasion </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66210"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> that would require hiding things, which aids unreason </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66211"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Roshan </div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66199">this message</a> </div> <div> I wouldn’t have any friends if this was my criteria lol </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66212"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66211">this message</a> </div> <div> that’s really bad </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66213"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66210">this message</a> </div> <div> yes, unreason that is better than even more unreason </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66214"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> what i mean is, it would lead to less reason, not more </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66215"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Roshan </div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66212">this message</a> </div> <div> No it’s not </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66216"> <div> <div> Actually I exaggerated some of them are much more rational than others and I actually get along with them better </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66217"> <div> <div> But the less rational non-intellectual ones have their place </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66218"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> you don’t have to make that kind of choice </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66219"> <div> <div> there are billions of people in the world to choose from </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66220"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Roshan </div> <div> True I guess it comes from an insecurity that I wouldn’t be able to make better friends that i stick with these </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66221"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> yeah and there are tons who are shit intellectuals but are fun to play mario kart with, or play music, hike, or whatever things you enjoy that aren't debates </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66222"> <div> <div> i like that there are people who take ideas very seriously, that is why i am talking in this chat, attending rat fest, listening to podcasts, etc </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66223"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> i think there’s a difference between being a decent enough thinker (good) and an intellectual (bad) </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66224"> <div> <div> in any case, unless i’m mistaken, we are still back to square one re evolution vs no compromises </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66225"> <div> <div> [Dirk, Roshan,] may I publish this conversation on my blog? and the remainder if it continues </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66226"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> i don't think we are. we agree that we cannot make compromises if we are serious thinkers </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66227"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> this conversation seems important philosophically </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66228"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> i'm just saying that it takes time for people to become serious thinkers and their blindness to compromise being impossible, helps them go from a total[ly] irrational worldview, to the serious thinker who realises that mysticism offers zero to truth-seeeking </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66229"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Roshan </div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66225">this message</a> </div> <div> Only if you pay me per word </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66230"> <div> <div> Kidding I would be honoured to be on your blog </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66231"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> so something like: compromise incompatible, but you can come from any starting point and make your way there </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66232"> <div> <div> i don't see a conflict, so if we continue this i'd be interested to hear where you think there is a conflict, beside the one we have already resolved </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66233"> <div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66225">this message</a> </div> <div> yes </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66234"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66231">this message</a> </div> <div> that sounds to me like a restatement of the problem, not a solution </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66235"> <div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66228">this message</a> </div> <div> i don’t think this blindness you speak of helps rationality, i believe it helps irrationality </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66236"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> resolved: mysticism incompatible with truth-seeking<br><br>unresolved (for me): where precisely is the conflict between revolution / evolution </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66237"> <div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66235">this message</a> </div> <div> i'm thinking strategically, almost like a sociologist </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66238"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> i understand </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66239"> <div> <div> i’m saying the strategy will backfire </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66240"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> to have this blindness exist in the mind of us now, it would aid irrationality </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66241"> <div> <div> as we can let the rot into our minds </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66242"> <div> <div> but people who are already firmly in the realm of dungeons and dragons </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66243"> <div> <div> allowing them this blindness can get them into secularism </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66244"> <div> <div> however i am open to the thought that stating that this is absolutely not possibly compatible in any way could be of better help than allowing the delusion to exist </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66245"> <div> <div> i do not know </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66246"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> from rand’s anatomy of compromise: <blockquote class="my-3"> 1. In any <em>conflict</em> between two men (or two groups) who hold the <em>same</em> basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.<br> 2. In any <em>collaboration</em> between two men (or two groups) who hold <em>different</em> basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.<br> 3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are <em>not</em> clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side. </blockquote> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66247"> <div> <div> i think 2 and 3 are relevant re allowing the blindness you speak of </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66248"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66244">this message</a> </div> <div> one argument for your case is that the devout are already living lives incompatible with their religous affinities. i recall this one guy who lived according to the bible for a year, and it was totally nutty </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66249"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Roshan </div> <div> In my own case it took the kind of brutal takedown of religion that Dawkins excels in to yank me out of some fuzzy thinking about god which made me have all kinds of superstitious thoughts and rationalisations. I used to say things like ‘science and religion are both different ways of getting to the ultimate truth’ 😂 </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66250"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66246">this message</a> </div> <div> I am open to Rand being true </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66251"> <div> <div> Could we find historical examples? </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66252"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Roshan </div> <div> My conversations with my more rational friends did nothing i actually would get more defensive </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66253"> <div> <div> But god delusion bitch slapped me out of that shit </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66254"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66249">this message</a> </div> <div> One point for Rand then. </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66255"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66251">this message</a> </div> <div> yes she gives the examples of republicans vs democrats for 1, united nations for 2 </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66256"> <div> <div> <blockquote> The declared goal of the communist countries is the conquest of the world. What they stand to gain from a collaboration with the (relatively) free countries is the latter’s material, financial, scientific, and intellectual resources; the free countries have nothing to gain from the communist countries. Therefore, the only form of common policy or compromise possible between two such parties is the policy of property owners who make piecemeal concessions to an armed thug in exchange for his promise not to rob them.