Reason Rules The World, Part III Integrity
In discussing this project with a friend The question of Bush's integrity came up. I claimed that because his philosophical base is something he can't prove, (at base he is a mystic) he has no integrity. But then, neither does Kerry, because, while his criticism of Bush is correct, he (and philosophy) draw the wrong implication. If certainty is not gained through some sort of God connection it doesn't necessarily mean that certainty, as such is impossible, (Kant's point). It could mean that we have to look elsewhere. The difference between mysticism and certainty is so clear as to be impossible to miss when compared. Mysticism means the world is not orderly, that magic if efficacious. David Copperfield is not trying to convince anyone that what he is doing is anything more than creating an illusion. Implicit in the veracity of reason is the certainty that existence is knowable. Reason, as THE integrating mechanism provides the only way to guarantee one's integrity. Neither epistemology nor mathematics offer proofs unless they demonstrate integrity, ultimately to the integration of feelings, causaly united with existence, ie, that rock I stepped on hurt. It is the same sensory system that feels pain when stepping on rocks that observed the regularity of the passing of the equinoxes long enough to conclude that there is regularity, as such.
The Greeks were the first to catch on. The fact that we can talk about 1+1=2 (something that can be proven) at the same time we talk about God (something unproven) only means people can be inconsistent. When inconsistantcy is adopted on principle you destroy your integrity. Such is the state of todays world. More empirical evidence that I am right comes from the messages we get from our youth, those coming into their own age of reason. When their emotions sense the cynicism from the left or stupidity from the right they respond by wearing black as if they were in mourning. They have every reason to mourn. At their age they only know that this doesn't feel right. Philosophy owes them an explanation and I am claiming that that isn't possible without the integrating power of reason. I will be glad to hear reasons against my argument. Clearly, any attempt to refute me has to come from somewhere other than a subjective base, you can't just make something up. And demonstrations of magic have yet to gain any weight. That only leaves logic.
I want to distance myself somewhat from the Objectivists. While I think Rand gave me my first glimpse of how to arrive at certainty, my argument goes further. My claim that reason names the process that integrates ordinal and cardinal measures is consistent with Randian epistemology. She had the history of the last 2550 years to build on. I have 2600, which includes Rand. Its as if in some way she didn't recognize her own importance, and everyone knows how big her ego was. Once Rand established the certainty of reason she seemed to forget, or at least de-emphisize reasons ordinal roots. I read in "Ayn Rand, the Russian Revolutionary" that Rand wrote in the 30's that emotions provide the ammunition for reason and later her talk of a pre-conceptual "sense of life" seemed to show that she was aware of the relation. But I agree with the criticism that she put too much emphasis on the cardinal aspect of reason once that point has been reached. I'm saying that its a 50/50 proposition, its a dance between new experiences being integrated into your past experiences without contradiction. Somewhere I have written that ordinal/cardinal explains exactly the relation between our future and our past. The future, not existent yet, is 100% potential and ordinal. We can only estimate its probability. The past is, however, done. It is to things we can't change that we can apply cardinal numbers with certainty.
The Greeks were the first to catch on. The fact that we can talk about 1+1=2 (something that can be proven) at the same time we talk about God (something unproven) only means people can be inconsistent. When inconsistantcy is adopted on principle you destroy your integrity. Such is the state of todays world. More empirical evidence that I am right comes from the messages we get from our youth, those coming into their own age of reason. When their emotions sense the cynicism from the left or stupidity from the right they respond by wearing black as if they were in mourning. They have every reason to mourn. At their age they only know that this doesn't feel right. Philosophy owes them an explanation and I am claiming that that isn't possible without the integrating power of reason. I will be glad to hear reasons against my argument. Clearly, any attempt to refute me has to come from somewhere other than a subjective base, you can't just make something up. And demonstrations of magic have yet to gain any weight. That only leaves logic.
I want to distance myself somewhat from the Objectivists. While I think Rand gave me my first glimpse of how to arrive at certainty, my argument goes further. My claim that reason names the process that integrates ordinal and cardinal measures is consistent with Randian epistemology. She had the history of the last 2550 years to build on. I have 2600, which includes Rand. Its as if in some way she didn't recognize her own importance, and everyone knows how big her ego was. Once Rand established the certainty of reason she seemed to forget, or at least de-emphisize reasons ordinal roots. I read in "Ayn Rand, the Russian Revolutionary" that Rand wrote in the 30's that emotions provide the ammunition for reason and later her talk of a pre-conceptual "sense of life" seemed to show that she was aware of the relation. But I agree with the criticism that she put too much emphasis on the cardinal aspect of reason once that point has been reached. I'm saying that its a 50/50 proposition, its a dance between new experiences being integrated into your past experiences without contradiction. Somewhere I have written that ordinal/cardinal explains exactly the relation between our future and our past. The future, not existent yet, is 100% potential and ordinal. We can only estimate its probability. The past is, however, done. It is to things we can't change that we can apply cardinal numbers with certainty.