A: The "right" set of axioms for us to choose, that is to say, assumptions our philosophical system, is the one under which the meanings given our "primitive concepts" (ie. those left undefined, at the base of the web of definitions underlying the system) approximate the meanings our reactions of recognition give to them, the best. In other words, the set of axioms which describe the conceptual world which most closely parallels our own inner conceptual world, or at least the consensus of our inner worlds, in its nature.
We can easily see, now, on an intuitive level, why there must be first principles, left unproved. A set of arguments that established the truth of everything, beginning with no assumptions - leaving us constructing our philosophy ex nihilo (beginning with an absolute nothingness), as some would like to pretend they have - would give our symbols absolute meanings which we, out of logical necessity, would be forced to assign to them. But this is absurd, because we may assign meanings to the sounds we utter, or the marks we place on paper or a screen, as we see fit. What is to stop us from switching a pair of definitions? Those symbols serve as nothing more than mere placeholders in the forum of conversation, used to tell us which concept is to be summoned forth out of our memories at a given point in the conversation - and they are assigned at our pleasure. If we can switch such definitions, and still comprehend the switch, then where would lie the contradiction in doing so?
Logic is the only tool that we have in the analysis of human experience, but it is not the font of that experience, that which it seeks to help us understand, and that which provides it with the information that it provides us with the implications of.
The problem is a basic one. Emotion and sensation are not things that are proved, merely experienced, and yet they provide the information that we analyse in our construction of morality. In learning enough about the subjective world that those around us inhabit, to be able to erect a moral framework by which their actions may be judged, we are dependent on their testimony, and to an extent, on their good word. But what if they should elect to be untruthful, when speaking of those experiences which they feel - and which we, ever trapped within our own vantage point, can not hope to examine for ourselves directly?
What if, for example, someone who lacks concern for the survival of others, seeks to deflect criticism of his lack of compassion, by pretending to believe that life is without value?
Then, recognising that it is easier to pay lip service to the acceptance of hardship than to act on it, we let the actions of the one whose sincerity we doubt, do the speaking for him - especially should we have enough confidence in his sanity, to believe that he will not live a lie, and suffer that which he abhors, merely to convince us of his sincerity - merely to 'win the argument'.
On a purely logical level, can I "prove" that nonexistence is a bad thing for someone else, or that death is a fearful prospect? No. But I can create a situation where someone will demonstrate, through his actions, that he feels so himself, even if his words should indicate otherwise. To be caught in such a contrast of messages given, through one's words, and one's actions, is what the recognition of hypocrisy is. The outrage traditionally customary at this sort of discovery, is an alert given to our fellows, to disregard this one's testimony. The discomfort of feeling that outrage directed against one, by one's fellows, a deterrent against distorting that necessary collectively generated model of reality, that society depends on for the fundamental information needed, to arrive at its moral consenses.
Q: And what exactly was it that you were hoping to accomplish by giving this man a hard time? I think that you're filibustering in the hope that I will forget.
A: Not at all. You take a lot for granted when you accept the so-called standard (Emily Post) etiquette as a guide to moral behavior. To be precise, you accept the end result of centuries of manipulative argumentation, at each point building from a foundation of unexamined ideas formed by the popular submission to unreasonable rhetorical demands (to agree to that not validly demonstrated) in ages past.
In order to effectively question that ill conceived consensus, I have to cut through that accumulation, and sweep the logical debris away. I can't reasonably be expected to do that in under thirty seconds. The customary demand that I do so, is an institutionalised attempt to stifle any potentially effective attempt to point out the weaknesses in the philosophical foundations of the socially established consensus. Namely, that of the dominant subculture. It would do so by rewriting the rules of discourse in such a way as to make it impossible to offer that complex of arguments that would prove inconvenient for the consensus' preservation.
Another way to do so, as already noted, is to insist on the defense of every single point made in an argument. To do so, would put the person attempting to accomodate such a demand, in the position of having to pursue his arguments through an infinite regress. His opponent could force him to perpetuate the process indefinitely, merely by refusing to grant his premises at every step.
But in real life, honestly viewed, we are not in such a trap. We do begin by knowing some things, through experience, and if I and another both know something, its acknowledgment is a proper place for discussion to begin. Why spend time convincing him of the truth of that which he already knows? What knowledge is to be gained by doing so? It is a thing already granted, needing no defense.
But for this sort of understanding to be placed forth on the floor, and accepted into the consensus we proceed from, honesty is necessary - and it isn't always freely granted on a verbal level. But as we've seen, a truth which a dishonest person such as Robert refuses to grant in his words, is one he will often grant through his actions, in spite of himself. So, we point this out, and allow his actions to do his speaking for him, whether he likes it or not, so that honest discourse may proceed, with or without his consent.
Should he refuse it, we then ignore the speaker, from whom no truth will come, and allow his actions to take his place in the discussion, in effect. The granted point is now one whose legitimacy, as it is used in discussion, is no longer in serious dispute. We may move forward.Your options:
(If not, take the first link. You should get to that article eventually).