4 ms·

There has always been a ton of effort at formalising ethics, political theories and philosophy generally in a mathematical-like way. The whole of modern philoso

by netcan 6y ago

There has always been a ton of effort at formalising ethics, political theories and philosophy generally in a mathematical-like way. The whole of modern philosophy, especially political philosophy , is a product of that effort. That's basically what the enlightenment was. The problem, IMO, is that formalistic, math-like approach produces "an inconsistent system can prove anything, so is essentially useless for reasoning." Going for fundamental, objective truths with a mathematical standard as an ideal can go one of three ways: delusion, nihilism or sociopathy. Peter Singer, Jeremy Bentham and other utilitarians came up with a "moral math" system that (a) sounded morally reasonable at first pass and (b) are theoretical applicable widely. The problem they encounter is extreme conclusions. Bentham was responsible for some horrific prison/reformatory systems. Singer ends up with some sociopathic conclusions like morally good infanticide. Ayn Rand went down a philosophical worm-whole trying to tie her philosophical system into one "theory-of-everything" bow where pure (Aristotelian) logic yields conclusive answers to all epistemological, moral, political & economic questions. This certainty, rather than just the extreme or counterintuitive (selfishness as a virtue) elements of objectivism is what gives it that cult-like flavour. Ayn Rand was simply following the frame created by Marxism, and Trotsky particularly. Marxism of that era was all about airtight rationality. Communism wasn't a choice, but a dictate of pure reason. Marxists got this idea from French revolutionary philosophers, who started with the idea of "rationalising" everything with math-like systems of thought. What all these have in common is a desire to create irreproachable systems. Like math, like physics. In practice, they created religions. Religions are irreproachable too. The way religions become irreproachable is by banishing heretics. That's what the "secular" rationalist philosophers did to. Rand was famous for her banishments. If you are after scientifically valid, reductive, Popperian insights only... you might just have to accept that this is an amoral viewpoint. Morals just don't exist in the mathematical realm.

logicchains 6y ago
>What all these have in common is a desire to create irreproachable systems. Like math, like physics. In practice, they created religions. Religions are irreproachable too. The way religions become irreproachable is by banishing heretics. That's what the "secular" rationalist philosophers did to. Rand was famous for her banishments. I'm not talking about using mathematical, logical approach to find the "most correct" philosophy. As Wittegenstein noted in Tractatus, the "most correct" approach is: "To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions". Rather I'm talking about using formal methods to analyse existing systems. Identify their axioms, identify the deductive rules they permit, and determine how consistent they are. Maybe even formally verify this in a proof assistant. Then it'd be also possible to e.g. explore what different systems can and cannot prove (somewhat akin to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mathematics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mathematics). An example kinda along these lines is Lawvere's work on modelling Hegelian philosophy as modal type theory: https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Hegel%27s+%22Logic%22+as+Modal+Type+Theory https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Hegel%27s+%22Logic%22+as+Modal....
- netcan 6y ago
  I think this take is pretty much what enlightenment and post enlightenment philosophy attempted to do. Benthamites like Singer (and Bentham) do this quite literally: Identifying axioms (the utilitarian principle), deduce principles (utilitarian math) and strive (or argue for) consistency. Utilitarians tended to end up with some pretty abhorrent extremities, by faithfully following their principles to some pretty weird places. If you want to be strict in your formalism, this means utilitarians can either accept stuff like Singer's infanticide or involuntary euthanasia arguments or they can reject the underlying principles. More commonly (certainly the case for Rand, Trotsky and most other modernists), they go down a rabbit-hole of increasingly complicated fundamentals... The fundamentals (principles/axioms) need tweaking in order to support the complex conclusions. Most modernists wanted moral theories that also tied in neatly with epistemology, political philosophy and often economics. Being modernists, and committed to deductive reasoning, they wanted a tight basket of fundamentals to yield the whole thing. Things tend to get complicated. I like your quote. Very apt. That period was, IMO, the last (and probably best) attempt at modernist epistemology. Trotski, Rand, Popper, Wittegenstein... My 100-years later thoughts on that is that (a) Popper was right and (b) Popper (ironically) ended modernist, purely rational moral & political philosophy. Drwaing that hard line between scientific reasoning and the rest of philosophy was essential. But, it didn't change the fact that science (to reverse your quote) has nothing to say about philosophy. Leftist philosophy made a U-turn following this period. Trotski was the last rationalist here, and subjective philosophies dominated self described leftist thought from then on. Rand's philosophy was de-rationalised and de-modernised before becoming the operative political philosophy she wanted. Popper's own collaborators (famously) Hayek were careful about Popper's lines and avoiding "pseudoscience," but their philosophies continued on to form the basis of post-Popperian pseudoscience. Pseudoscience in all but the most technical sense. ...Basically, postmodernism happened for a reason. Modernist thought kept hitting brick walls. IMO, these were the "phenomenon of a null result." Morals, politics and such just don't have a purely rational basis. No philosophy is both perfectly consistent and parsimonious with our moral senses. At first pass, these conclusions lend to nihilism. But this is only true to the extent that we stay within the modernist frame. Morals either exist, and can be analysed in a strictly logical way, or they don't. It ignores the fact that we do, in actual reality, have morals. This is what happens when you get too attached to a philosophical frame. The "works in practice, but not in theory" problem. Analysing philosophies (especially enlightenment oriented ones) in this manner is kinda what most college courses do. It's getting tired though, and less popular. IMO, an honest take on this would be a "why every philosophy is wrong" course... but this gets trite fast too. If you set out to identify inconsistencies, it isn't hard. Once you get into defences, "why the philosophy isn't actually flawed..." it descends into something like high medieval philosophy. Boring and anachronistic stuff like "the problem of evil" but without god. Problems in philosophy rarely get solved. We just move on eventually.

