Philosophic, scientific "house" must be founded upon firm foundation: objectivity (Aristotle), determinism

Below-copied by ap first published at http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/showthread.php?2654-Global-Warming/page179


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Mike: Faced With Reality, Objectivity Must Lose Childish Wishes, Speculation

(Apollonian, 8 July 14)

Mike (see below-copied): at least here (above-copied) u attempt to be more matter-of-fact and somewhat logical than ur previous entry, eh?  But there's HUGE big problem for non-determinism just in the first place which u have to consider (I think).  This, after all, is metaphysics, and if u found ur house (theories) on defective foundation, it quickly falls apart.

So we begin w. Aristotle vs. Plato, objectivity ("immanence") vs. subjective ("transcendence").  Note subjectivity is typically the resort of the moralists and MYSTICS (like Kant, esp.) pretending to perfectly "free" human will (HUBRIS) and then "good-evil" fallacy/delusion/heresy, analyzed and denounced by dear St. Augustine (Pelagianism, founded on fallacious "good-works"), revisited by Martin Luther.

Objectivity (though Aristotle himself seems to have been reluctant to make the conclusion) necessitates determinism, absolute cause-effect--we're sinners, always have been, always will be, seeking our interest (St. Augustine).

So u see, perfectly "free" human will is conceit, HUBRIS (madness), impossible, "good" the worst enemy of truth and freedom, "good" the foundation of fascism and tyranny--"good" is what road to heck is paved with, get a clue.  And note it's impossible to set-up experiment to prove or even observe (perfectly) "free" will (same goes for "good").  The rest of ur text in above-copied is NOTHING but speculation, unsubstantiated assertion, and wishful thinking.

So to sum up, reality is either objective or not, for basic ASSUMPTION (metaphysics).  Subjectivity is absurd--as anything goes.  Hence ur question above, "why should this be?" is answered, though u may not like or accept.


--------------------------above by ap in response to below-copied--------------------------


Originally Posted by Mikebert

Why should this be? The mechanism I propose posits that people in their 50's and 60's who run the institutions of our society have different worldviews than those in their 20's simply because they became adults at a different time.

For example, the generation who came of age in the 1930's and 1940's, on average, were more accepting of the view that American intervention is effective than the generation that came of age in the 1960's and 1970's. The former saw the use of American power to effectively neutralize a rising threat. The latter saw the use of American power to counter a threat which ultimately failed, and the threat ended up going away on its own. These different experiences colored the foreign policy worldviews collectively held by these two generations.

Different world views mean different policies that flow from those views. To the extent that humans choose to act in order to correct the mistakes of the past, policy can in certain ways operate as a negative feedback control mechanism (e.g. a thermostat), If you introduce a lag, (different policy by different generations) these can display oscillatory behavior (cyclical policy). In no way is free will abandoned.

I propose another lagged negative feedback mechanism to model cycles in medieval and early modern times. This too does not violate free will.