Monday, June 07, 2004
Sorry, I had to post this before I went to sleep.
ON THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE SUCCESSFUL FOOL
Reason contains an inductive element. There must be some bridge between the deductive and application of universals, to the specifics of the moment and creation of the universals. Since there is an inductive element, there must be some point at which there is no inductive experience to draw upon. At this point, given a situation with two choices, there is no reason to choose one over another. So, reason cannot decide. (If you don't believe this: the deductive logic in our reason is based upon a finite set of axioms, which as Godel showed, cannot be used to derive all truths. Therefore, some decisions must be made without comment by reason.) These decisions, since they are independent of reason are amoral (neither moral nor immoral).
In order to build a basis for the right thing to do, at some point, a right action must be taken, so a decision can be made in the future. This action and in the future, decision, is seen as being right, as furthering life. But the initial action which spawned the ability to make the decision did not stem from reason. So there is a right action without reason. Now, if it is possible to have a right action without reason, it is possible (though very unlikely) to have a lifetime of right actions without reason. This, my friend, is what has led to the life of our successful fool.
This does not mean we should abandon reason, as it greatly increases our chances of making the right decision, but it does mean that it is not strictly necessary.
Please correct me if my argument is flawed. I am unsure as to if the initial action, upon reflection, is considered right. It seems it should be - or is rightness dependent upon reasoned decisions and not just choice? That seems false.
ON THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE SUCCESSFUL FOOL
Reason contains an inductive element. There must be some bridge between the deductive and application of universals, to the specifics of the moment and creation of the universals. Since there is an inductive element, there must be some point at which there is no inductive experience to draw upon. At this point, given a situation with two choices, there is no reason to choose one over another. So, reason cannot decide. (If you don't believe this: the deductive logic in our reason is based upon a finite set of axioms, which as Godel showed, cannot be used to derive all truths. Therefore, some decisions must be made without comment by reason.) These decisions, since they are independent of reason are amoral (neither moral nor immoral).
In order to build a basis for the right thing to do, at some point, a right action must be taken, so a decision can be made in the future. This action and in the future, decision, is seen as being right, as furthering life. But the initial action which spawned the ability to make the decision did not stem from reason. So there is a right action without reason. Now, if it is possible to have a right action without reason, it is possible (though very unlikely) to have a lifetime of right actions without reason. This, my friend, is what has led to the life of our successful fool.
This does not mean we should abandon reason, as it greatly increases our chances of making the right decision, but it does mean that it is not strictly necessary.
Please correct me if my argument is flawed. I am unsure as to if the initial action, upon reflection, is considered right. It seems it should be - or is rightness dependent upon reasoned decisions and not just choice? That seems false.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]