by netcan 6y ago

logicchains 6y ago

>What all these have in common is a desire to create irreproachable systems. Like math, like physics. In practice, they created religions. Religions are irreproachable too. The way religions become irreproachable is by banishing heretics. That's what the "secular" rationalist philosophers did to. Rand was famous for her banishments. I'm not talking about using mathematical, logical approach to find the "most correct" philosophy. As Wittegenstein noted in Tractatus, the "most correct" approach is: "To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions". Rather I'm talking about using formal methods to analyse existing systems. Identify their axioms, identify the deductive rules they permit, and determine how consistent they are. Maybe even formally verify this in a proof assistant. Then it'd be also possible to e.g. explore what different systems can and cannot prove (somewhat akin to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mathematics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mathematics). An example kinda along these lines is Lawvere's work on modelling Hegelian philosophy as modal type theory: https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Hegel%27s+%22Logic%22+as+Modal+Type+Theory https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Hegel%27s+%22Logic%22+as+Modal....

netcan 6y ago
I think this take is pretty much what enlightenment and post enlightenment philosophy attempted to do. Benthamites like Singer (and Bentham) do this quite literally: Identifying axioms (the utilitarian principle), deduce principles (utilitarian math) and strive (or argue for) consistency. Utilitarians tended to end up with some pretty abhorrent extremities, by faithfully following their principles to some pretty weird places. If you want to be strict in your formalism, this means utilitarians can either accept stuff like Singer's infanticide or involuntary euthanasia arguments or they can reject the underlying principles. More commonly (certainly the case for Rand, Trotsky and most other modernists), they go down a rabbit-hole of increasingly complicated fundamentals... The fundamentals (principles/axioms) need tweaking in order to support the complex conclusions. Most modernists wanted moral theories that also tied in neatly with epistemology, political philosophy and often economics. Being modernists, and committed to deductive reasoning, they wanted a tight basket of fundamentals to yield the whole thing. Things tend to get complicated. I like your quote. Very apt. That period was, IMO, the last (and probably best) attempt at modernist epistemology. Trotski, Rand, Popper, Wittegenstein... My 100-years later thoughts on that is that (a) Popper was right and (b) Popper (ironically) ended modernist, purely rational moral & political philosophy. Drwaing that hard line between scientific reasoning and the rest of philosophy was essential. But, it didn't change the fact that science (to reverse your quote) has nothing to say about philosophy. Leftist philosophy made a U-turn following this period. Trotski was the last rationalist here, and subjective philosophies dominated self described leftist thought from then on. Rand's philosophy was de-rationalised and de-modernised before becoming the operative political philosophy she wanted. Popper's own collaborators (famously) Hayek were careful about Popper's lines and avoiding "pseudoscience," but their philosophies continued on to form the basis of post-Popperian pseudoscience. Pseudoscience in all but the most technical sense. ...Basically, postmodernism happened for a reason. Modernist thought kept hitting brick walls. IMO, these were the "phenomenon of a null result." Morals, politics and such just don't have a purely rational basis. No philosophy is both perfectly consistent and parsimonious with our moral senses. At first pass, these conclusions lend to nihilism. But this is only true to the extent that we stay within the modernist frame. Morals either exist, and can be analysed in a strictly logical way, or they don't. It ignores the fact that we do, in actual reality, have morals. This is what happens when you get too attached to a philosophical frame. The "works in practice, but not in theory" problem. Analysing philosophies (especially enlightenment oriented ones) in this manner is kinda what most college courses do. It's getting tired though, and less popular. IMO, an honest take on this would be a "why every philosophy is wrong" course... but this gets trite fast too. If you set out to identify inconsistencies, it isn't hard. Once you get into defences, "why the philosophy isn't actually flawed..." it descends into something like high medieval philosophy. Boring and anachronistic stuff like "the problem of evil" but without god. Problems in philosophy rarely get solved. We just move on eventually.