tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post6712006264487398702..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: I know my wife loves meLarry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-31793282309979123532007-06-11T20:42:00.000-06:002007-06-11T20:42:00.000-06:00I don't know, anticant. There are all too many who...I don't know, anticant. There are all too many who seem to get off the reason train (<I>cough Creationists</I>) long before it reaches the end of the evidentiary track.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-69309836706693318372007-06-11T20:24:00.000-06:002007-06-11T20:24:00.000-06:00I think I am supportive, and also somewhat critica...I think I am supportive, and also somewhat critical. There are limits to the usefulness of verbal philosophizing. I pay attention to what people do - not what they say: "By their fruits you shall know them".<BR/><BR/>I don't favour irrational thinking, either, but there are limits to reason important though it is. Religious people, when they reach those limits, make the 'leap of faith' and take off into the mythical realms of their favoured flying spaghetti monster. I like to think that those of us who don't buy into 'supernaturalism' are more realistically modest, and rest content with saying "I don't know".anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-46543826651003047252007-06-11T07:50:00.000-06:002007-06-11T07:50:00.000-06:00Keep in mind that the specific assertion I am rebu...Keep in mind that the specific assertion I am rebutting is that either naturalistic, scientific epistemology <I>cannot</I> be used to know another's "love", or that people do in fact <I>effectively</I> employ epistemic methods that cannot in principle be reconciled with naturalism.<BR/><BR/>As such the observation that people do not efficiently or rigorously employ natural reason is, while certainly true and interesting in its own right, somewhat beside the narrow point I'm making in this post.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-27194384265467820022007-06-10T15:04:00.000-06:002007-06-10T15:04:00.000-06:00James: There was definitely a semantic game going ...<B>James</B>: There was definitely a semantic game going on at <A HREF="" REL="nofollow">Mere Comments</A>. It remains to be seen whether Kenneth will play the same game.<BR/><BR/><B>Potentilla</B>: There's a lot of philosophy to be mined from your comment. How do we know what constitutes accuracy and inaccuracy? There must be some commonality to render the evaluations commensurate. I maintain that such commonality is precisely in the falsifiability of the original definition.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-57155054583578977592007-06-10T13:43:00.000-06:002007-06-10T13:43:00.000-06:00BB,I think potentilla's point about how one define...BB,<BR/><BR/>I think potentilla's point about how one defines love hits on something that's always nagged at me: Many a Christian defines God as Love. Perhaps folks like Kenneth are playing a semantic game?<BR/><BR/>Anticant's comment and your graph about "psycho stalkers" is important: Knowledge of love is not only requisite on actions but on perceptions. The "psycho" interprets actions incorrectly; his perception is corrupted.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-9394939644795381862007-06-10T11:46:00.000-06:002007-06-10T11:46:00.000-06:00potentilla The precise manner one chooses to defin...<B>potentilla</B> The precise manner one chooses to define "love" is, to a certain extent, beyond the point. Whatever definition one chooses it is (within a context of psychology) either falsifiable by perceptual evidence, and thus rational, or not falsifiable, and thus irrational to the extent that one applies the predicate to things in reality, such as other people.<BR/><BR/>As to the can of worms, keep in mind that I use the qualifier "bad (in the probabilistic sense)" intentionally. It's rational to roll the dice when the odds are in your favor, even if you end up losing that roll. It's irrational to roll the dice when (all things considered) the odds are against you, even if you happen to win on that roll.<BR/><BR/>If you cannot afford a loss, then you have not rigorously calculated the true subjective value and the odds are, by definition, not in your favor.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-36584410814851598202007-06-10T11:39:00.000-06:002007-06-10T11:39:00.000-06:00anticant: I'm not sure if your comment is critical...anticant: I'm not sure if your comment is critical or supportive of my essay.<BR/><BR/>Of course beliefs about love, like everything else, are justified by things that happen in reality. But understanding precisely <I>how</I> one justifies one's beliefs, the "mental gymnastics" as it were, has philosophical value.<BR/><BR/>The point is that our beliefs about love need not be in any way magical or beyond or above rational understanding—unless, of course, one chooses or makes a fetish of irrationality for its own sake. But I don't think that choosing to think irrationally has ever had good effect.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-12809145439473210422007-06-10T09:32:00.000-06:002007-06-10T09:32:00.000-06:00Another aspect is the definition of love anyway. ...Another aspect is the definition of love anyway. What reasonably counts as somebody loving somebody else? I have always been mildly mystified by those situations involving A behaving consistently badly to B, who declares "but he/she loves me really".<BR/><BR/>Of course there is a whole load of empirical evidence that people's judgements about themselves are inaccurate.<BR/><BR/><I>And people do in fact make decisions about love that can only be called "bad". Furthermore, the decisions we call bad are precisely those which are the least supported by empirical reasoning. Sometimes people get lucky and make good decisions for the wrong reasons, but people never make bad (in a probabilistic sense) decisions for the right reasons.</I> There is a whole can of worms here which I need to think about some more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-2133065102406895952007-06-10T09:26:00.000-06:002007-06-10T09:26:00.000-06:00Love is evidenced by actions, not mental or lingui...Love is evidenced by actions, not mental or linguistic acrobatics.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.com