<br> The U.N. has delivered a larger part of the globe’s surface and population into the power of Soviet Russia than Russia could ever hope to conquer by armed force. </blockquote> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66257"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> Interesting </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66258"> <div> <div> I am now less convinced of my stance </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66259"> <div> <div> But I am not sure the extent to which we are finding a philosophical truth, or simply cases where we compromise, and cases where we do not </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66260"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> cool. yeah the way i see it it’s like the robber metaphor: asking reason (property owner) to make concessions to mysticism (wannabe robber), but making it worse by asking reason to turn a blind eye to this injustice (the blindness you proposed) </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66261"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> Like, if I am in a hostage negotiation I might argue into the worldview of the captors, if I think that benefits me then. But I can also think of a situation where I'd like to dismantle their view completely, in my favor. </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66262"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> yes temporarily to get out of the emergency (there are additional issues with using emergency situations for moral arguments but that aside [<a href="https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/emergencies.html">https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/emergencies.html</a>]) </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66263"> <div> <div> but imagine pretending you are not in a hostage situation, that would not help you, it would make things worse </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66264"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> it may work as a drawn out strategy where i join into the larp but change course slowly </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66265"> <div> <div> i think this has a name, let me think </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66266"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> that sounds like you would retain your awareness of the problem though, which sounds different from the blindness you originally proposed </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66267"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> <a href="https://www.changingminds.org/techniques/general/sequential/pace_lead.htm">https://www.changingminds.org/techniques/general/sequential/pace_lead.htm</a> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66268"> <div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66266">this message</a> </div> <div> well the courting of the blindness was always temporary! </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66269"> <div> <div> of course eventually i'd try to slap the woo woo out of everyone </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66270"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> maybe the ‘solution’ (not really a solution but a reality we have to live with) is that, as a knowledge-laden system, your mind simply won’t <em>let</em> you flip a switch (edit: in the revolutionary sense) </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66271"> <div> <div> so, the reality is that changes toward rationality will necessarily be gradual </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66272"> <div> <div> but that this is a precarious situation and it takes consistent effort and rededication to make it to the other side </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66273"> <div> <div> this is reminiscent of going from static to fully dynamic society and the intermediate stage our society finds itself in. i recall dd describing this state as unstable in boi iirc </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66274"> <div> <div> rand is still right that no collaboration between reason and unreason should be entertained. popper is still right that the change from the latter to the former is necessarily gradual </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66275"> <div> <div> does that square the two positions somehow? </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66276"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> i think i agree with rand more than when we started this conversation </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66277"> <div> <div> but i can't help but think that she is expressing something that isn't […] always true </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66278"> <div> <div> because we can think of situations where we apply another strategy </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66279"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> the UN is such an example. but does that mean it’s good? </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66280"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66270">this message</a> </div> <div> i think of it more that even if your mind lets you flip the switch, you still have to go and switch it </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66281"> <div> <div> well and also it won't let you; i think that's the essence of anti-rational memes </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66282"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> yes and also knowledge creation is not automatic </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66283"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66274">this message</a> </div> <div> <blockquote class="my-3"> does that square the two positions somehow? </blockquote> kind of, but perhaps we could say that reason and unreason could collaborate for strategic purposes in the short term </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66284"> <div> <div> i am not sure. i like rand but she says things like NEVER EVER COMPROMISE </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66285"> <div> <div> and i'm like yeah that's nice and i see that work out for many people many times, but not always </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66286"> <div> <div> so i can[n]ot judge it to be absolutely true, unlike popper's gradualism </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66287"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div class="font-italic text-muted"> In reply to <a href="#message66285">this message</a> </div> <div> she’s addressed that counterpoint btw </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66288"> <div> <div> in any case, going back to the hostage situation </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66289"> <div> <div> let’s say there really is someone who threatens to rob you unless you slowly hand over your property ‘voluntarily’ </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66290"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> the government! </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66291"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> maybe you’re right and strategies for getting out of that situation really would help with gradually becoming more rational also </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66292"> <div> <div> so if somebody did this to me, what would i do… </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66293"> <div> <div> i might comply initially just to buy more time. depends if they also threaten violence (though i guess ultimately they do anyway, if only implicitly) </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66294"> <div> <div> so already there’s a small amount of ‘collaboration’, though not genuine of course </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66295"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> i reckon i could talk some crazy person out of the delusion that they are in for some psychosis, but if the captors were islamic terrorists i probably wouldn't bother much talking them out of islam, and just take it as a given and find a way around it </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66296"> <div> <div> maybe i could throw a ball, test whether they're scared of death, play with that </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66297"> <div> <div> i don't know, but you see my point </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66298"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> yeah no point arguing with them, best to leave them alone. sadly in your own mind you are stuck with your irrational part, no way to just walk away from it </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66299"> <div> <div> i suppose the analogy isn’t about talking someone out of islam but talking them out of not leaving you alone </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66300"> <div> <div> i think i’ve replaced the original problem btw </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66301"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dirk </div> <div> I can think of occasions where I think Rand is totally correct. For instance, say you are a right wing politician who favors free markets. Your position is that inequality is irrelevant nonsense, and all that matters is that the economy offers opportunities for all, and that this is legally supported. But then you come up with some strategy to lower inflation, which you then say, loudly, because you know your opponent likes it, reduces inequality. I think this kind of thing shoots you in the foot. </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66302"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> yes </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix" id="message66303"> <div> <div class="font-weight-bold"> Dennis </div> <div> <a href="https://courses.aynrand.org/works/doesnt-life-require-compromise/">https://courses.aynrand.org/works/doesnt-life-require-compromise/</a> </div> </div> </div> </div>