Reason and Emotion

December 26, 2011

Which has primacy between emotion and reason?

What is reason? Reason is the faculty that organizes and integrates facts. What are facts? Facts are propositions that correspond with reality. How do we obtain facts? Through the senses. Therefore reason is the ability to comprehend reality directly through the senses.

What is emotion? An emotion is a response to an object (such as a person, place, or thing) or a proposition as evaluated by the perceiver of the object/proposition. How are emotions created? First, the perceiver, perceives and identifies an object or proposition, and then, he/she evaluates the object/proposition and concludes that the object is good or bad according to his/her values.

Therefore emotion is not a faculty of comprehending reality. Emotions cannot tell us anything about reality. Emotions only reflect what we think—implicitly or explicitly—about reality. If our ideas are true and aligned with our emotions, then emotions can be said to indirectly give us feedback about reality.

Emotional Processes

Example: Some people have a positive response to Barack Obama, and some people have a negative response toward Obama. A child who has never heard of Obama will have no emotional response to him. The difference in responses is due to different ideas and values in the perceiver’s minds. The response itself does not give us any direct knowledge of President Obama in reality. It only reflects our cognitive evaluations of him.

Example of the process of emotion

Concepts by themselves may or may not be integrated through the faculty of reason. Concepts and values may be unidentified (subconscious). One can hold an identified, integrated concept and an unidentified inconsistent concept at the same time. Therefore, people can accept contradictions without knowing it.

We often identify “mind” with the process of reason and “heart” with the process of emotion. Conflicts between the mind and heart are conflicts between identified concepts and unidentified concepts that cause automatic emotional responses. Therefore conflicts between the heart and mind are ultimately conflicts between thoughts in mind. Such conflicts cannot be resolved by ignoring reason, they are only resolved by using reason to identify subconscious thoughts and integrating them with concepts as derived from reality.

Therefore, reason (the mind) ultimately has primacy over emotion (the heart).

Discussion 2 Comments Category Epistemology Tags , , , , ,

Reason and Faith

December 20, 2011

Is there any conflict between reason and faith? According to one epistemological position known as fideism faith is independent of and hostile toward reason. How does fideism define faith? It defines faith as belief without evidence. According to some philosophers such as Kierkegaard, reason cannot fully comprehend God and so one must take a “leap of faith”. Martin Luther said, “Reason receives life from faith.”

Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates concepts as derived from man’s senses. The thinkers mentioned above did not categorically reject reason, but they clearly believed that faith has primacy over reason. That means that faith is primary and reason is secondary. There are 2 problems with this way of thinking:

The first problem comes from their definition of faith—”belief without evidence”. As I wrote in my last post, this definition is incorrect. I will argue here that it is also dangerous. It is dangerous because any belief without evidence will insulate the believer from feedback from reality. If one holds the view that faith has primacy over reason, then if they must choose between reality and religion, they will choose religion over reality. They will not be able to identify truth when it contradicts with their beliefs. They will be blind and their spiritual and physical growth will be stunted. Islamic theocratic fascism is an extreme demonstration of the consequences of this view. Terrorists commit violent acts that reason would otherwise prevent them from doing.

The second problem is revealed by asking a simple question: How did they come to the conclusion that faith has primacy over reason? The answer is that they used reason. Therefore, they primarily rely on a concept that they regard as secondary. Therefore to say that faith has primacy over reason is self-refuting because they used reason to come to that conclusion.

Discussion 6 Comments Category Epistemology Tags ,

Evidence and Faith

November 29, 2011

Many religions teach some version of the concept “faith”. Many religious adherents believe that faith is “belief without evidence”. The religious philosopher Kierkegaard said, “Without risk there is no faith, and the greater the risk the greater the faith … [to understand faith] is to understand that faith cannot be understood … must not be understood … and this absurdity, held fast in the passion of inwardness, is faith, the earnestness of facing the absurd.” 

His picture of faith was as follows:

This picture argues that faith has primacy over evidence. I believe this interpretation is incorrect. I think this misinterpretation partly comes from scriptures that suggest faith is believing without seeing. Seeing is one type of evidence. Hearing, smelling, touching, feeling may be other types of evidence. I think that any scripture referring to “belief without seeing” really implies “belief without directly seeing.”

