(cont.)

Requires no proof. It doesn’t say it cannot be proved or cannot be rational.

Concise Oxford Dictionary:
“established principle; … self-evident truth”.
The etymology is from Greek ‘axios’: worthy.

None of them say it cannot be rational or must be primitive or underived.

3.
“I have not doubt that you are capable of creating ethical systems.”

I’m claiming more than that: I can prove a rational ethics, without the need to introduce any new normative values.

“without introducing any new axioms (or theorems) regarding the nature of good and evil”

The new axioms or propositions that I introduce to prove my rational ethics, are subsidiary to and derived from, my original axiom.

However there’s no point discussing it, if you cannot accept that an axiom can be rational.

As for your objections to “man acts”:
“1. It's not the man, but some part(s) of the man which act.”

Okay apply that to 7 billion people.

Now. Which part(s)?

“4. We're rarely ever fully conscious: automatic acts do not count.”

Effectivelly conscious is enough.

“2. Only conscious entities can act, but "man" is just a body.”
“3. No action actually ever takes place, it only seems so.”
3a. All actions have already taken place, just your consciousness travels along the time-dimension.”
“5. All action is deterministic.”

Prove it.

I can’t really take those arguments seriously. I think they’re on a par with the magic sky-fairy arguments, and the “maybe the motions of planets in distant galaxies explain human society better than human action on this planet?” –type arguments. You’d have to work them out prove them. I think they’re just a diversion and distraction.

I think if cannot bring yourself to admit that an axiom can be rational, because of non-existent dictionary definitions; and cannot admit that man acts, even though you it's universally true that one has to act to deny it; we’d better leave the topic, on the basis that you have been unable to refute my remarkably fine and self-evident argument except by appeal to alleged invisible supernatural beings, and airy unproven abstract speculations.

Dear Jardine,

1.

I admit that my claim that {"All birds have feathers" (ABHF) is irrational because some birds have no feathers} was sloppy. What I meant, but omitted, was that the person claiming ABHF likely knew the facts but made logical errors, thus ABHF is irrational not due to falsity, but due to these errors. Yes, it is also possible that the person in question did not know certain facts, such as that it is possible to pluck a bird's feathers.

When ABHF is derived from thinking about earlier assumptions, that instance of ABHF is not an axiom. This does not preclude other people accepting ABHF as an axiom, but then their instance of ABHF is not rational.

«People thought all swans were white, until they discovered black swans as well.»

If people thought that all flying fairies were blue, until they discovered red ones as well, this would imply that fairies exist and can fly!

If people thought that all rational axioms were true, until they discovered that some were false, this would imply that rational axioms exist. However, that never occurred: people discovered rational statements that are false as well as axioms that are false, but never in fact discovered rational axioms that are false (or true).

2.

«“An axiom is, by definition, primitive or underived.”

No it ain’t.»

In mathematics, axioms are defined this way, as opposed to theorems.

'Rational' means "derived by reason".
'Axiom' by your dictionary is "self-evident".

How can anything be both self-evident and derived from other things?

Now I was using the precise mathematical concept of axiom, rather than the blurry colloquial. In mathematics, an axiom:
1) Need not reflect a material reality.
2) Cannot be proven, disproven or derived from other axioms.

(continued...)

(...continued)

Please tell me whether you agree that the number of thoughts that any person can entertain during their lifetime is finite, because if so, then it is easy to mathematically prove that every logical thought must be based solely on one or more non-rationally-based thoughts.

That which you consider self-evident, is usually indeed rational, but the typical reasons for considering it self-evident is that either your deriving it in the past from other things was subconscious; or that you meanwhile took it for granted and forgot how you originally derived it.

3.

«without the need to introduce any new normative values.»

Normative values are a social construct, thus they speak about society's values, rather than about good and evil. I agree that you could do without them.

«if you cannot accept that an axiom can be rational.»

Or a square triangle.

Now going as you ask through all the possible objections to "man acts" would be Sisyphean. Why should I prove them when I never claimed them to be true? Some objections are rational constructs, others are primitive axioms, but in any case they probably all rely on axioms that you do not accept. If "Man acts" was indeed both true and rational, then you could easily be able to dismantle them all.

«even though you it's universally true that one has to act to deny it»

Those very same classes of objections can just as well apply to the act of denial.

«on the basis that you have been unable to refute my remarkably fine and self-evident argument«

So far you have no argument, only a proposal to make one.

1.
“When ABHF is derived from thinking about earlier assumptions, that instance of ABHF is not an axiom. This does not preclude other people accepting ABHF as an axiom, but then their instance of ABHF is not rational.”

So does that mean you are saying that a proposition can be an axiom, in which case it case it cannot be rational, or it can be derived from other propositions, in which case it cannot be an axiom?

And what if it is both?

2.
It’s all turning on definitions.

I don’t see that the definition of axiom requires that it be irrational.
You say it does.
I cite definitions that show it is not required.
You say, without citing any authority, it is required in mathematics, and that rational means ‘derived by reason’.
I earlier cited a dictionary definition saying rational means ‘with a basis in reason’.
You say ‘How can anything be both self-evident and derived from other things?’
I say, I don’t see why it can’t be. But when I try to give an example from the real world, you say things like everything could be deterministic.

But also, earlier you objected against my attempt to make a proposition about the real world that I was using mathematical logic. When I asked what is the matter with that, you said mathematics is fine in its own right, but it’s in a world of its own, and doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about the real world.

So why isn’t it enough to dispose of your objection to say we’re not talking about mathematics, we’re talking about human action?

Also, can you refer us to definitions of axiom in mathematics that prove your point?
But even if you could, that’s mathematics.

“it is easy to mathematically prove that every logical thought must be based solely on one or more non-rationally-based thoughts”

Okay, please prove it in the premises.

3.
“Why should I prove them [possible objections to ‘man acts’] when I never claimed them to be true?”

Well do you concede it’s true, or not?

“If "Man acts" was indeed both true and rational, then you could easily be able to dismantle them all.”

Indeed.

So which remain undismantled?

“So far you have no argument, only a proposal to make one.”

Yes. Just imagine how good it will be.

Dear Jardine,

1.

Correct, except that the same proposition can be an axiom for one person and derived from other propositions for another (or even for the same person at different times). However, a proposition cannot be both derived and not-derived for the same person at the same time.

2.

For anything to be self-evident, it needs to seem to be true without reference to anything else, otherwise it would be evident by virtue of other things.

To say that we are talking about human action requires certain agreements on contentious metaphysical issues. What often happens in practical everyday life is that despite our disagreements we implicitly agree to disagree and speak in relative terms, based on axioms that we may not agree on. We could say for example: "[if indeed man acts then] if this human broke that window then the same human ought to pay for the damage", we just omit the [] part for the sake of peace. However, this discussion is not in the realm of practical everyday life.

Regarding mathematics, have a look in http://world.mathigon.org/Axioms_and_Proof and http://www.quora.com/Can-axioms-be-proven-in-mathematics

Specifically, Prof. Borgwardt explains:
{No, because then it would not be an axiom. The definition of axiom is a premise that is accepted as self-evident and serves as a basis for all proofs in a field. If an axiom seems unnecessarily complex, mathematicians try to prove it using the other axioms; if they manage to do it, it's not considered an axiom anymore.}

[continued...]