Recently I've actually had one of my posts critiqued, the one about emotions and hatred of the good. It was quite thought provoking, but Mr. Stotts' response in the comments section to my comment has made me realize where I may have gone wrong in my reasoning.
I think, in short, that my error in that post is that I made an illogical leap by trying to deduce a conclusion with an improper conceptual chain. While it may still be possible that people use false philosophical justifications to help them indulge in hatred against others, I cannot deduce that conclusion directly from the fundamental metaphysical axiom that existence exists, which is the essence of my argument. The type of conclusion to be drawn needs to be derived from a conceptual chain stemming from a combination of ethics and psychology, not metaphysics.
Or in word graphic form, I should reason like this:
Axioms - concept - concept - concept - concept . . . > conclusion about psychology and ethics
But did this:
Axioms - conclusion about psychology and ethics
With the axiom that existence exists and its attached partner that everything has identity, I could directly conclude, say, that the world outside my house won't disappear just because I close the door and a granny smith apple can't turn into a goblin, but conclusions about psychology and ethics are higher up in the conceptual network. As such, I consider my argument in my linked article to be wrong and misguided.
It's healthy debate like this that helps one advance forward in thinking. I thank Mr. Stotts for his critique.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment Etiquette
1.) Do not use vulgar swear words that denote sexual activities or bodily excretions.
2.) Employ common sense manners when addressing the author or other commenters.
Additionally, you're welcome to present contrary and challenging positions within these guidelines, but please do not assume that my lack of response, even if I commented before, is evidence of my endorsement of your position.