Faith is belief with evidence. It simply excludes evidence that comes from direct observation. Why does it exclude direct observation? Because if we have direct observation, then we have no need for faith. Direct observation leads to a perfect knowledge.

We have evidence for many things that we cannot directly observe. We have never seen an atom but we infer that they exist based on evidence. According to my definition of faith, it is appropriate to say that we have faith that atoms exist.

Orson Pratt, one of the original leaders of my religion, said, “Faith or belief is the result of evidence presented to the mind. Without evidence, the mind cannot have faith in anything … Faith in every fact, statement, truth, or proposition which we have confidence in, is, in all cases whatsoever, derived from evidence. Therefore, without evidence, faith can have no existence.”

This picture of faith is as follows:

This picture shows that evidence has primacy over faith. Only this type of faith can lead us toward a correct picture of reality.

 

 

Discussion 3 Comments Category Epistemology, Religion Tags ,

What is knowledge?

October 30, 2011

Epistemology is the study of knowledge. There are 3 types of knowledge.
(1) Knowledge how—Example: Legolas knows how to shoot an arrow.
(2) Knowledge by acquaintance—Example: Frodo knows Gandalf
(3) Knowledge that—Example: Sauron knows that Frodo has the ring.

Most epistemology is the study of “knowledge that”. In this context, the traditional definition of knowledge is justified, true, belief. I think that this definition is a good start in analyzing knowledge. I will define each of these aspects of knowledge.

Justification
The state of being validated by proper means.

Truth
The state that applies to propositions that accurately correspond to reality.

Belief
A proposition that one accepts as being true.

If a belief is true and it is justified, then we say that a person has knowledge.

Example of not having knowledge:
If the time is actually 12:00am and Ronald looks at a broken clock that is stuck on 12:00am and then Ronald believes that it is 12:00am, then Ronald has a belief that is true but is not justified. Therefore, we say that Ronald does not have knowledge because he did not gain his true belief by proper means. At least all 3 conditions must be met to consider whether or not someone has knowledge.

Example of having knowledge:
If Lula witnesses a murder then she has knowledge that the murder happened because (1) Perceptions are a justified means, (2) the murder actually happened in reality and is therefore true, and (3) Lula believes that it happened.

Discussion 10 Comments Category Epistemology Tags

Why stereotypes are accurate.

October 29, 2011

People form concepts from their experiences with reality. Not all concepts accurately reflect reality. I have argued that concepts are more likely to be true (i.e.: accurately reflect reality) when they are closer to our direct experience with reality. They are less likely to be true the farther they stray our direct experience from reality.

Why is this philosophical discussion relevant to everyday life? The answer is that all other branches of human knowledge depend on what you believe about the relationship of concepts to reality. One political and ethical application of this discussion is the issue of stereotypes.

A stereotype is a conceptual categorization about a group of people. Examples of stereotypes are: Jews are wealthier than white anglo-saxton protestants, blacks are more likely to be on welfare than whites, students in business are more conservative than students in the arts, men are stronger than women, homosexuals are effeminate etc.

Many people believe that stereotypes are inaccurate and lead to bad things such as racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice. Because they automatically assume that stereotypes are bad, they therefore assume that stereotypes are not true. Instead of checking to see if stereotypes are accurate, they attack the concept of stereotypes altogether. How do they attack stereotyping? By (1) attacking the concept of objective reality and concept-formation and/or (2) assuming a constructivist theory of truth. As I have written, this strategy is self-refutting since all concepts eventually assume an objective reality to begin with. This attack is one cause of the tremendous amount of confusion in the world.

It turns out that stereotypes are accurate conceptual categorizations of groups. Stereotypes are accurate because human concept-forming faculties are reliable. Stereotypes are concepts that are close to objects in reality.  According to the cognitive scientist, Steven Pinker,

“People’s stereotypes are consistent with the statistics, and in many cases their bias is to underestimate the real differences between sexes or ethnic groups. This does not mean that stereotyped traits are unchangeable, of course, or that people think they are unchangeable, only that people perceive the traits fairly accurately at the time. Moreover, even when people believe that ethnic groups have characteristic traits, they are never mindlessstereotypers who literally believe that each and every member of the group possesses those traits. People may think that Germans are, on average, more efficient than non-Germans, but no one believes that every last German is moreefficient than every non-German. And people have no trouble overriding a stereotype when they have good information about an individual. Contrary to a common accusation, teachers’ impressions of their individual pupils are not contaminated by their stereotypes of race, gender, or socioeconomic status. The teachers’ impressions accurately reflect the pupil’s performance as measured by objective tests.”

