Q&A: Axioms and Postmodernism
Axioms and Postmodernism
Question
Hi Michi, how are you? My name is Assaf.
Every logical argument comes from axioms. For example: 1) Socrates is a human being. 2) All human beings are mortal. So the conclusion is that Socrates is mortal.
The axioms come from our intuition, but every person has different intuitions. So each person can infer different things, and we’ll accept everything equally because that’s his axiom. What way do we have to judge which intuitions are more correct, so as not to fall into postmodernism?
Answer
You use your own intuitions and nobody else’s. Therefore, the axioms on which you build arguments are yours and nobody else’s. If there is someone else with different intuitions and different axioms, then you have a disagreement. Completely legitimate.
Still, it is possible to have a discussion about axioms. The tool used for that is rhetoric, not logic, because logic proceeds from the premises, whereas rhetoric is a tool for examining the axioms themselves. Usually rhetoric is a tool for self-diagnosis, meaning a tool that helps you identify what your axioms are. Sometimes you think you believe in X, and when you examine the implications or just look from another angle, you discover that you were mistaken about yourself, and that in fact you believe in Y. For example, the moral argument reveals to a person who thinks he is an atheist that if he believes in binding morality, then he probably believes in God without being aware of it.
And if after all that you still remain in disagreement, then you have different opinions. What’s the problem? If you’re bothered by the question of which of you is right, think again about the other person’s arguments and reach your own conclusions. If your view has not changed, then that is your view. See columns 247-8.
Discussion on Answer
Not at all. The fact that there is disagreement does not mean there is no truth. One is right and the other is wrong. Just as when you see different opinions about morality, that doesn’t mean there is no absolute morality. One is right and the other is wrong. Everyone acting according to his own truth is not postmodernism. Postmodernism claims that both are right (or that nobody is right).
“If you’re bothered by the question of which of you is right, think again about the other person’s arguments and reach your own conclusions. If your view has not changed, then that is your view.”
But if the other person also did that and remained of his opinion, then should both of them remain in doubt??
Of course. You think he gets preferential treatment from me?
Obviously yes.
A) The Rabbi believes in God.
B) The debate about God is ancient in philosophy.
There are many smart people on both sides.
C) Each side knows the other side well and writes about it extensively.
D) Even so, each side decides the question and doesn’t remain in doubt, even though other smart people think differently.
For example Rabbi Michael Abraham.
Conclusion) You give yourself preferential treatment.
Over the atheist philosopher.
. See columns 247-8.
It says there explicitly that in such a case there is no reason to continue holding your opinion.
You’ll probably need to read it again.
There are many places; here is one of them:
“How the other person formed his position is relevant in all kinds of arguments, and therefore it is relevant when I come to decide whether to remain with my own position. Now this is no longer a special situation, some exceptional example in which the existence of a dissenting peer has no effect; rather, this is a consideration that can arise in any argument. Of course it is not correct to apply this in every argument. It can be relevant in any argument, but only if I have actually reached a reasonable conclusion that my interlocutor in this argument did not form his position through a serious examination of the full range of considerations. (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) As I explained above, this is a relevant consideration only if this really is the situation in my opinion.”
So do you really think that all the atheist philosophers and scientists in the world are honestly and truly closed-minded!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??
Or maybe they just reached a different conclusion than you did. Because if they’re not closed-minded, then you explicitly wrote that there is no reason to continue holding your position.
Definitely yes. They reached a mistaken conclusion because they are closed-minded or because they erred in judgment.
Claiming that they erred in judgment is not given as an excuse in the article, only if they are closed-minded and didn’t examine things well.
Because otherwise the assumption that you are mistaken is identical to the assumption that they are mistaken (symmetrically).
And to claim that half the philosophers and scientists in the world are closed-minded—doesn’t that sound like a strained and ad hoc idea to you?
??
I wrote my opinion. In my opinion they are closed-minded. The academic atmosphere pushes people in that direction in a very strong way.
That doesn’t sound logical. There are so many atheist philosophers that this is just too strange a claim.
After all, philosophers know how to challenge basic assumptions, so there’s no doubt they reached that conclusion not because they’re closed-minded.
That’s the purpose of philosophy: the search for truth.
So it’s interesting how they reach conclusions so different from one another. Okay, I’ve exhausted this.
The opposite, because a person is not capable of arriving at the truth. So of course it’s clear why they arrive at assumptions that differ from one another….
I forgot to mention that according to studies I’ve read, most philosophers are atheists.
So not just half but all of them are mistaken, since they all think they did arrive at the truth.
There’s no problem with being in disagreement after we discuss things, but in the end it comes down to you thinking one way and me another, “and everyone with his own truth.” Isn’t that a postmodern situation?