It should be clear to any person that accepts reality, that stereotypes do not justify prejudice. Stereotypes are not “simply human inventions that have done more harm than good.” In fact acknowledging stereotypes would be the most productive way to mitigate negative differences among groups.

Please check the comments for the best treatment of stereotypes in Steven Pinker’s book The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
.

Discussion 1 Comment Category Epistemology, Ethics, Metaphysics, Politics Tags , , ,

Opposing theories of truth

October 25, 2011

To contrast with the only objective theory of truth—the correspondence theory—here are few examples of non-objective theories of truth.

The Constructivist theory:
Truth is merely socially constructed. According to this theory what is true in one culture, race, or gender can be false in another culture, race, or gender. This theory assumes idealism and is therefore self-refutting.

The Consensus theory:
Whatever is agreed upon is true. According to its own standards, this theory is false since I do not agree with it. This too assumes a form of idealism and is therefore self-refutting.

The Pragmatic theory:
Truth is whatever works. This theory confuses an indication of truth (what works) with truth itself. Pragmatic theory of truth can lead to relativism. If what “works” for you is different from what “works” for me, then what is true for you may be different from what is true for me. Therefore, the pragmatic theory of truth also rests on a form of idealism and is self-refutting.

Discussion Leave a comment Category Epistemology Tags ,

Defining Truth

October 24, 2011

Truth is a concept. I would not be able to talk about truth without first explaining the axioms of reality and concept-formation.

Truth is a quality of propositions. A proposition is true if it accurately corresponds to reality. According to Thomas Aquinas, “A judgment is said to be true when it conforms to the external reality.” This is called the correspondence theory of truth. It is the only valid theory of truth. Another way to state the correspondence theory is found in LDS scriptures. “Truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.” (D&C 93:24) You cannot have knowledge of things as they aren’t.

Truth does not apply to objects. The question, “Is the Matterhorn true or false?” is a meaningless question. The concept of truth does not apply. To say, “the Matterhorn is true” is to speak nonsense.

Truth only applies to propositions such as judgements. Here is an example of a proposition: “A goat is on Matterhorn?” This proposition makes sense because it can be either true or false, though it cannot be both.

If a proposition can be true or false it has sense. If a proposition cannot be true or false, it is nonsense.

If one wants to judge whether or not a statement is true, one must assume reality and concepts. Then he/she must compare the statement to the way things really are in reality. Without reality as an axiom, the concept of truth is meaningless.

Discussion Leave a comment Category Uncategorized

Do unicorns exist?: The limits of thinking

October 22, 2011

One can conceptualize based on what he/she can sense (see, hear, touch, etc.) in reality. Our minds have the capacity to create concepts that do not refer to anything in reality. We can do this by grouping objects based on similarities and differences. We can also combine concepts. Concept-combinations are the beginning of creativity.

For example we can take the concept of horn based on our experiences with horns in the past. We can take the concept of horse based on our experiences with horses in the past. Then we can then combine them and create the concept unicorn.

We can do the same with the concept of horse and human.

Or with women and fish…

Mermaids don't exist in reality.

One might say, “but that is not a “real” mermaid.” It is in the correction that they are making a mistake. There are no “real” mermaids or centaurs or unicorns in reality. They only exist as concepts derived from a certain combination of other concepts in the human mind. Science fiction writers like George Lucas who imagine aliens on other planets cannot really create a truly original alien. Imagined aliens are always combinations of what is seen on earth. They have human bodies with squid-heads or octopus tentacles with huge eyes etc.

Star Wars Aliens

Absolute “creativity” would consist of creating something out of nothing. This is impossible. The only meaningful way of talking about creativity is recognizing that creativity is only a process of combining what already exists in reality in new ways. We can create conceptual combinations of combinations of combinations.

This has an interesting implication. It means that the creativity of a generation is limited by the combinations of concepts developed by previous generations. Stories, technologies, and ideas in general are determined by which concepts were developed or not developed in the past. More on this in future posts.

Conclusion
Premise 1: Thinking depends on concept-formation.
Premise 2: Human concept-formation is limited by (1) the objects that we have access to in reality, and (2) by the higher lever concepts that we are aware of.
Conclusion 1: Therefore thinking is limited by our awareness of objects in reality and higher level concepts.
Conclusion 2: Therefore, you are only as creative as your conceptual resources.
Conclusion 3: Therefore if you want to be more creative you must (1) consume large amounts of concepts (become an infovore), and (2) Exercise your mind by combining concepts into new ways.

Discussion Leave a comment Category Art and Design, Epistemology Tags , , ,

Concepts and Reality

October 21, 2011

Sensations lead to perception. We simply perceive too many objects to remember every individual thing. We mitigate this problem through conceptualizing our perceptions. What is a concept? A concept is cognitive unit of meaning—a symbol that refers to objects in reality. Humans can form concepts because we can recognize similarities and differences among objects in reality. We summarize these similarities or differences through a process of abstraction.

Let me give a few examples of concepts and concept-formation.

The color green: Green is a concept. Green does not exist by itself just floating somewhere in reality. There is no “green” that one can point to. But we can see a green mango, a green car, and a green turtle. These each have the property green. Green does not exist apart from green objects.

Colors: We can also create concepts of concepts. Once we understand the concept green and the concept yellow, orange, red, purple, and blue. We conceptualize these concepts into a higher concept called “color.”

Properties: A property is an even higher concept. It is a concept that can group color, shape, mass etc.

Humans: When we see a particular human that we have never seen before, we don’t think, “Whoa, I have never seen this before; I have no idea how to interact with it.” Instead we automatically create the concept “human” through our past experiences with other humans and we then know how to interact with new “humans” that we have never seen before. Now the word “human” does not refer to any one thing in reality. There is no one “human” that we can point to. Instead “human” is a concept that refers to any object that shares certain similarities among other concepts such as arms, language, body odor, etc.

From these examples, we see that the human mind can create more concepts than objects in reality. Concepts can refer to reality. But the farther the concepts move away from reality, the more likely people will be confused. We must be vigilant in making sure that (1) concepts accurately reflect reality and that (2) our concepts are properly integrated with all other concepts to avoid contradictions.

An axiom is a foundational proposition that cannot be proved but can be validated. Propositions are axioms when one must assume the proposition when trying to deny it. Conceptualization is an axiom because one must use it in order to try and deny it. Likewise the validity of the senses are axiomatic because (1) the senses lead to concepts and (2) one must use concepts to attempt to reject the senses.

Discussion 2 Comments Category Epistemology Tags , , , ,

Nonsense about the senses

October 21, 2011

In my last post I wrote about the philosophical error of subjectivism—the belief that we only have access to our own ideas and not to any objective reality. In this post I will address that error by arguing that our ideas can be objective.

The senses are faculties that we use to obtain information about the world. The eyes probably provide the most influential information about the world. The eyes are not a sensation. The eyes are an organ that we use to get sensations which lead to perceptions. According to the philosopher John Locke and subsequent philosophers, sensation and perception are both forms of ideas.

The grand mistake is to believe that ideas are that which we perceive. The truth is that ideas are that by which we perceive. The difference is one word “by”. What difference does this one word make? Think of the meaning of the sentence, “A brush is that which I am painting” and the sentence “A brush is that by which I am painting.” In the first sentence I am painting an image of the brush on the canvas. I could be using my fingers to do the painting. In the second sentence I am using the brush to do the painting. What shows up on the canvas is probably not an image of the brush. This distinction has been so subtle that many philosophers have not realized their error.

We are not aware of our ideas. We are only aware of the cause of our ideas. For example, when we use our eyes to look at bananas, we are not aware of the light that hits our retina. Nor are we aware of the physiochemical process by which our brains interpret that light. We are only aware of the cause of the light— the bananas. We have direct access to the bananas which is the object of awareness.

In the picture below subjectivist philosophers would say that we do not have direct access to banana (A) we only have access to a “representation” of (A) expressed in figure (B). This is the major error.


Let me review the difference between objective and subjective. Objective is that which is the same for everyone. Subjective is that which is different for everyone. Everyone with senses has direct awareness of objects in reality. This means that everyone has access to objective reality. We experience actual reality. We do not experience anything through the senses unless it actually exists in reality.

Discussion Leave a comment Category Epistemology Tags , ,